The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?

[logicalgirl]

If you are going to say the tape was put on the face/nose by KC, you have to prove it was her that placed it there. Not ASSUME, you know what that means!!!!
I'm not trying to be a smarty pants but please someone show me the evidence thta connects her to being THE one, that did this!!! Was it proven beyond a reasonable doubt that KC did this? If the procecution proved it--I missed it.

It's a question of elimination based on the totality of the evidence. Really a very simple process. Start with what mother did not ever report her child missing or kidnapped, whose car had irrefutable evidence of decomp in the trunk, who dumped the car, who had access to the duct tape, bags, etc., what percentage of mother's who kill their children hide their bodies close to home, - just keep eliminating the impossible and you will - through a logical thought process come to the glaringly evident guilty person.

Unless the person is someone who always takes the sideroads to get to a destination instead of a major highway, misses the destination signposts along the way and ends up being lost. My ex-husband is like that....:innocent:

 

[Italy]

If you are going to say the tape was put on the face/nose by KC, you have to prove it was her that placed it there. Not ASSUME, you know what that means!!!!
I'm not trying to be a smarty pants but please someone show me the evidence thta connects her to being THE one, that did this!!! Was it proven beyond a reasonable doubt that KC did this? If the procecution proved it--I missed it.

You are not being a smarty pants. It is a valid comment EPfan.

The circumstance that Casey was the last person with Caylee (by her own admission) and the circumstance that Caylee was found with duct tape affixed to her hair and that the tape came from Casey Anthony's home provide circumstantial evidence that it was Casey who applied it. The decomposition of all flesh on the skull and the tape (and therefore ability to obtain DNA) prevented a visual proof that the tape was attached to her mouth, but the evidence of an attached mandible and the positioning of the tape provided circumstantial evidence that it was the duct tape that provided the support and was, as a result, placed across that area of the face.

That is my understanding and I believe it is reasoning and not simple supposition. Without anyone actually witnessing the crime and without the presence of fingerprint or DNA evidence, we are left with the circumstances which I submit point in only one direction.

 

[Sustained]

The difference with the Scott Peterson case is (I have said this many times- sorry if it's like a broken record) he was connected with the crime, eventhough is was circunstantial.
He bought a boat and didn't tell anyone.

How do you know he didn't tell Laci ? Did she come back from the grave and tell you ?

He made cement anchors. (which was proven)

People that have boats need anchors ... so what ?

And the thing that connected him was he was seen at the marina,(miles away from his home) and went fishing within (closeby) the area which the remains were warshed ashore. This connected him.

So what ? FCA lived right around the corner from where the body waqs found. That connects her in my book ...

It wasn't proven KC made chloroform. It wasn't proven that she bought the materials, nothing proven she made the chloroform.

You don't have to prove that she made chloroform; just that she used it and Vass' testimony proved it to me.

You can't connect her to the area of the remains. No one saw her, no dirt/evidence on car, they didn't find anything on her shoes, etc. Nothing to connect her to being there.

So you say Scott was fishing in a huge bay and that connects him, but the fact FCA lived around the corner doesn't connect her ? Spare me ...

The duck tape: she lived where the duck tape was, but so did everyone in the household.

True, you have to look at the totality of the evidence. But if GA had been involved in the murder, do you think he would have used the Henkel duct tape on signs for the police to see ? Don't you think he would have discarded that roll of tape as he was a detective a few years back ?

If you are going to say she used chloroform to put Caylee to sleep, or to murder her, you have to prove that the chloroform was made, bought, or in pocession.

No you don't ... there have been many murderers convicted w/o proving they ever had the murder weapon in their possession.

If someone would have seen KC or her car on the street where the remains were found that would have been a connection, and I believe a guilty verdict. That one link would have been the connection.

Really ? I think the jury needed an eyewitness video of FCA chloroforming Caylee, wrapping her body, and then dumping her in the woods.

Scott Peterson wasn't convicted on lies or anything but the links that connected the circumstancial evidence. There also was the affair which was used as the motive.

SP was convicted b/c he, unfortunately for him, was dealt a jury that knew how to connect circumstantial evidence and make the correct inferences about the crime.

Partying was used for KC for the procecution, but I don't think the jury bought that.

Yep, the jury couldn't see the forest for the trees ....

If there wouldn't have been evidence

Comments in blue ...

 

[gxm]

I felt for he too. But when he denied the affair and got offensive, he lost me. Why woul he lie? The text to her said it all. (not to mention going to her house 12 times) I need you in my life!!!!!

Any testimony about the alleged affair I found irrelevant. It had nothing to do with Caylee's death. I couldn't care less whether GA did, or didn't, have an affair with River Cruz and I couldn't care less if he did, or didn't, lie about it. It's really nobody's business and should never have been dragged into the testimony, but of course that <modsnip> JB can't resist the mud slingin'.

 

[logicalgirl]

You are not being a smarty pants. It is a valid comment EPfan.

The circumstance that Casey was the last person with Caylee (by her own admission) and the circumstance that Caylee was found with duct tape affixed to her hair and that the tape came from Casey Anthony's home provide circumstantial evidence that it was Casey who applied it. The decomposition of all flesh on the skull and the tape (and therefore ability to obtain DNA) prevented a visual proof that the tape was attached to her mouth, but the evidence of an attached mandible and the positioning of the tape provided circumstantial evidence that it was the duct tape that provided the support and was, as a result, placed across that area of the face.

That is my understanding and I believe it is reasoning and not simple supposition. Without anyone actually witnessing the crime and without the presence of fingerprint or DNA evidence, we are left with the circumstances which I submit point in only one direction.

Oh sure, and you will note the jails are filled with criminals who ALL had first hand witnesses to the crimes they committed. Every single one of them....except.....oh gee......:banghead:

There you go then, if no one sees you actually commit a crime - then you aren't guilty!!! Wow - impressive American legal system!

 

[coco puff]

The few jurors who have spoken all said the same thing. They were SHOCKED when the State rested their case.

Even the TH's on tv were shocked when the State rested. Over and over I heard them ask why the State did not put on this witness or that witness. I heard them say the State must be saving witnesses for the rebuttal case.

IMO, if the State had proved their case, neither the jury nor the talking heads would have been shocked and wanting more when the State rested.

IMO, I was really hoping that the defense would have rested without putting on any evidence and/or witnesses. I think the verdict would have been the same.

I think we can safely say that there were FAR more people SHOCKED by the NOT GUILTY verdict.

 

[EPfan]

What business would it be of anyone's if it was true? This trial was about the murder of a two and a half year old child and her mother's involvement in it? And are you saying you found River Cruz credible? Must have been all those things she said to physically tie George to a sexual affair - body recognition and all that...:waitasec:

Oh if you significant other text somebody "I need you in my life!!! and went to their house 12 (at least) times, you would just think there was a friendship there and he/she was visiting because that person was having health problem. (oh, excuse me, a brain tumor!!!)

 

[logicalgirl]

When you on the stand, under oath, and you know CH is going to testify, you are busted anyway.
I think he was scared that CA would DIVORCE him. Surely she isn't that nieve. I believe she knows.

I know for a fact that men will lie and lie about it but on the stand, your daughter being convicted of murder, and maybe up for the death penalty!!! Wonder what else he lied about!!!!

Now I doubt that very much because it has been acknowledged that she was having an affair with Dom Casey at the time.....

 

[logicalgirl]

Oh if you significant other text somebody "I need you in my life!!! and went to their house 12 (at least) times, you would just think there was a friendship there and he/she was visiting because that person was having health problem. (oh, excuse me, a brain tumor!!!)

OR - he needs a place to go to get away from the circus going on in Orlando and his concern that perhaps his daughter was indeed involved in Caylee's death, if even for an hour or two a couple of times a week.

Sorry, but I have male friends who drop in for coffee every week or so just to chat and catch up - and there is absolutely nothing going on besides friendship and never will be.

 

[Sustained]

Oh if you significant other text somebody "I need you in my life!!! and went to their house 12 (at least) times, you would just think there was a friendship there and he/she was visiting because that person was having health problem. (oh, excuse me, a brain tumor!!!)

Didn't RC tell police she did not have an affair at first ? So with $$$ dancing in her head, she changes her story ? And how much Florida taxpayer money was she slipped under the table to testify ? And who was the 1st witness to appear on HLN ?

 

[Solace]

OR - he needs a place to go to get away from the circus going on in Orlando and his concern that perhaps his daughter was indeed involved in Caylee's death, if even for an hour or two a couple of times a week.

Sorry, but I have male friends who drop in for coffee every week or so just to chat and catch up - and there is absolutely nothing going on besides friendship and never will be.

Now I doubt that very much because it has been acknowledged that she was having an affair with Dom Casey at the time.....

I do believe I heard that also; she referred to D. Casey as "her rock". Yep.

 

[coco puff]

I was responding to EPfan comment that the use of and subsequent death from the administration of chloroform would be involuntary manslaughter.

We have a dead child. There are 3 circumstances: homicide; suicide or accident.

I submit that it is:

Not suicide (I would not be surprised if some recent posters on this board even argue this point);

Not accident (no 911 call; lies; deception and obfuscation; imaginary culprit; etc)

All of the evidence indicates Casey Anthony being in possession of Caylee before her death (she herself even stated it); all of the evidence points to Casey hiding the fact & circumstance of Caylee's death (Did not one person on the jury even wonder why she was so bound and determined to do so?); all of the evidence points to Casey being singularly unbothered by the absence of Caylee.

If my neighbor is found dead - wrapped in a blanket and tape from my home, I will be considered culpable
If it is determined that I am the last person to be with said neighbor (and I even state that this is true) and the neighbor is later found dead, it is likely that I will be considered culpable.
If it is determined that I continuously lied to and tried to mislead investigators in the death of my neighbor, it is likely that I will be considered culpable.
If it is further determined I lied about my and my neighbor's whereabouts following the death of said neighbor, I will be considered culpable.
If, through expert analysis and testimony, it is determined that my neighbor was exposed to chloroform and it is further determined that I searched "How to make chloroform", it is likely that I will be considered culpable.
If direct testimony and scientific analysis (including unbiased canine) supports the odiferous presence of human decomposition in my car; it is likely that I will be considered culpable.

It is not important why I killed my neighbor - he is still dead
It is not important where I killed my neighbor - he is still dead
It is not important exactly what day I killed my neighbor - he is still dead
It is not important how I killed my neighbor - he is still dead

What is important is manner of death. Accident, suicide or homicide.

Considering the circumstances above, it is beyond preposterous to consider anything but homicide and given the above behavior on my part, it is equally preposterous to consider that I am not guilty of at the very least culpable negligence and therefore felony murder.

:rocker:

What else IS important that the defense could not explain why she was found in a swamp, with duct tape in her hair and holding her mandible in place, even though they placed their client at the sceen of the "accident". If a person has the abiltiy to duct tape the face of an alive child, they are monsters, if they do it to a dead child, they are something even worse.

 

[Sustained]

I agree. The ones who do not have their own shows and do not need ratings were not shocked by the verdict. They were SHOCKED at all the TH "attorneys" reactions.

This guy doesn't need ratings and writes an excellent summary of why the verdict was wrong.

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArtic...the_Casey_Anthony_trial&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1

IMO, the prosecution expected the jury to make "assumptions" in their favor instead of providing evidence. If you followed the case prior to trial, you could make those assumtpions in favor of the State. However, if you were only looking at the evidence presented at trial, the defendant is presumed innocent. So any assumptions would have to be in the defendant's favor. If they had the evidence to show they assumptions should be made in their favor, they would have presented it.

The prosecution expected the jury to make inferences, not assumptions. Inferences are required by the jury when you have a circumstantial case.
IMO, there was plenty of evidence from which inferences could have been made.

IMO, especially in this case. I was taught that you ask the question yourself when it can hurt you. Not only to keep the other side from scoring points but it makes it look like you are trying to hide something from the jury. This prosecution over and over did not ask the questions that did not have the answers they wanted. Many times it was the most obvious question.

I would need an example here ... not sure of what questions the State should have asked and did not.

IMO, LDB made a HUGE error in her closing. LDB used Casey's own words to show the car had an odor. However, she did more than that. She used the entire statement as evidence. Casey said her Dad must have hit an animal when he borrowed the car. LDB was asking the jury to believe Casey on the smell but not that her Dad borrowed the car. However, LDB NEVER stated in her closing that Casey lied about George borrowing the car. LDB just assumed the jury would figure that out for themselves.

Didn't GA/CA testify that they were not driving the Sunfire between 6/16/08 and 6/27/08 ? It was definitely stated by both in their depositions, which were introduced as evidence. If the jury had reviewed all of the evidence, they would seen this ...

IMO, when LDB made that statement, I started thinking wow if the jury did not find George credible, LDB just put the car in his hands prior to being impounded.

See previous points ...

IMO, the State was so sure of Casey's guilt that they made rookie mistakes. Rookie attorneys fail to even consider the other sides case. To put on a strong case, you have to look at it with an opposing view. Literally try to make the case for the other side to see the holes in your case. The State was too arogant to even consider that the jury may not see their case the way they wanted them too.

The only rookie mistake the State made was in jury selection. And I like to think of the State as confident, not arrogant. Just because the jury didn't see it the correct way doesn't make the State's case weak.

My opinions in blue ...

 

[beccalecca1]

Actually it was three, but how exactly many times would it take? Once with the print function or are we assuming FCA is a slow learner?

This was a search that resulted in her visiting the sci-spot website with the story of a chloroform addict's journey... right? So, how was she learning how to make chloroform from that story?

 

[KarmaGet'em]

This was a search that resulted in her visiting the sci-spot website with the story of a chloroform addict's journey... right? So, how was she learning how to make chloroform from that story?

No, that is not correct. The sci-spot web page had the recipe for making chloroform. You can still retrieve it through archive.org. I have seen it. (they have since removed it from their page for obvious reasons).

(BTW - their web page had a warning posted both before bringing up the page and at the top of the page with the recipe, in bright red, so you could not miss it:
WARNINGS: DON'T DO THIS; IT'S VERY DANGEROUS. APART FROM THE RISK OF INJURY FROM BLEACH THAT MAY BOIL IF YOU DON'T COOL THE REACTION PROPERLY, CHLOROFORM IS NASTY STUFF. DO NOT INHALE CHLOROFORM FOR ANY REASON. EVER. DO NOT SKIP THE ICE; THE BLEACH WILL BOIL, SENDING BLEACH AND CHLOROFORM FUMES INTO THE AIR. STORED CHLOROFORM CAN REACT TO FORM PHOSGENE, THE WWI CHEMICAL WEAPON. DO NOT STORE CHLOROFORM IN PLASTIC OR METAL CONTAINERS. USE SAFETY GOGGLES.)

 

[beccalecca1]

So what ? FCA lived right around the corner from where the body waqs found. That connects her in my book ...

So do the rest of the A's, why wouldn't it connect them also?

So you say Scott was fishing in a huge bay and that connects him, but the fact FCA lived around the corner doesn't connect her ? Spare me ...

Same as above. Casey was not the only one who lived in the area, and I'm sure she's not the only one of the A's that knew there was a swamp there. So, this would connect ALL of them, not just Casey.

Really ? I think the jury needed an eyewitness video of FCA chloroforming Caylee, wrapping her body, and then dumping her in the woods.

IMO, the jury needed something that connected Casey, not each one of the A's. Every one of them had access to the things involved in this case. And, LE did extensive searches to find something to connect Casey alone, but they couldn't come up with anything.

SP was convicted b/c he, unfortunately for him, was dealt a jury that knew how to connect circumstantial evidence and make the correct inferences about the crime.

I guess it was also lucky that they found Laci's hair in a pair of pliers on his boat that she had never been on... right? Why would you find someone's hair in a pair of pliers?

Yep, the jury couldn't see the forest for the trees ....

To be honest, there's nothing saying that the opposing idea isn't being just as blind. She was found not guilty and so many had her convicted and drooling for her to get the needle. This verdict was a shock to many. Perhaps those were the ones who couldn't see the forest through the trees because 12 people didn't agree with them. This case wasn't as open and shut as many had believed and hoped.

Snipped respectfully.

 

[beccalecca1]

Didn't RC tell police she did not have an affair at first ? So with $$$ dancing in her head, she changes her story ? And how much Florida taxpayer money was she slipped under the table to testify ? And who was the 1st witness to appear on HLN ?

Oh yeah, RC sold out for $4K. This I am not buying one bit. She kept her mouth closed on the affair/friendship until police came knocking on her door. She wanted nothing to do with the circus IMO. She was living a separate life also, why would she want to go out looking for money? Plus, $4K is what she loaned out to GA anyways, so why not get that back. I'm just not buying that RC was a big set up to get the A's... especially since she kept quiet about the relationship for so long.

 

[beccalecca1]

No, that is not correct. The sci-spot web page had the recipe for making chloroform. You can still retrieve it through archive.org. I have seen it. (they have since removed it from their page for obvious reasons).

(BTW - their web page had a warning posted both before bringing up the page and at the top of the page with the recipe, in bright red, so you could not miss it:
WARNINGS: DON'T DO THIS; IT'S VERY DANGEROUS. APART FROM THE RISK OF INJURY FROM BLEACH THAT MAY BOIL IF YOU DON'T COOL THE REACTION PROPERLY, CHLOROFORM IS NASTY STUFF. DO NOT INHALE CHLOROFORM FOR ANY REASON. EVER. DO NOT SKIP THE ICE; THE BLEACH WILL BOIL, SENDING BLEACH AND CHLOROFORM FUMES INTO THE AIR. STORED CHLOROFORM CAN REACT TO FORM PHOSGENE, THE WWI CHEMICAL WEAPON. DO NOT STORE CHLOROFORM IN PLASTIC OR METAL CONTAINERS. USE SAFETY GOGGLES.)

So, what was the page with the addict's journey? I looked it up during testimony myself and saw it was a story in the 1800's. I was certain that was the "84 times" page.

 

[Little Black Dress]

No, that is not correct. The sci-spot web page had the recipe for making chloroform. You can still retrieve it through archive.org. I have seen it. (they have since removed it from their page for obvious reasons).

(BTW - their web page had a warning posted both before bringing up the page and at the top of the page with the recipe, in bright red, so you could not miss it:
WARNINGS: DON'T DO THIS; IT'S VERY DANGEROUS. APART FROM THE RISK OF INJURY FROM BLEACH THAT MAY BOIL IF YOU DON'T COOL THE REACTION PROPERLY, CHLOROFORM IS NASTY STUFF. DO NOT INHALE CHLOROFORM FOR ANY REASON. EVER. DO NOT SKIP THE ICE; THE BLEACH WILL BOIL, SENDING BLEACH AND CHLOROFORM FUMES INTO THE AIR. STORED CHLOROFORM CAN REACT TO FORM PHOSGENE, THE WWI CHEMICAL WEAPON. DO NOT STORE CHLOROFORM IN PLASTIC OR METAL CONTAINERS. USE SAFETY GOGGLES.)

Good Lord. That warning alone is enough to get my attention in a serious way. Can't believe anyone could read that and contemplate using that on a child in any way, shape, or form. Only someone completely without conscience could do that. And did.

JMO.

 

[Murphismo]

Here's my most objective view on why I think the verdict came down as an aquittal, which by the way, is still very hard for me to swallow. I thought the state did an excellent job, albeit with a two mistakes. Could those mistakes have cost them the case, guess we will never know but I personally think it did. I'll try to be a Monday morning quarterback. The core of the problem was the jury, I hate to say it, but your case is won or lost during voir dire. When I try to wrap my head around whether or not the state made any mistakes, this is what I come up with:

1. IMO the defence provided reasonable doubt that chloroform and/duct tape was used as the murder weapon. I think it's reasonable CA may have looked it up when she saw it on TL website. I overwhelmingly believe Calylee died at the hands of FCA, but being objective as I can, I can honesty say the DT did a good job at creating enough doubt about its use that even I, if on a jury, would be very wary of saying she definitely did use it. My critera would be pretty high in a case where I would deprive someone of their life and or freedom. I really think the state should have just focused on the death as an undetermined homicide and not tried to hammer the chloroform as much as they did. If Chloroform is the murder weapon, and there is reasonable doubt as to whether or not she made it, we have to take murder off the table if the DT can provide reasonable doubt. We never knew how Lacey Peterson died and yet there was a conviction. Now, the duct tape.... I believe the prosectuion showed beyond a reasonable doubt the duct tape was placed upon her mouth. The big questions for the jury is "when", alive or dead? In my experience, I think it's extremely difficult for a normal human being to conceive of anyone, let alone a mother, duct taping a child's face shut and suffocating them. Not that it didn't happen, but I think most people would almost force themselves to believe it was staged after death to appear as a kidnapping which fits perfectly into the Zanny kidnapping story FCA made up and implicates her knee deep into it.

So I guess what I am saying is that if you present X and Y as the murder weapon, you damn well better have a smoking gun, if we doubt the weapon, how do we buy the murder? It would have been safer to focus on the "manner" of death as a homocide and not so much on the cause of that homocide. If we buy homocide, and I think the jury did, thus all the tears and sickness they mentioned, the "cause" is irrelevant. But the critical mistake made by the state was linking the two. That's where they lost this jury.

2. The state overestimated the strength of the case because FCA's behavior was so disgusting. I am not trying to offend anyone, but seriously people, take off your philosophical hats for a moment and just look at the facts.... A baby is not reported missing for over a month and it was clear that FCA never intended to tell anyone, the mother parties and looks absolutely giddy with happiness after the death, the mother lies like a rug about an imaginary nanny, then procedes to sit in jail, in solitary confinement for three years before finally saying it was an accident.. How can you come to any other conclusion that it was a homicide????? Well, that's what the state thought too.... They relied too much on this jury being able to connect the dots. They underestimated any sort of legitimate defence. And the defence was laughable, who would belive such drivel? It was absurd. The jury didn't even buy it, they even said they thought she was guilty. WHY they came back with no lesser charges I haven't a clue. The just didn't understand the instructions.... so now we have a killer loose....