The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?

[EPfan]

Why did the State have so many witnesses testify that FCA was a "good" Mom ... to dispel the theory of an accident proposed in the DT opening statement. "Good" moms call 911 in the case of an accident.



Well fo me to backfired on them then.


With all due respect, you are obviously seeing things thru the DT's rose-colored glasses ... you forget JB's comment about "cutting the cheese", you forget JB's lack of ability to ask non-leading questions or questions that had already been asked and answered. You forget JB's obvious discovery violations ... all of those things are what led to the State's numerous objections and sidebars.

To me the procecution seemed to be GRANDSTANDING, objection, substained, and then they would shake their head like he was dumb.

And where would anyone get the idea that the prosecution team is over-confident ? I don't remember any interviews with JA/LDB/FG or even Lawson Lamar expressing such feelings.

There you go about interviews, I'm talking about what I observed in the trial, they didn't tie the evidence to KC they took it for granted they were confident they had the case won.

As far as the expert witnesses go, let's say they cancelled each other out although I believe the State's experts did a great job. But, even if they cancelled each other out and the jury did not consider the expert testimony, we still have all of the "consciousness of guilt" evidence presented by the State. No report for 31 days, lying to investigators, Bella Vita tattoo, etc.

Since when is lying, and a tatoo evidence of murder. (I get consciousness of guilt, too. )

These particular jurors did not understand how to connect the dots as they could have convicted FCA by the process of elimination. If the jurors were so confident in their verdict, why didn't they hang around and explain how they arrived at it ? Why didn't they explain how in <10 hours of deliberation, they could go over 6+ weeks of testimony ? Why wouldn't they explain how the possible sentence played into their decision ? Why wouldn't they explain how they expected the why,where,how & when of Caylee's death when legally it's not required to convict ?

The evidence to connect the dots wasn't there. I don't think you have to know exact: why, where, when and how but you have to connect the person that is accused. It is my fervent opinion that when the juror's names are released, some of them will come forward and say they made a huge mistake.

I think they did what they did by the evidence. They may think they mad a mistake but it will be because of Talking heads and things that weren't in the trial, so how will that opininion matter. That is why you have a trial, judges to decide what comes in and what doesn't. That is why you have witnesses expert and otherwise. You have to but the monkey on the procecutions back, LE and whomever put the case together.

 

[RR0004]

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.

...and couldn't Peterson's attorney have claimed the same thing...transference? I do remember Baez discussing that...or have I misremembered?

 

[Trapshooter]

Wow! Just WOW!

I come here to read this thread quite often and I see it is STILL the same posters that is arguing a moot point. :banghead: Makes one tend to wonder if some of the posters are members of the DT? Or if indeed some of the posters were on the jury?

IMO, the jurors DID NOT deliberate long enough on this case simply because they wanted to go home. They didn't have the wherewithal to use the common sense process of elimination. In juror interviews, they have stated they didn't know the "cause" of death nor the "time" of death, neither of which was required by law to make a judgment.

Bottom line is this:

Caylee is dead.
Casey was the last known person to have seen Caylee.
Casey did not report her daughter "missing" for 31 days.
Casey then lies to change her story to a drowning.
Caylee is still dead.

What is so hard about weighing the facts presented and making a decision based solely on that? The child is dead, someone killed her because a 2 year old does not wrap her own face in duct tape and put her body in a swamp to decompose. These are NOT hard questions people.....anyone with an IQ in the double-digit range could figure this out! :banghead:

 

[erinleigh]

dont agree with the verdict.
let's look at case of Tim Hennis.
sent to death row for murdering 2 children and raping and killing their mother.
2 years later supreme court overturned conviction citing the prosecution inflamed the jury by showing his photo above the crime scene photos when they presented them.
gained second trial and was aquitted. jury said the case only had circumstantial evidence and that was not enough to convict. (DNA testing was not available back then)
25 years later..DNA evidence shows Tim Hennis sperm was in the victims body.


sometimes the jury does get it wrong because they dont understand that circumstantial evidence is considered evidence. *sigh*
casey is not special. this does happen in the judicial system. let's not make a celebrity out of her just because a jury did not understand the value of circumstantial evidence.

btw, the prosecutors did not give up once the received the DNA evidence. the went thru other avenues to try for justice. since Tim was in the military they tried him in military court. GUILTY - sentenced to DR

i wish the feds would open a case against casey. they were involved and she did lie to them. cant they do something?

 

[logicalgirl]

I think they did what they did by the evidence. They may think they mad a mistake but it will be because of Talking heads and things that weren't in the trial, so how will that opininion matter. That is why you have a trial, judges to decide what comes in and what doesn't. That is why you have witnesses expert and otherwise. You have to but the monkey on the procecutions back, LE and whomever put the case together.

Talking heads? Who pays attention to talking heads? Many many experts such as Judges, former judges from the federal bench, law professors, etc., who do not have a dog in this race have said over and over again, this was a jury who did not follow instructions and who did not understand even the basics of circumstantial evidence, and that it was their responsibility to connect the dots - that is - not simply observe and wait for the answer to flash on the screen like this is some kind of a game show - but to think and reason.

It's as simple as that.....

 

[RR0004]

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.

IIRC...it was her sister that approached LE before LE came knocking on her door.

 

[RR0004]

EPfan

Were you a member of the jury?

Not necessarily...I've often wondered if Ms Singer's posse was still alive and well and living on the boards.

 

[RR0004]

I actually haven't minded it so much Italy - it made me go back and check out the laws, read extensively from the experts who know far more than I do about circumstantial evidence and reread yet again the various pieces of evidence and testimonies to confirm my initial thoughts and realize the chain yanking going on...but in the end - it is what it is, and unjust verdict.

All the impossible theories, couldawouldashouldahs in the world, and yabbuts will never change that.

And those that may think otherwise probably can't wait to see Casey's spread in Hustler. I would hate to be the spouse of a WSer who shows interest...lol.

 

[Italy]

And those that may think otherwise probably can't wait to see Casey's spread in Hustler. I would hate to be the spouse of a WSer who shows interest...lol.

...don't wish to be crude, but that is a funny choice of words there, RR0004!

 

[EPfan]

dont agree with the verdict.
let's look at case of Tim Hennis.
sent to death row for murdering 2 children and raping and killing their mother.
2 years later supreme court overturned conviction citing the prosecution inflamed the jury by showing his photo above the crime scene photos when they presented them.
gained second trial and was aquitted. jury said the case only had circumstantial evidence and that was not enough to convict. (DNA testing was not available back then)
25 years later..DNA evidence shows Tim Hennis sperm was in the victims body.


sometimes the jury does get it wrong because they dont understand that circumstantial evidence is considered evidence. *sigh*
casey is not special. this does happen in the judicial system. let's not make a celebrity out of her just because a jury did not understand the value of circumstantial evidence.

btw, the prosecutors did not give up once the received the DNA evidence. the went thru other avenues to try for justice. since Tim was in the military they tried him in military court. GUILTY - sentenced to DR

i wish the feds would open a case against casey. they were involved and she did lie to them. cant they do something?

You can't convict murder just because there are lies. There isn't the evidence to convict. There isn't a connection to KC and the FBI would need something. The FBI isn't going to try and pick a dead horse up. JMOO

 

[EPfan]

This reminds me of the story of the marching band that walked down Main Street. The watching crowd included many including little Johnny's mother. As they all marched by, she turned to another spectator and said, "Oh look. Everyone is out of step except little Johnny."

LOL!!
Good one to remember, thanks!!

 

[logicalgirl]

...don't wish to be crude, but that is a funny choice of words there, RR0004!

Well you were but it was still hilarious!! :woot:

I want someone to bring up the grief expert again in defense because that always brings back good memories for me and makes me laugh...:innocent:

 

[Trapshooter]

With all respect to you, I could have a come-back answer for each response but I'm not going to. The reason is, I watched the trial faithfully everyday and was appalled at some of the things that went on, butttt- at the end of the day the procecution over charged-with the evidence they presented. I believe they were over confident and didn't think the defense would be able to cause reasonable doubt. I feel for over 3 years the procecution knew what they wanted to present and to show what happend but they took for granted that the jury would automatically know everything they did and could somehow connect all the evidence together but the jury didn't, and I wouldn't have either. Even though most didn't give the defense credit and made fun of JB, little by little he put on a defense and made people question the evidence and with his wittnesses (they were expert too) they disagreed with the procecution wittnesses. R Kronk didn't help either. That is why the procecution didn't want to put him on. How many people told lies on the stand? You put all the little things together and they become 1 big thing that you can't get over and that was reasonable doubt. I knew ( or thought I knew) after the closing arguments that the procecution was in trouble. LDB was too confident and focused on the party stuff, not the evidence. Then JA sitting over there smerking, laughing wasn't professional to me. It most likely didn't effect the verdict but they (procecution) had attitude. Also, for me, the constant objection, objection, objection (over little dinky stuff), and not to mention sidebar, sidebar, made me wonder what are they trying to keep out. Just my opinion but I remember thinking that.(I know this isn't evidence and should be used, but hey)
To sum it up I think the procecution was over confident and didn't prove their case, they didn't connect the dots to prove KC murdered Caylee intentionally, because that is what they charged. Another thing, why did they have witness after witness testifying what a good mother KC was?
I think that backfired because now there wasn't child abuse to consider. No one said one bad thing about KC as a mother.
This whole case was bazarre for me but it is what it is. We can argue/disagree till the cows come home but she was found NOT Guilty, doesn't mean innocent. I think the jury got it right.

In my "opininion" the prosecution did assume that the jurors would use their common sense to connect the dots, however the prosecution overestimated the intelligence, or lack thereof, of the jurors.

All the "objection, objection, objection" and "sidebar, sidebar, sidebar" was Judge Perry schooling Baez on how to question "wittnesses" without leading questions. Simply put, this WAS Baez's first rodeo and the Judge and the "smerking" Prosecution had to school him throughout the entire trial.

All of the "wittnesses" being called to testify that Casey was a "good mother" was to show that a good mother would've taken time to call 911 if indeed her child had drowned. Speaking of "bazarre", it is totally bizarre to me that the jurors deliberated less than 10 hours! :furious:

 

[erinleigh]

You can't convict murder just because there are lies. There isn't the evidence to convict. There isn't a connection to KC and the FBI would need something. The FBI isn't going to try and pick a dead horse up. JMOO

why couldnt FBI charge her with hindering their investigation? they dont have to charge her with murder.
i for one wish they would pick up the dead horse. a convicted person gets to explore loophole after loophole for their justice. why cant the same be done to obtain justice in other circumstances?

 

[gladiatorqueen]

Thanks for your comments - but does that mean you were or you weren't?

You, Beccalecca, Gladiatorqueen, Goldenlover, pcrum12, and few others all seem to be singing from the same song sheet and it just seems odd. Especially considering the recent timing of the posts.

So what? Surely to god we are allowed to share the same opinion and express those same opinions just as vocally or repeatedly as those of you who think the jury was wrong, lazy, stupid, etc.? Or no? We must get behind the majority and if we don't that means we are DT or jurors? Come on, I don't think that's very fair or respectful. Many folks have spent a lot of time explaining where they are coming from and providing evidence of their position. No one has to agree but surely we can all respect one another?

 

[RR0004]

IIRC, they did not have any transcripts of trial testimony. They would have been required to make a request to have testimony read back to them by the court reporter.

Thanks...that's what I thought.

 

[Trapshooter]

You can't convict murder just because there are lies. There isn't the evidence to convict. There isn't a connection to KC and the FBI would need something. The FBI isn't going to try and pick a dead horse up. JMOO

Pick a dead horse up??? :waitasec::waitasec::waitasec:

That's a phrase I've never heard. Do you mean "beat a dead horse"?

There WAS evidence to convict.....A D.E.A.D. C.H.I.L.D.

 

[logicalgirl]

why couldnt FBI charge her with hindering their investigation? they dont have to charge her with murder.

Not going to happen - not because they can't but they won't waste their time. A child killer walks free and I'm certain they can wait and catch up with her on the flip side...

 

[gladiatorqueen]

In my "opininion" the prosecution did assume that the jurors would use their common sense to connect the dots, however the prosecution overestimated the intelligence, or lack thereof, of the jurors.

All the "objection, objection, objection" and "sidebar, sidebar, sidebar" was Judge Perry schooling Baez on how to question "wittnesses" without leading questions. Simply put, this WAS Baez's first rodeo and the Judge and the "smerking" Prosecution had to school him throughout the entire trial.

All of the "wittnesses" being called to testify that Casey was a "good mother" was to show that a good mother would've taken time to call 911 if indeed her child had drowned. Speaking of "bazarre", it is totally bizarre to me that the jurors deliberated less than 10 hours! :furious:

Really, because the Darlie Routier jury only deliberated for 7 hours. Is that length okay because it was a guilty verdict?

 

[RR0004]

why couldnt FBI charge her with hindering their investigation? they dont have to charge her with murder.
i for one wish they would pick up the dead horse. a convicted person gets to explore loophole after loophole for their justice. why cant the same be done to obtain justice in other circumstances?

See, now here is where it gets confusing...from what I've read it can be related to the crime...but would a "hindering" charge be too similar to the "lying" charge she was already convicted of?

PS- I would love to see Casey's face when she gets word about the probation. I sure hope DOC follows through.