The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?

[beccalecca1]

None of the A's wanted Caylee dead for any reason. They loved her. Casey did not. Casey wanted to party and be irresponsible, which is WHY her parents were the main caretakers of Caylee when Casey should have been. Legally, Casey was the one responsible for Caylee's health and welfare, and yet the jury couldn't understand that and threw it out. There are no grandparent's rights to a child when the mother is still alive and capable of taking care of a child. Her brother had no responsibility to Caylee legally. The only one legally responsible was Casey, and yet the jury got confused about this somehow. I don't get it.

I don't see evidence that Casey wanted her child dead, she didn't love her child, and that the A's were the main caretakers of the child. Seriously, if I were to believe they were Caylee's main caretakers, then I would have to believe they could have been legally responsible for her. But, we know that wasn't the case. They were the main providers, but not the main caretakers. IMO, the jury didn't get confused on this. But, by GA's own testimony, he would be Caylee's caretaker in the mornings while Casey was getting ready for work. If Caylee died at that time, then GA would've been responsible. It's like if your child is injured in Daycare, they're responsible not you. But, I don't believe GA took care of Caylee in the morning, his testimony sounded scripted on what a "normal grandfather" would do with his grandchild. But that's just MOO.

And the huge thing a lot of naysayers are missing is that a HURRICANE passed through that area not long after the crime. I don't think that happened in the Scott Peterson case. If you don't understand what hurricanes do to an area after they pass through, let me tell you. All DNA gone. All evidence that could possibly tie Casey dead to rights GONE. This expectation that DNA should have been there or something directly tying her to that scene should have survived a hurricane blowing through that area is preposterous. No hair, No DNA, no nothing that was degradable through time, the hurricane, and the swamp conditions would have survived. So you tell me how the jury could have possibly had better evidence when those conditions of the weather and the area prevented it? So Casey gets away thanks to a hurricane and swamp degrading and taking away evidence? What a justice system we have when weather conditions and environment are repeatedly ignored by the jury and then they whine that there just wasn't enough evidence. That makes no sense to me. Where the heck could have better evidence have come from? And this jury LIVES in Florida. They should, of all people, understand what the environment and hurricane does to a crime scene!!!!

Respectfully, if the hurricane destroyed any and all evidence related to this crime, how can you possibly believe the duct tape was originally over the nose/mouth? You can't have both IMO. Either the hurricane didn't destroy everything and would've left behind some evidence, or the hurricane did destroy everything and mangled the crime scene so what it was when discovered is certainly different then what it originally was.

And Casey buried dead pets in that area (and yes, her family buried pets in the backyard that way, but never in that area) in much the same way Caylee was disposed of. The state has made that clear, and yet it has been totally ignored. I would say that ties her to the scene a lot more than the rest of her family.

Casey did not bury her pets there. Kiomarie (and another girl from the block) buried their pets there with the heart stickers and the works. Casey was present for 1, maybe 2 childhood burials. Read the Kiomarie story, it's very informative. Casey did not apply heart stickers to dead animals, did not wrap them in bags, did not do any of it. For one pet they made cards (I believe) with hearts on them to show their love and honor for this pet that passed.

The thing that bothers me the most is that the jury said the state didn't prove their case, well, but the defense never proved one iota of their case either. So they chose what sounded better but wasn't proven? That's justice? They didn't even go with what was proven in that courtroom, only a story made up by the defense. Pictures of Caylee at the door doesn't put her dead of drowning in a pool. It doesn't prove one iota that a drowning ever occurred. Yet that's what the jury went with. I think they refused to believe that a mother would do horrible things to her own child, especially a pretty young mother like Casey. It was easier to believe that she looked away one moment and Caylee drowned. I get that part. But putting aside all logic and common sense to do that is something I will never understand. The evidence was there and the jury chose to ignore it for the better sounding story that was never ever proven.

The DT has no obligation to prove their case, none whatsoever. That is the way our justice system works, and that's been teh way the justice system has operated for many many years. I don't understand why our country was fine with our justice system in the past, but now that the system didn't do what they wanted it to do, it's faulty, etc. IMO, the jury didn't have to believe a single word JB said, all they needed was enough evidence in their mind to convict, and they just didn't have that. They believed she was innocent in the beginning on the trial and the prosecution didn't show them enough for them to "tip the scale". It is what it is. And, just because the DT threw out another story that could've happened doesn't necessarily mean the jury bought that story (although I did.).

 

[NotRocketSighence]

So considering they only spent a few hours getting to the Not Guilty verdict, I don't think they spent enough time understanding and considering the 'other side'.

*respectfully snipped*

Question? If they spent the same time and came up with a guilty verdict would you still make the same argument?

Asking sincerely... thanks in advance.

 

[EPfan]

The jury is there to determine if the prosecution can prove their case, right? I'm phrasing it that way because the DT is not required to prove innocence. Innocent until proven guilty. I look at it like this...

Here on the forum, I don't have to start out believing she is innocent. I believe she is guilty. Obviously there are those who argue her guilt and other's who argue her innocence. I spend far more time looking up the information that is presented by the people here who believe she is innocent because I want to make sure there wasn't something I missed, or something I can look at differently. I want to check and double-check and triple-check that I didn't miss something, ya know? The stuff I agree with, I'm not going to spend a lot of time researching because I already understand that side. I would expect the jury to do the same. So considering they only spent a few hours getting to the Not Guilty verdict, I don't think they spent enough time understanding and considering the 'other side'. I just don't have faith that they truly did their due diligence if I have spent more time (over the last few weeks) making sure that I am comfortable with my position before I open my mouth and say something here. They had a very important responsibility, and it saddens me to think that so many here care enough to invest so much time double and triple checking data, and they did not. MOO

I can speak for myself only, but I think the discussions aren't about guilt or innocence it is about if you agree with the jury's verdict. For myself I believe she was definitely involved but I don't think that the prosecution proved the crimes they charged KC. I am just stating the reason for my position. I respect everyone's opinion that post here. Sometimes others can help you see different ways that the evidence could be considered. For me, I believe the jury was correct in their verdict.

 

[sacrablue]

You are right on the hurricane. It most likely destroyed valuable evidence, but we will never know. You can't convict someone on what you think would have or should have been there before the hurricane. You have to have evidence.
The defense doesn't have to prove not one thing. They don't even have to present a case. The burden is on the state to present the evidence to uphold the charges that they have brought to the table of the accused.

I will agree the defense doesn't have to prove anything but at the same time the defense should not be allowed to concoct rediculous stories that they can not prove and have no intention to prove. This poisons the well putting disturbing images in jurors minds which are very hard to free if at all possible.
For example Baez making up Casey giving sexual acts to her father TRASH
Baez having George walk around house with Caylee in his arms TRASH
If I was a Judge and this was going on in my court there would be a mistrial instantly.

 

[EPfan]

I will agree the defense doesn't have to prove anything but at the same time the defense should not be allowed to concoct rediculous stories that they can not prove and have no intention to prove. This poisons the well putting disturbing images in jurors minds which are very hard to free if at all possible.
For example Baez making up Casey giving sexual acts to her father TRASH
Baez having George walk around house with Caylee in his arms TRASH
If I was a Judge and this was going on in my court there would be a mistrial instantly.

There is no way you know if KC was sexual assaulted. It wasn't proven in this trial but we don't positively know. That is why JB couldn't bring it up in his closing statements, he didn't prove it in trial.
You wouldn't be judge very long if you would have called an instant mistrial for this!!!!! JMOO

 

[EPfan]

EPfan

Were you a member of the jury?

NO, I was not seated on the jury.

I do agree with the verdict, but I'm open to everyone's opinion.

 

[Caligram]

But the DT did prove something. They proved that you can sidetrack and capture a jury by a ficticious opening statement accusing a family member of sexually molesting the defendant. They proved that this jury prefered to entertain and retain JB's unproven, outrageous, gag-me, more vivid sex-rated depiction of GA's penis in FCA's mouth. The jury so focused did not ignore this and deliberate on the tape on Caylee Marie's mouth.

 

[imagirlgeek]

*respectfully snipped*

Question? If they spent the same time and came up with a guilty verdict would you still make the same argument?

Asking sincerely... thanks in advance.

Answering 100% honestly...no. And I know that's not fair. But I'm being honest. I know my view is flawed by my feeling that KC is guilty. I know it, I recognize it, I own it. :sigh: In a case this huge though, I would hope that whatever decision they came to, they would spend time reviewing the data. But, I probably would not feel this way if they had come back with a guilty verdict.

My feeling is that if you are starting from Innocent until proven guilty (like the jury), it would take more time and research to get to Guilty. But it wouldn't take much to stay thinking she's innocent.

And if you are starting from Guilty (like me), it's going to take more time and research to get to Innocent. Like above, it doesn't take as much for me to continue thinking she's guilty.

Does that make any sense?

This was a great question. It really made me examine myself and put myself on both sides of the issue.

 

[beccalecca1]

Answering 100% honestly...no. And I know that's not fair. But I'm being honest. I know my view is flawed by my feeling that KC is guilty. I know it, I recognize it, I own it. :sigh: In a case this huge though, I would hope that whatever decision they came to, they would spend time reviewing the data. But, I probably would not feel this way if they had come back with a guilty verdict.

My feeling is that if you are starting from Innocent until proven guilty (like the jury), it would take more time and research to get to Guilty. But it wouldn't take much to stay thinking she's innocent.

And if you are starting from Guilty (like me), it's going to take more time and research to get to Innocent. Like above, it doesn't take as much for me to continue thinking she's guilty.

Does that make any sense?

This was a great question. It really made me examine myself and put myself on both sides of the issue.

I just want to thank you for being honest! :seeya:

 

[LinTX]

<snipped for brevity>

My feeling is that if you are starting from Innocent until proven guilty (like the jury), it would take more time and research to get to Guilty. But it wouldn't take much to stay thinking she's innocent.

And if you are starting from Guilty (like me), it's going to take more time and research to get to Innocent. Like above, it doesn't take as much for me to continue thinking she's guilty.

I think this is part of what bothers me so much about the 10 hrs (more like 4 or 5). We were told 2 voted lst degree in the first vote, and 6 were initially for manslaughter on a later vote. But they spent part of day one in court, ate lunch, assume dinner, and by the time they went to bed all 12 said guilty?
When we did hear interviews, neither of the two that spoke had much to say about specifics at all - several important points they did use to explain were totally wrong (what was required, what they were required to ignore, etc.). I got more 'emotional' talk from them than anything else, +'s for JB and -'s for GA and SA's...oh yeah, and love for #12's ability to wash and fold laundry. So much for intelligent reasoning, which I personally feel would have gone a long way for many of us to accept their decision. I would still not agree, but I could feel better knowing they had actually heard and weighed all that testimony and evidence.

 

[kelian36]

None of the A's wanted Caylee dead for any reason. They loved her. Casey did not. Casey wanted to party and be irresponsible, which is WHY her parents were the main caretakers of Caylee when Casey should have been. Legally, Casey was the one responsible for Caylee's health and welfare, and yet the jury couldn't understand that and threw it out. There are no grandparent's rights to a child when the mother is still alive and capable of taking care of a child. Her brother had no responsibility to Caylee legally. The only one legally responsible was Casey, and yet the jury got confused about this somehow. I don't get it.

And the huge thing a lot of naysayers are missing is that a HURRICANE passed through that area not long after the crime. I don't think that happened in the Scott Peterson case. If you don't understand what hurricanes do to an area after they pass through, let me tell you. All DNA gone. All evidence that could possibly tie Casey dead to rights GONE. This expectation that DNA should have been there or something directly tying her to that scene should have survived a hurricane blowing through that area is preposterous. No hair, No DNA, no nothing that was degradable through time, the hurricane, and the swamp conditions would have survived. So you tell me how the jury could have possibly had better evidence when those conditions of the weather and the area prevented it? So Casey gets away thanks to a hurricane and swamp degrading and taking away evidence? What a justice system we have when weather conditions and environment are repeatedly ignored by the jury and then they whine that there just wasn't enough evidence. That makes no sense to me. Where the heck could have better evidence have come from? And this jury LIVES in Florida. They should, of all people, understand what the environment and hurricane does to a crime scene!!!!

And Casey buried dead pets in that area (and yes, her family buried pets in the backyard that way, but never in that area) in much the same way Caylee was disposed of. The state has made that clear, and yet it has been totally ignored. I would say that ties her to the scene a lot more than the rest of her family.

The thing that bothers me the most is that the jury said the state didn't prove their case, well, but the defense never proved one iota of their case either. So they chose what sounded better but wasn't proven? That's justice? They didn't even go with what was proven in that courtroom, only a story made up by the defense. Pictures of Caylee at the door doesn't put her dead of drowning in a pool. It doesn't prove one iota that a drowning ever occurred. Yet that's what the jury went with. I think they refused to believe that a mother would do horrible things to her own child, especially a pretty young mother like Casey. It was easier to believe that she looked away one moment and Caylee drowned. I get that part. But putting aside all logic and common sense to do that is something I will never understand. The evidence was there and the jury chose to ignore it for the better sounding story that was never ever proven.

:woohoo: Worth repeating.

A great post Aedrys.
bbm

 

[kelian36]

But the DT did prove something. They proved that you can sidetrack and capture a jury by a ficticious opening statement accusing a family member of sexually molesting the defendant. They proved that this jury prefered to entertain and retain JB's unproven, outrageous, gag-me, more vivid sex-rated depiction of GA's penis in FCA's mouth. The jury so focused did not ignore this and deliberate on the tape on Caylee Marie's mouth.

:seeya: Caligram......... another great post. :woohoo:

 

[NotRocketSighence]

Answering 100% honestly...no. And I know that's not fair. But I'm being honest. I know my view is flawed by my feeling that KC is guilty. I know it, I recognize it, I own it. :sigh: In a case this huge though, I would hope that whatever decision they came to, they would spend time reviewing the data. But, I probably would not feel this way if they had come back with a guilty verdict.

My feeling is that if you are starting from Innocent until proven guilty (like the jury), it would take more time and research to get to Guilty. But it wouldn't take much to stay thinking she's innocent.

And if you are starting from Guilty (like me), it's going to take more time and research to get to Innocent. Like above, it doesn't take as much for me to continue thinking she's guilty.

Does that make any sense?

This was a great question. It really made me examine myself and put myself on both sides of the issue.

Thank you for your honesty and for taking the time to examine it all within yourself. This was evident from the original post from you.

All I can add is that the jury only deliberated *together* for those 11 hours. Prior to that each deliberated silently with their own thoughts day in day out for the duration of the trial. Some days didn't the trial run like 10 hours? Most 8 hours. Some times 6 days a week. In between popins and outs and breaks. But at a minimum we could pretty much say 9-5 Mon-Fri. I am sure they didn't just leave their thoughts in their jury chairs every day.

They talked about the concept of not trying to impose their views on another juror who might of disagreed with them when they posed questions in jury selection.

For me personally, I watched the trial, every moment of it. I also had the benefit of DVR replay. I also came into the trial having been slammed at every turn by all the medial sensationalism. As well as the gospel of the Anthony lives according to Nancy Grace. I didn't buy into the media hype but it sure hooked my curiosity to watch the trial. I knew by closing arguments I would have found her not guilty simply because the prosecution didn't prove to me she was guilty. No one has said anything to change my mind in 3 years and the trial solidified it. I could of deliberated for 11 hours, 11 weeks or 11 months and my view wouldn't change. I wouldn't of needed anything read back because I got it the first time around however I would of listened intently if anyone else did. Personally I deliberated in my own head. 11 hours would of been way too many hours to discuss something I was already solid on but I would have done so out of respect for the process and others peoples need to decide if undecided. If I were on the jury deliberating, I would of respectfully explained my views and listened to the others and weighed them against mine but nothing would of changed my mind on what I already knew to be true. I, like you, spend hours a day pouring over the other sides arguments and ideas and thoughts (and emotions because both sides have emotion) and still I come back to that she is to be presumed innocent and the prosecution didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt she was guilty of murder. (to me)

This is the system we have. This is what we get under a right to a trial by a jury of our peers which are a random cross section of society. It doesn't work all the time because often our system is a legal system not a justice system and often, the two exist in parallel.

Personally I was as stunned as everyone else at the verdict except my drop jaw reaction was because I figured guilty was a done deal. I was amazed they found people who could listen to the evidence and who hadn't already made up their mind she was guilty like so much of the court of public opinion.

Once again I thank you for your honesty in answering my questions. I appreciated that more than you will know

 

[sacrablue]

There is no way you know if KC was sexual assaulted. It wasn't proven in this trial but we don't positively know. That is why JB couldn't bring it up in his closing statements, he didn't prove it in trial.
You wouldn't be judge very long if you would have called an instant mistrial for this!!!!! JMOO

As soon as Baez opened his big mouth, Ashton should have approached and told Perry he better be able to prove it or he is going to eat it.

 

[Baznme]

Personally I was as stunned as everyone else at the verdict except my drop jaw reaction was because I figured guilty was a done deal. I was amazed they found people who could listen to the evidence and who hadn't already made up their mind she was guilty like so much of the court of public opinion.

Snipped for space and BBM - There's already an admission by a juror that they had their mind made up even before they deliberated......so much for people that could listen to the evidence.

 

[Trapshooter]

Snipped and BBM

Common sense and speculation are completely 2 different things. IMO, you shouldn't convict if you have to speculate. It just shouldn't happen.

I agree that common sense and speculation are completely different, no argument there. However it is my opinion that the jury used SPECULATION to reach their verdict. They speculated that GA wasn't believable and speculated on the so-called lack of evidence. The jury speculated that the Prosecution could not prove "cause of death" but that wasn't, by law, up to the jurors for speculation!

Common sense goes a long way in deciding guilt or non-guilt. Common sense is that inner voice or conscience that tells a person that something is "not right" or "something doesn't feel right". The jurors did not use one ounce of common sense in their deliberations. If they had, they would've found Casey guilty of aggravated manslaughter at the very least. The jurors completely forgot that a CHILD IS DEAD and she was last seen with her mother. That one phrase "A CHILD IS DEAD" seems to be forgotten in this entire brouhaha. Casey Anthony is NOT the victim, she is the defendant, the one being accused of THE CRIME! CAYLEE ANTHONY IS THE VICTIM!!!!! What is so freakin' hard to understand? Caylee is DEAD and no justice has been served!!!! :furious:

Spin it however you want beccalecca1, as you said in a prior post, you and 1/3 of the country believe the jury made the right decision. Why is it that 2/3s of the country that believe Casey got away with murder so angry? Because she DID get away with murder! :furious:

 

[sacrablue]

All I want to know is what were you going to do, or what did you do with the shovel when you borrowed it Casey? Is there something burried in that backyard never found?

 

[NotRocketSighence]

Snipped for space and BBM - There's already an admission by a juror that they had their mind made up even before they deliberated......so much for people that could listen to the evidence.

I think it depends on when they began to make up their mind and how solid it was as each new witness testified and with each new piece of evidence presented. I think its a continued process of weighing what you just heard to what you are currently hearing.

I do not know for sure but I have heard that most juries take a poll before they start their deliberations. If they aren't supposed to of made up their minds until deliberations, why are they taking a poll?

 

[HatesSociopaths]

I think the State was over-zealous in seeking the death penalty. This was probably more a reaction to the public outrage and less an assessment of the evidence available for the charges. I say that even though I think she should have been found guilty of Murder 1, as there was enough evidence to show she committed at least felony aggravated manslaughter of a child, making it a Murder 1. The thing is, that isn't a death penalty type crime really, as she in that circumstance wasn't trying to kill Caylee, she was possibly just trying to knock her out with chloroform (and actually I think her death was intentional, but for the sake of reasonable doubt, I think it is fathomable it was a culpable accident).

The problem with seeking the death penalty is that the State then tried to give the narrative that would warrant this, rather than purposely entertain the notion of a culpable accident with the jury to show how that is still Murder 1. I think this could have helped, when I listen to Jennifer Ford I sense someone who was taking that death penalty point very seriously, almost as if she then felt gun shy to reach a guilty verdict for fear of being wrong. That mind-set could have affected her ability to reason and sort the facts out with any kind of boldness. I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt on that. I've been thinking they were all just incompetent up to now. Factually they should have been able to sort it out regardless, so I have the same opinion really. But perhaps the State could have presented it more embracively of the potential doubts that could rise up in the jury.

 

[RR0004]

All I want to know is what were you going to do, or what did you do with the shovel when you borrowed it Casey? Is there something burried in that backyard never found?

The clothes? The shoes?

PS- they closely examined the areas of the dog hits...where else do you think something could be buried?