The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?

[Eidetic]

They must have really been on the same page as JB for some reason - because I cannot make the connection between supposedly being molested somehow meaning you don't report your child missing.

As a survivor, I would find it laughable if I didn't find it so highly insulting that Baez implied because she may have been molested or raised by not so perfect parents, it resulted in this narcissistic, immature, cold, calculating, manipulative, thieving, lying, homicidal (in my opinion), opportunistic, above-the-law, spoiled brat.

(In my opinion molestation did not happen to Casey, at least at the hands of her brother and/or father because the only molestation she acknowledged to witnesses prior to Caylee's death was Lee and she said "it never happened" he only "tried to feel her up" whatever that means. And we all remember the crazy bedroom stories. The tall tale about George came much later and you can literally see it evolve in those letters. Casey is also very secretive. I doubt very much that she would tell every boyfriend that her brother "tried to molest her". It is an extremely difficult thing to talk about.)

She's done a horrible job at every position life has given her! Daughter, student, mother, friend, granddaughter, employee, girlfriend, defendant, sister, taxpayer...

The only position she seemed to thrive in and behave herself was inmate. Well, according to what she presented to OCSO employees anyway, she still did terrorize and control her parents and important people with good intentions that were desperately trying to find her deceased daughter even within that facility, as well as sneak forbidden letters. So really, she presented what she had to and what she wanted people to see in order to get by and at the core, sucked at that too.

Which brings me back to- What does Casey Anthony do right? Why shouldn't I be worried that she's been released into society again? :waitasec:

 

[Baznme]

My responses in Purple.

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.

We know that CA had spoken to FCA about custody of Caylee. Could have been what prompted this tragedy in the first place. So, your point on custody/caretaker is moot IMO.

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.

First of all, it wasn't a hurricane but a tropical storm. I was 40 minutes from the area where Caylee was found and I went through that storm. Winds were not bad at all, it was the rain. Lots of it! 26 inches in four straight days. Water and heat will destroy all soft tissue in short order. Within a week, the water becomes more pungent and is the consistency of strong tea sitting on top of rotted foliage and peat like soil. There is a stench and lots of spiders, snakes, ticks. In other words, an abundance of decomposition going on there because everything is sitting in standing, rotting water. How do I know? Within 2 weeks after that storm, that water was still high enough to hinder the search efforts because I was there. The how or why (exactly) regarding destruction of duct tape, fingerprints, etc. I believe I'll leave to the experts to deduce and would not be so arrogant to think I should question or would have more knowledge than they do.


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.

Using Kio's story of the burial of pets off Suburban Dr. to point out that Casey was only present for 1, maybe 2 childhood burials and did not participate in the burials other than being present brings out what point? How does that exonerate her of ever participating in that type of behavior at any point after her childhood? That's a stretch to expect anyone to believe she would not be capable ESPECIALLY given the similiarities.



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.).

Frankly, I'm a little tired of hearing that. It's one thing to realize that our system, such as it is, can be faulty from time to time but quite another to witness the DT cloud the the courtroom with "smoke" bringing up sexual abuse and drowning with GA participating in the act? Those were out and out lies and they SHOULD be expected to prove their words especially in the case of a "death penalty". For not having to prove anything, they sure did their da*ndest to create a fantastic "story" with no backup, and then to think that some actually bought it? What does that say about our "system"? I'll tell you what it says to me. Caylee Anthony lost her life and no one was held accountable because of people playing with words that resemble nothing close to the truth. If her defense team were to try to reinforce her image, they should be telling us all about her "work she wanted to do to help find missing children" if she ever got out of jail. IIRC, that's what she said she wanted to do. Instead, they are negotiating how much money she can make.

 

[beccalecca1]

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.

Closing statements were done before they deliberated, but after all the evidence was presented. If they had their minds made up then, I don't think it's because they chose not to listen to the evidence. They had more then enough time to hear it all and think about it before closing arguments.

 

[beccalecca1]

They speculated that GA wasn't believable and speculated on the so-called lack of evidence.[/B]

IMO, showing GA's lies on the stand wasn't speculation. They didn't have to speculate he lied, it was shown over and over throughout trial. IMO, a liar isn't a believable person.

The jury speculated that the Prosecution could not prove "cause of death" but that wasn't, by law, up to the jurors for speculation!

How can you speculate on the prosecution proving cause of death? The cause of death is either black and white, or up to the jurors to decide if the prosecution proved it. There is no speculation the prosecution proved it or didn't prove it. They ruled they didn't prove it and that was that. No speculation I can see.

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:

I don't think any single person who agrees or disagrees with the verdict doubts that Caylee is the victim. Yelling it in caps doesn't make it more meaningful to anyone here, we all feel the same about Caylee. But, we just don't agree on if it was right to be guilty or not guilty.

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:

I don't believe I'm spinning anything really. I mean, if I thought she wouldn't be found guilty after Prosecution rested, and come to find out she wasn't found guilty; I couldn't have spun it too far really. I believe the other 2/3rds of the country applied just as much anger, hatred, and emotion in their beliefs as what is being shown. That is why, IMO, there is no understanding on what actually happened here. It's just more hatred spread from Casey alone to the jury and any other members of society who happen to agree with what the jury says.

 

[Baznme]

Closing statements were done before they deliberated, but after all the evidence was presented. If they had their minds made up then, I don't think it's because they chose not to listen to the evidence. They had more then enough time to hear it all and think about it before closing arguments.

As complex as this case was, their minds should have been "made up" during deliberations. That's what deliberations are for. Having enough time to hear it all and think about it does not equate to a fair or just means to come up with a verdict.

As far as the evidence, it's apparant that they didn't understand the evidence.

 

[Sustained]

As complex as this case was, their minds should have been "made up" during deliberations. That's what deliberations are for. Having enough time to hear it all and think about it does not equate to a fair or just means to come up with a verdict.

As far as the evidence, it's apparant that they didn't understand the evidence.

Respectfully copied from another WS forum ...

http://caseyanthonyjurors.weebly.com/

 

[stilettos]

The Medical Examiner says otherwise. As part of the MEO's investigation being thrown away in trash bags is considered evidence of a homicide.

BTW it's DUCT tape not DUCK tape. Developed to be used on duct work like heat and air.

Thank you for pointing out the above bbm, I was beginning to doubt my sanity and think that Duck hunters had developed their own special brand of tape.:floorlaugh:

 

[stilettos]

BRAVO RR0004!!!! :rocker::rocker::rocker:

Finally!!! A voice of reason!!!

You are exactly right! The jury was to decide on GUILT FIRST then if she was found guilty, they went to the PENALTY phase! These jurors were so confused they didn't know if they were deciding guilt or death! :banghead:

From the interviews I've heard from Jennifer Ford, she seems inept when discussing why they found her not guilty. She didn't realize they (they jurors) had to decide GUILT FIRST then PENALTY SECOND!!!

Came back to add this: I wonder if the jurors were paying any attention at all when Judge Perry was reading the instructions? Did they fall asleep? Did they lose interest? They could've easily asked for clarification on the instructions but not ONE juror did that!

Another opinion of mine is the jurors did not want to stick around Orlanda another 5+ days for a penalty phase. I would bet my bottom dollar that these 5 extra days were discussed in the deliberations and an all-important-cruise outweighed the death of a precious, innocent child. :furious:

:banghead:Ya think if they were confused...they could have at least taken the time to reread the jury intstructions...I have never seen twelve people who had more difficulty following directions.

 

[rollinginit]

Thank you for pointing out the above bbm, I was beginning to doubt my sanity and think that Duck hunters had developed their own special brand of tape.:floorlaugh:

http://www.octanecreative.com/ducttape/duckvsduct.html

Is it Duct or Duck? We don’t want you to be confused, so we will explain. The first name for Duct Tape was DUCK. During World War II the U.S. Military needed a waterproof tape to keep the moisture out of ammunition cases. So, they enlisted the Johnson and Johnson Permacel Division to manufacture the tape. Because it was waterproof, everyone referred to it as “duck” tape (like water off a duck’s back). Military personnel discovered that the tape was good for lots more than keeping out water. They used it for Jeep repair, fixing stuff on their guns, strapping equipment to their clothing... the list is endless.

After the War, the housing industry was booming and someone discovered that the tape was great for joining the heating and air conditioning duct work. So, the color was changed from army green to the silvery color we are familiar with today and people started to refer to it as “duct tape*.” Therefore, either name is appropriate.

 

[beccalecca1]

Not as big a leap as the DT opening statement of a drowning and sexual abuse ...

I disagree... it's a bigger leap to say some random hair landed on a pair of pliers in a boat of someone, with the original person never being on the boat to begin with. Then, to top it off, this person winds up dead, at the bottom of a lake that this boat was taken on. Not too far to leap.

 

[stilettos]

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

You'd be surprised at the latitude Judges are given to keep order to a courtroom..if he feels the defense is throwing made up and outright lies to obfuscate and taint the jury...then yes, he can and should stop it in the manner he sees fit legally. Baez concocted a story that he knew to be untrue...ethics charges should be drought and his license yanked.

 

[stilettos]

http://www.octanecreative.com/ducttape/duckvsduct.html

Thanks. Then the military green tape is properly referred to as Duck tape...while the silver tape is properly referred to as Duct tape. Which type was used on poor Caylee the murder victim?

 

[beccalecca1]

Leaps? Penis- mouth=dead baby-accidental drowning comes to mind. Why would there be a hair on pliers? Why would there be a hair in Casey's trunk (along with decomp., chloroform, etc.)?
JMHO

Well, there would be hair in Casey's trunk that belonged to Caylee because they rode in that car together pretty much daily. Caylee's belongings were stored in the trunk. Pretty easy to figure out how it got transferred there.

As far as decomp, IMO it wasn't proven. Yes, there was chloroform proven in the trunk, but who knows what exact amount (either loads of the stuff or little). In the beginning of these threads I posted the odds of the chemicals found in the trunk equating to a human decompositional event... the odds were pretty low (IIRC it was somewhere like 4/36... or close to that) And the odds were even worse if you were to consider the other researcher's (1/80+). I don't believe there was human decomp in the trunk, and I don't believe it because I'm using logic to calculate what is the probability of it being true, the probability IMO is pretty low.

 

[beccalecca1]

As a first reporter you are the one to provide information...and if that child is in your care for x number of hours a day I can't possibly see how you can separate yourself and find it is no longer your business...but that's just me. And, yes...there is a follow-up investigation...and additional questioning...so it's not just "report" and "see ya". Maybe in your line of work it is...but NOT mine. If someone comes into your office or place of business and you see repeated instances of abuse, you are responsible for reporting that as well...and NO it's not considered harassment.

I never meant to imply reporting is considered harassment. But, after reporting if you continue to follow up on it and that is NOT your line of work, it could be considered harassment BECAUSE it isn't your business anymore. Like it or not, criminals are provided the same civil rights we are. Abusers or not, they have rights and me, as a nurse, has no business in their personal life finding information out.

And, in all honesty, it's not a matter of if I can separate myself from the situation; it's a matter of I have to separate myself if I don't want my license on the line. I may be bothered by the situation and get frustrated, but I can't follow up on these things as a nurse unless the situation presents itself in front of me again. I enjoy my job, I enjoy helping those who need it. And, when I report things like that, that is all I'm suppose to do.

 

[Sustained]

I disagree... it's a bigger leap to say some random hair landed on a pair of pliers in a boat of someone, with the original person never being on the boat to begin with. Then, to top it off, this person winds up dead, at the bottom of a lake that this boat was taken on. Not too far to leap.

How do you know if Laci was ever on the boat ? SP bought the boat on 12/9 and Laci was reported missing 12/24. How do you know that SP did not take Laci to see the boat between 12/9 and 12/24 and she climbed in to check it out ?

 

[sacrablue]

Well, there would be hair in Casey's trunk that belonged to Caylee because they rode in that car together pretty much daily. Caylee's belongings were stored in the trunk. Pretty easy to figure out how it got transferred there.

As far as decomp, IMO it wasn't proven. Yes, there was chloroform proven in the trunk, but who knows what exact amount (either loads of the stuff or little). In the beginning of these threads I posted the odds of the chemicals found in the trunk equating to a human decompositional event... the odds were pretty low (IIRC it was somewhere like 4/36... or close to that) And the odds were even worse if you were to consider the other researcher's (1/80+). I don't believe there was human decomp in the trunk, and I don't believe it because I'm using logic to calculate what is the probability of it being true, the probability IMO is pretty low.

You just tripped beccalecca. If there is one thing that is 100% positive for sure without any doubt...there was human decomp in the trunk of the Pontiac. Someday maybe never I hope you will smell human decomp. There is nothing on this planet that smells like it.

 

[Sustained]

Well, there would be hair in Casey's trunk that belonged to Caylee because they rode in that car together pretty much daily. Caylee's belongings were stored in the trunk. Pretty easy to figure out how it got transferred there.

As far as decomp, IMO it wasn't proven. Yes, there was chloroform proven in the trunk, but who knows what exact amount (either loads of the stuff or little). In the beginning of these threads I posted the odds of the chemicals found in the trunk equating to a human decompositional event... the odds were pretty low (IIRC it was somewhere like 4/36... or close to that) And the odds were even worse if you were to consider the other researcher's (1/80+). I don't believe there was human decomp in the trunk, and I don't believe it because I'm using logic to calculate what is the probability of it being true, the probability IMO is pretty low.

No decomp ? So you're ignoring the work of the cadaver dogs, plus all of the other witnesses who testified to the decomp smell coming from the car ? Why did the car smell 2 years after the car was found ? From garbage wrappers with no food on them ?

 

[beccalecca1]

Did you see the condition of the duct tape...the clothes...the blanket? That's what happens after exposure to the elements...dna degrades...period. Was the duct tape attached to a hair mass? Do you think it blew through the wind and affixed itself to Caylee's mandible or do you believe like Spitz that someone came along and put it there? The jury IMO found unreasonable explanations to this evidence. The evidence left as it was by the storm may not explain the cause of death...but it does explain the manner. What I don't get, did the jury really think they were smarter than Dr. G.? That just floors me.

I don't believe I was disputing if the duct tape was present. I was disputing that people argue that the hurricane washed away all DNA evidence, but miraculously the duct tape held it's original position. I'm just not buying it.

I don't believe the duct tape affixed itself to the mandible because it was not affixed to the mandible. It was lying over the mandible area, but not attached in any way.

And, IMO, the main thing that hurt Dr. G's opinion was her saying 100% of all accidents are reported. One member of the jury was a nursing student, and as a member of the medical field you know nothing is ever 100%. Nothing. If Dr. G's said "a majority", "95%", etc... I think it would have held more water. But, when she used the words "100%", it made her appear to be emotionally involved and not able to make an objective opinion. JMO :innocent:

 

[pcrum12]

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

Outstanding Post :rocker: Are you reading my mind? Lol.

 

[beccalecca1]

ITA the fact the jurors (foreman comes to mind here) speculated maybe GA was involved in a murder was totally uncalled for. after all even JB said no one murdered anyone.

My OP stated you shouldn't convict based on speculation. GA was not on trial, therefore he was not convicted. I'm not sure what this response means in regards to my post.