The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?

[RANCH]

I've lost both of my parents since my son died and my Father in law died yesterday morning after a brief illness.Very different.Still hard ,though : (

My prayers are with you. My Aunt that I spoke of just lost her Husband of 30 years last week. Thats what I worry about. She's by her self now. I talked to her and I believe she's ok.Sorry for off topic.

 

[Caligram]

Whatever happened to Ann Finnel and her research into the background to plead for mercy for FCA after she was sentenced and received the DP. Did she find out that there really wasn't anything to excuse FCA's behavior? This case had far too many unexcusable delays. Finally, after all those defense attorneys coming and going, three years of delays, inadequate documentation material turned over to the SA...the end was in sight. Jury chosen. The "story" the DT grabbed at like a rope thrown to a drowning man was ready. JB threw out an undocumented unproven sexual abuse and drowning saga in an opening statement that shocked the courtroom. BTW...I wonder what dirt Ann Finnel was able to dig up to help FCA when the verdict was the DP they didn't get. She was going to argue for "mercy" for FCA. So many things we will never find out, truth be damned.

This is all IMHO. People do state their opinion on this site. It isn't a big deal if you disagree. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

:cow::cow::cow::cow::cow::cow:

 

[cluciano63]

I understand that, all science has to start somewhere in someone's courtroom at sometime. However, I just didn't buy the air sample/chloroform science. Considering 2 samples were taken at the same time and sent to two separate labs and yielded two different opinions, I side with the FBI lab. All JMOO.

I had trouble with the air samples as well, and as far as DNA goes, I know I had heard of it years before 1994. That doesn't mean the jurors had, but it was not an entirely new concept. I think it will be a while before anyone is convicted of murder based on a smell, JMO. (And no, I am not saying that was the only evidence, am just speaking theoretically as to future cases.)

 

[cuppy199]

I understand that, all science has to start somewhere in someone's courtroom at sometime. However, I just didn't buy the air sample/chloroform science. Considering 2 samples were taken at the same time and sent to two separate labs and yielded two different opinions, I side with the FBI lab. All JMOO.

Wasn't the hair with the death band also tested by the FBI?

 

[krkrjx]

I do not have a problem with a jury that finds fault with a piece of evidence, and thus does not give that piece of evidence much consideration. In this case, the problem is that when all the evidence is taken as a whole it screams guilt! This jury did not deliberate long enough, IMO, to have gone over all the evidence. They never questioned any testimony for purposes of clarification, even though some of it was scientific in nature and not easy to understand. It is as if the jury discarded all evidence and all testimony, without giving any of it any consideration at all. They did, apparently, give much consideration to the defense opening statement, something that by law they were not supposed give any credence at all.

Something is radically wrong here!

 

[MissJames]

http://www.webmd.com/balance/tc/grief-and-grieving-symptoms

Yes, Casey wasn't legally a teen anymore, but I would argue her behavior was that of a teenager (stealing, etc.)

The Bolded part is not referring to teens who are happily dating,cooking for friends, and looking like they are having a wonderful time dancing and posing for pics at a nightclub.

The teens who exhibit reckless behavior are full of angst,emotional,moody and drink or use drugs heavily to blot out their pain .But you can see the pain. JMO

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I think it was just as much evidence as the computer search after being on myspace seeing your boyfriend post reference to chloroform and researching it 1 time not 84 and in MARCH not June.

She did not search "chloroform" or "what is chloroform" but "how to make chloroform." There's a big difference there that is being ignored.

Just as much evidence as LE using unproven never before used in a court of law air samples that lo and behold showed SHOCKING level of chloroform but yet fbi stated level was normal to cleaning product.

Simply because something is new and never been used in court before shouldn't discredit its validity. Remember DNA? It, at one time was new and shocking. Now, apparently, we cannot seem to convict without its presence. Can you please provide a link to that FBI statement, please?

Just as much evidence as finding tape attached to hair but presenting it as covering mouth and nose while acknowledging that animals had disturbed the remains, RK had disturbed the remain, and that this tape held the mandible even though plant growth could have as well.

What innocent scenario can you present as to the reason duct tape would be anywhere even near Caylee's face?

It is all inference. Not proven IMO.

The same can be said about the PT theory as is stated about the DT theory, that if you manipulate the "evidence" enough you can make or Break a case.

These are facts not inferences. Casey's search was on "how to make chloroform. There were high levels of that in her trunk along with the strong scent of decomp that two dogs hit on and Caylee's hair with the death band. And duct tape still interwoven so tightly in her hair that even a storm, flood waters and six months couldn't dislodge it. If these facts were manipulated, it was by Jose, not the state.

Alot has been said about Casey not grieving. However, I have witnessed Casey grieve during the jailhouse tapes and during the trial. Yes she lied, yes she covered up, and yes she at times appeared aloof, but I still see some grief and fear. She at times works at not showing any emotion and that could be coping mechanism. Her personality reeks of denial just like CA does.

Jose claims, in his recent statements, that Casey has never grieved for Caylee; that she is only now trying to do so. He says that's why she needs some counseling. So, if you believe what Casey tells her "team," that was not grief that you saw.

Alot has been stated about Casey living it up staying with her boyfriend and partying down. I disagree. Yes she stayed at TL's, she didn't want to face her Mother. She didn't want to face losing Caylee. Yes she went to Fusion a couple weekend nights with the boyfriend she was staying with, trying to appear normal. Yes, she drank to help numb her fear and grief. However, I've seen no evidence of her partying down for 31 days.

According to the date that Casey claims as Caylee's last day, she and Tony watched a movie from Blockbusters and had such great sex all night long that he skipped classes all the next day. This is in Tony's testimony. I don't know how many weekends it was; but she was totally involved with all of Tony's activities to promote partying at Fusion. FGS, she was bulk emailing all of her contacts to participate. She was an unsalaried employee. (Insert picture here of grieving mother in Hot Body Contest.)

Of course, you know what opinions are like, everyone has one. Those that do not agree with the verdict will probably never change their stance. I can only speak for myself, but I could be swayed should I actually see Evidence not inference that she killed the child.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence. I'm not clear on what evidence you would consider "not inference" lacking a confession or video tape of the murder.

I apologize for rambling on. Didn't realize I had wrote a book lol.

MOO MOO MOO

I have bolded my own observations to your post.

 

[Sustained]

I understand that, all science has to start somewhere in someone's courtroom at sometime. However, I just didn't buy the air sample/chloroform science. Considering 2 samples were taken at the same time and sent to two separate labs and yielded two different opinions, I side with the FBI lab. All JMOO.

Not me, I side with Dr. Vass and the Body Farm. Dr. Vass has 15+ years of experience looking specifically at dead bodies, how they decompose, and what chemical compounds are emitted during various phases of decomposition. Can the FBI make that claim ? ...

Kind of like going to a general practictioner when you need a neurosurgeon ...

 

[LinTX]

I understand that, all science has to start somewhere in someone's courtroom at sometime. However, I just didn't buy the air sample/chloroform science. Considering 2 samples were taken at the same time and sent to two separate labs and yielded two different opinions, I side with the FBI lab. All JMOO.

You fell for the tricks JB pulled by phrasing his repeated questions as "were the results significantly lower than your control" and his (and Dr. Furton's) bit about 'ewww, qualitative' but if you go back and listen to his testimony *and* both redirects by JA, you'll see he never meant what you thought regarding comparison to cleaning products. Dr. Vass did not only do air samples from the trunk...he also extracted from the actual carpet and ran the same GC-MS tests on it that the FBI did (in addition to his tests on air from the trunk - which were the 'new' science, and LIBS). If you side with Dr. R on chloroform, you are sitting there right beside Dr. Vass. Dr. Vass is not junk science - that's why the FBI and other government agencies pay him to do research for them - but I understand being cautious about that part of his testimony since it was new to the courts. He is considered one of the foremost experts on decomposition and JB should be disgraced for pulling the stunts he pulled with the SA's witnesses.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6959360&postcount=449"]http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6959360&postcount=449[/ame]

 

[MissJames]

Bottom line,I just don't get how a picture of Caylee climbing the stairs to the pool ,from the year before her death, trumps the three strips of duct tape placed over her face.

I don't get why anyone would believe Krystal Holloway ,the woman who uses an alias,swore she did not have an affair with GA, and then got paid to say she DID have an affair with GA.

I just don't get how anyone could believe a mother or a grandfather would bag up a child they loved and throw them in the woods after an accident.

 

[jandkmom]

You fell for the tricks JB pulled by phrasing his repeated questions as "were the results significantly lower than your control" and his (and Dr. Furton's) bit about 'ewww, qualitative' but if you go back and listen to his testimony *and* both redirects by JA, you'll see he never meant what you thought regarding comparison to cleaning products. Dr. Vass did not only do air samples from the trunk...he also extracted from the actual carpet and ran the same GC-MS tests on it that the FBI did (in addition to his tests on air from the trunk - which were the 'new' science, and LIBS). If you side with Dr. R on chloroform, you are sitting there right beside Dr. Vass. Dr. Vass is not junk science - that's why the FBI and other government agencies pay him to do research for them - but I understand being cautious about that part of his testimony since it was new to the courts. He is considered one of the foremost experts on decomposition and JB should be disgraced for pulling the stunts he pulled with the SA's witnesses.
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6959360&postcount=449

And when the FBI guy did the air test, hadn't the carpet been removed? I think JA asked him if he knew that and he didn't know that it had.

 

[LinTX]

And when the FBI guy did the air test, hadn't the carpet been removed? I think JA asked him if he knew that and he didn't know that it had.

Dr. R had actual samples from the carpet, but I can't quite put my finger on who that was...maybe someone else might remember the who and what on that?

eta: did a quick search and found it. That was Dr. Michael Sigman, the guy that is now a professor but had once worked under Dr. Vass at the Body Farm. He found weak results, but then had to admit his samples were taken 4 days after the carpet had been removed ...one of JB's paid 'experts' :floorlaugh:

 

[NotRocketSighence]

I do not have a problem with a jury that finds fault with a piece of evidence, and thus does not give that piece of evidence much consideration. In this case, the problem is that when all the evidence is taken as a whole it screams guilt! This jury did not deliberate long enough, IMO, to have gone over all the evidence. They never questioned any testimony for purposes of clarification, even though some of it was scientific in nature and not easy to understand. It is as if the jury discarded all evidence and all testimony, without giving any of it any consideration at all. They did, apparently, give much consideration to the defense opening statement, something that by law they were not supposed give any credence at all.

Something is radically wrong here!

Question. If the jury found her guilty would you still say the same thing ?

Thanks in advance.

 

[krt]

Yes the jury royally screwed up and failed to take their position seriously or understand general jury instructions. Mastercard should do a commercial based on Casey Anthony. Mom and Dad 25 cents, Caylee 1 cent......getting away with murder? PRICELESS!

 

[krkrjx]

Question. If the jury found her guilty would you still say the same thing ?

Thanks in advance.

Nope, because if the jury had found her guilty, it would mean they had considered all the evidence and testimony, and had NOT considered the defense opening statement.

Which, by jury instructions, is what they should have done!

I will, however, guess that had the jury come back with a verdict of guilty after only a few hours' deliberation, the defense would have jumped on that in an appeal, claiming they could not have properly considered all the evidence and testimony in that amount of time. How sad it is that in our justice system only one side has recourse to right a wrong.

 

[lauriej]

Why is it easier to think a mother murdered her child, drove around with her for a few days, then dumped her child in a swamp..... and not easier to think the child accidently drowned?

..looking at the big picture, and all of the evidence----there is much more to support scenario A than scenario B.

..is it easier to think that a young mother whose child had accidentally drowned would call 911?...... or keep this to herself for 3 years while sitting in a jail cell, playing the roll of the dice that she would NOT get the Death Penalty @ trial?

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

Question. If the jury found her guilty would you still say the same thing ?

Thanks in advance.

Considering all of the inane statements and obvious confusion they have revealed in their interviews, I would be shocked no matter what they decided as their final verdict.

I don't believe anyone who posts here would feel justice had been done if it had been accomplished through the back door! The implication is offensive!

 

[krkrjx]

The few jurors who have spoken out so far clearly show that they did not undersand the meaning of "reasnable doubt," or that the state was not required to prove time of death. I realize the one who made the most outrageous statements was an alternate who did not vote, but the others have spoken who did vote have shown that they may have confused shadow of a doubt with reasonable doubt.

IMO.

 

[lauriej]

P.S. Outside of my earlier post, when did she grieve? After more than 3 yrs. of following this case, you mean to tell me I missed that?
:great:

..don't panic----you didn't miss anything.

..we just heard that kc is saying NO to interviews! ( which is odd----as the media just happens to be saying NO to her too...)

..her reason-----she has never properly grieved over losing caylee.

..so---that grief is to be kicking in any day now. ( if what we're hearing isn't a mis-truth ).

( question-----if a person grieves in private, do they still poke themselves in the eye and check for fake tears? )

 

[Trapshooter]

Why is it easier to think a mother murdered her child, drove around with her for a few days, then dumped her child in a swamp..... and not easier to think the child accidently drowned?

It isn't easier to think a mother murdered her child. That sentence in itself is hard to type. There was absolutely NO evidence presented that there was an ACCIDENTAL drowning. The key word here being ACCIDENT. Why would the child need to be dumped in a swamp if she drowned?

And how do you know that the sociopathic symptoms didn't show up much earlier and were ignored by the A's ?

IMO, the sociopathy reared it's ugly head many times throughout the course of Casey's life. That's why GA & CA treated her with "kid gloves" and "walked on eggshells" around her. They didn't want to upset Casey for fear of her wrath! Remember Cindy trying to calm Casey in one of the jailhouse interviews? "Casey, calm down sweetheart...."

My 15 year old son died when his siblings were 3,5,16,20,24and 27.He had cousins and many friends.NONE of them acted like nothing was wrong,let's go rent some videos.NONE of them pretended like he was hanging out somewhere else,let's go clubbing . We only had to explain death to our 5 year old (3 year old is developmentally disabled).He saw a therapist for 6 visits because he was present when his brother was found and it was traumatic. Now he's 11 and still talks about it.
School friends collected at our home,cried together ,wanted to participate in the funeral service and were obviously grieving. They made photo collages and had his soccer uniform framed for us.Many of them were unable to return to school for weeks,which created a problem,since it wasn't a legal excuse,but were grieving,torn up,unable to concentrate.

I'm not seeing Casey as a grieving anything. Not a grieving mom,for sure.Not a grieving young adult or a grieving child. She looks more like someone who was happy and having a great time.She looks carefree . Her actions after her own child died look exactly like someone who didn't care at all that her baby was dead. She wasn't grieving like a child or "ugly coping",she was celebrating her new "beautiful life".

MissJames my heart goes out to you. Every time I see you post, my heart hurts so much for you. You are always close to my heart and in my prayers. :blowkiss:

I do not have a problem with a jury that finds fault with a piece of evidence, and thus does not give that piece of evidence much consideration. In this case, the problem is that when all the evidence is taken as a whole it screams guilt! This jury did not deliberate long enough, IMO, to have gone over all the evidence. They never questioned any testimony for purposes of clarification, even though some of it was scientific in nature and not easy to understand. It is as if the jury discarded all evidence and all testimony, without giving any of it any consideration at all. They did, apparently, give much consideration to the defense opening statement, something that by law they were not supposed give any credence at all.

Something is radically wrong here!

Great points krkrjx!!! The jury did NOT have enough time to read the jury instructions, much less deliberate. :furious: If this jury had understood that it was not the Prosecution's job to prove cause and time of death, we may be writing a completely different story today! This jury was LAZY!!! They didn't want to "work" or "think" to reach a REASONABLE verdict.

Dr. R had actual samples from the carpet, but I can't quite put my finger on who that was...maybe someone else might remember the who and what on that?

eta: did a quick search and found it. That was Dr. Michael Sigman, the guy that is now a professor but had once worked under Dr. Vass at the Body Farm. He found weak results, but then had to admit his samples were taken 4 days after the carpet had been removed ...one of JB's paid 'experts' :floorlaugh:

LOL IIRC wasn't Dr. Tim Huntington an "understudy" of Dr Vass? Dr. Huntington thought he was George Clooney on the witness stand and tried to "school" the jurors and the audience. Jeff Ashton made sure all that backfired right in his face! :floorlaugh: