The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?

[imagirlgeek]

If Casey had given Caylee chloroform to be put to sleep while she partied and as the result, she died, that would be by law, Involuntary manslaughter, not aggravated manslaughter, or aggravated child abuse. There is a difference. Aggravated manslaughter means that she would have given her the chloroform with the intention of killing Caylee. Aggravated mean with intent to murder. Aggravated child abuse, mean with the intent to abuse/harm the child. I think this is why so many people didn't understand the verdict. Even though everyone really believes (knows) KC was somehow involved, you have to know what she did to convict her, this is the reasonable doubt, I believe, that partly found her-- not guilty--.
Was it child abuse? I think it was, but the charge was Aggravated Child Abuse.

Florida State Statute:

827.03 Abuse, aggravated abuse, and neglect of a child; penalties.—
(1) “Child abuse” means:
(a) Intentional infliction of physical or mental injury upon a child;
(b) An intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child; or
(c) Active encouragement of any person to commit an act that results or could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child.
A person who knowingly or willfully abuses a child without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(2) “Aggravated child abuse” occurs when a person:
(a) Commits aggravated battery on a child;
(b) Willfully tortures, maliciously punishes, or willfully and unlawfully cages a child; or
(c) Knowingly or willfully abuses a child and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child.

Using any type of dangerous chemical substance to drug or disable your child, IMO, absolutely fits into the state's definition of Aggravated Child Abuse. The only way around this, IMO, is if Caylee was accidentally exposed to Chloroform.

The jury members who have spoken out so far have said they don't believe KC is 'innocent', so that tells me they don't buy into the idea that it was an accidental anything.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

Wrong.

Judge Perry explained to the jury that there are two elements to aggravated manslaughter.
#1 Child is dead;
#2 Person charged acted with culpable negligence - when you do an act or follow a course of conduct that you should have known would cause harm.

So, if you administer chloroform to another (which is illegal in itself - exception medical personnel & there are stringent requirements on medical use due to its inherent danger) and that person dies - it is culpable negligence.

Judge also told the jury that Casey was the caretaker of the child.

The problem is that the use of chloroform to kill Caylee was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so how could the jury use it to give a guilty verdict to the charge?

 

[Italy]

I think the definition of Aggravated Manslaughter covers it.


http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/criminal/charges/homicide7.pdf

Every web page I have seen regarding chloroform has a specific warning that it could cause death. If KC applied chloroform and Caylee died as a result, then KC disregarded the warning that chloroform can cause death. That is not involuntary. Sounds aggravated to me.

(disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and never slept at a Holiday Inn Express)

The judge very clearly explained what is aggravated manslaughter and explained the elements. It was simply one more thing the jury decided was unimportant or that they knew better.

One juror has stated that he didn't know who the caretaker of Caylee was so was unable to consider even the aggravated child abuse charge (despite the fact that in his instructions to the jury, the judge told them Casey was caretaker).

 

[1Chump]

None of the legal minds such as higher court judges, law professors etc., who have commented on the case post verdict, were shocked.[/[/B] I as a layperson was not shocked.

But then I don't need pictures to accompany words to follow what an expert is saying during testimony. But then I was very clear about what was required as circumstantial evidence as the trial progressed.

And I have to admit I was shocked that Dr. Spitz would expose his inability to maintain his education in the med/surg equipment techniques and his loss of memory about the case and recent events (and I've been kind in that statement) on the stand after what has been a fine career in his earlier days. He appeared to be a typical bumbling old dog who refuses to admit his day in the sun is over. Very sad really.

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.

IMO, I actually wish I was a "layperson." Maybe then I could understand all the outrage. Because after talking with several former colleagues, we all agree we would NEVER take this case as presented to a civil jury. We could. But just because you can does not mean you should. Now we also agree in ways we coud make the case stronger just from what was presented in court.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[logicalgirl]

I have to admit, the head shaking no or yes, the attorney hugging, the hankie nose wipe and examination, the hide head look, the can't look at disturbing evdence look, the pat on the back by attorney look, the nose squeeze until face turned red look would not have worked with me. No, I see a total fake. I cried harder when I put my dog to sleep. I would say I can tell when there is a act going on. And that is pretty sad if you got to act remorse for your dead child.

Yes, true - and I found myself shouting at my computer screen a couple of times while watching the trial - ICA, ICA - pay attention to the trial and what is going on around you! You have missed your cue! Assume the thinker pose!:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[EPfan]

According to these jurors Scott Peterson should be set free. There was less circumstantial evidence in his case than in this one. Everything coming from these jurors is complete BS. The fact that all 12 voted not guilty on counts 2 and 3 should tell us that there is now a great schism in our society regarding critical thought which may go beyond the accepted polarities of liberal versus conservative.

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.
He made cement anchors. (which was proven)
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.

It wasn't proven KC made chloroform. It wasn't proven that she bought the materials, nothing proven she made the chloroform.
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.
The duck tape: she lived where the duck tape was, but so did everyone in the household.
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.
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.
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.
Partying was used for KC for the procecution, but I don't think the jury bought that.

If there wouldn't have been evidence

 

[sacrablue]

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.

IMO, I actually wish I was a "layperson." Maybe then I could understand all the outrage. Because after talking with several former colleagues, we all agree we would NEVER take this case as presented to a civil jury. We could. But just because you can does not mean you should. Now we also agree in ways we coud make the case stronger just from what was presented in court.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Interesting, an example of an assumption with no evidence please by prosecution?

 

[logicalgirl]

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.

IMO, I actually wish I was a "layperson." Maybe then I could understand all the outrage. Because after talking with several former colleagues, we all agree we would NEVER take this case as presented to a civil jury. We could. But just because you can does not mean you should. Now we also agree in ways we coud make the case stronger just from what was presented in court.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Now that's odd - because as a layperson, I heard both GA and CA testify that only FCA drove the car.....and I was able to make the leap that if the car smelled and FCA did not know the cause of it - or believed her father had caused the smell, and GA was the person who handled all the cleaning of the cars, she would have told GA to clean up his mess, rather than dumping the car at Amscot like she did. Details details - I went into this case with an open mind - but the overwhelming circumstantial and forensic evidence always came back to FCA. Fortunately bigger legal minds also overwhelmingly agree with me.

So while I have to live with the verdict, I know two things - an injustice has been done - and always be careful what you wish for. How's that working for you Jose? George and Cindy?

 

[EPfan]

I think the definition of Aggravated Manslaughter covers it.


http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/criminal/charges/homicide7.pdf

Every web page I have seen regarding chloroform has a specific warning that it could cause death. If KC applied chloroform and Caylee died as a result, then KC disregarded the warning that chloroform can cause death. That is not involuntary. Sounds aggravated to me.

(disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and never slept at a Holiday Inn Express)

I was just stating what the law says. The Judge explained it different to the jury, as someone here posted.

I agree with you, but I don't think the JURY thought she chloroformed Caylee.
Or, should I say there was enough proof of it, or proof of her making it, or proof that she had it in her pocession. I think the procecution should have focused on this chloroform, beside just saying she was on the site 84 times.

 

[Italy]

The problem is that the use of chloroform was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so how could the jury use it to give a guilty verdict to the charge?

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.

 

[EPfan]

ITA. And let me add that I found GA's emotional breakdown on the stand much more convincing. It was raw, real, and very difficult to watch. I couldn't hold back my own tears listening to his testimony.

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!!!!!

 

[gladiatorqueen]

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.

I know what post you were responding to. I made my point. I am not going to argue back and forth aboutit. We will have to agree to disagree. Cheers.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

I agree with you, but I don't think the JURY thought she chloroformed Caylee.

Or, should I say there was enough proof of it, or proof of her making it, or proof that she had it in her pocession. I think the procecution should have focused on this chloroform, beside just saying she was on the site 84 times.

Which, of course, the 84 times proved to be wrong. It was only once.

 

[logicalgirl]

Which, of course, the 84 times proved to be wrong. It was only once.

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?

 

[logicalgirl]

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!!!!!

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:

 

[EPfan]

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.

IMO, I actually wish I was a "layperson." Maybe then I could understand all the outrage. Because after talking with several former colleagues, we all agree we would NEVER take this case as presented to a civil jury. We could. But just because you can does not mean you should. Now we also agree in ways we coud make the case stronger just from what was presented in court.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thank YOU for posting this!!
This is exactly the way I felt, and still do, I just didn't know to put it all in words. Thanks Again!!!

 

[Italy]

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!!!!!

You honestly cannot think of a reason why a man would lie about an affair?

 

[EPfan]

Would placing three pieces of duct tape over a child's airways be considered aggravated manslaughter/aggravated child abuse?

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.

 

[EPfan]

You honestly cannot think of a reason why a man would lie about an affair?

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!!!!

 

[RANCH]

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.

Motive, means and opportunity.Or do we need an eye witness to prove who placed the tape on Caylee?A video would be better I presume.