Through a Juror's Eyes/What do those who haven't followed the case believe? (Merged)

[linda505]

Hi all,
New to the forum - been reading the trial thread while trying to catch as much of the trial as I can (while pretending to work). I did not follow this case closely at all until the trial process began. I knew the basic info - ie missing for a month before being reported - the Zanny story - and the party girl pictures - but did not know about any of the evidence etc.

My general consensus is that Casey was responsible for Caylees death - but I am not convinced how or why yet at this point in the trial. Things that make me wonder at this point is why Kronk didn't testify for the state - makes me wonder what the state was concerned about his testimony, what does the gas cans have to do with anything - to me I finished that part of the trial and just went huh? How did Kronk find that skull when everyone has testified that is was very hard to see in the woods and was covered up to the eye sockets with plants - just seems strange that he saw it and knew it was a skull - when it was described as looking like a white round rock. If he didn't touch it or move it - how did he know it was a skull? Just my questions as someone who hasn't followed the case. Again, I don't buy the Defenses story about George either - but if this was all the info I had at this point - I could not convict her of 1st degree murder.

 

[marspiter]

Yes but Casey and Caylee went swimming lots of places. Two I know of were Chris's moms and toni apartment.

Baez was just pointing out in the only way he can that Chloroform is alot more common then people think . In cleaning product ,swimming pools ,drinking water..

The problem with that theory from the defense is that Chloroform does dissipate very rapidly. Also there would only be very very small amounts of Chloroform from Chlorinated water. Most EPA standards are measured in ppb (parts per billion), the samples in the trunk measured in the parts per million. Yes it's still a small amount but that's relative. Going from measures of ppb to ppm is huge.

So if we are to believe that the chloroform came from swimming in a pool then why the "large" amounts of it at the time of testing? To me seeing a measure of ppm in a sample that old would indicate only one thing. A more pure source Chloroform was used and not a source with chloroform as merely a contaminate.

 

[Soulmagent]

The problem with that theory from the defense is that Chloroform does dissipate very rapidly. Also there would only be very very small amounts of Chloroform from Chlorinated water. Most EPA standards are measured in ppb (parts per billion), the samples in the trunk measured in the parts per million. Yes it's still a small amount but that's relative. Going from measures of ppb to ppm is huge.

So if we are to believe that the chloroform came from swimming in a pool then why the "large" amounts of it at the time of testing? To me seeing a measure of ppm in a sample that old would indicate only one thing. A more pure source Chloroform was used and not a source with chloroform as merely a contaminate.

The swimsuit thing is not my point to be made I only mention the other pools as a rebutal for the posters who are saying "the anthonys didnt use cholrine in their pool. "

Every keeps asking why the SA doesnt bring that up. I do not believe a swimsuit caused the chlorofrom to test in the car but I do believe something happen beside Casey made it.

I think I anyone on the jury has knowledge of chloroform , it might be an issues for the SA because of the rapid disapation rates ,it will happen fast and even in seal jars things like this dispate.

It had to come from the garage on the Anthony home within days of testing it. IMO

 

[Donjeta]

Hi all,
New to the forum - been reading the trial thread while trying to catch as much of the trial as I can (while pretending to work). I did not follow this case closely at all until the trial process began. I knew the basic info - ie missing for a month before being reported - the Zanny story - and the party girl pictures - but did not know about any of the evidence etc.

My general consensus is that Casey was responsible for Caylees death - but I am not convinced how or why yet at this point in the trial. Things that make me wonder at this point is why Kronk didn't testify for the state - makes me wonder what the state was concerned about his testimony, what does the gas cans have to do with anything - to me I finished that part of the trial and just went huh? How did Kronk find that skull when everyone has testified that is was very hard to see in the woods and was covered up to the eye sockets with plants - just seems strange that he saw it and knew it was a skull - when it was described as looking like a white round rock. If he didn't touch it or move it - how did he know it was a skull? Just my questions as someone who hasn't followed the case. Again, I don't buy the Defenses story about George either - but if this was all the info I had at this point - I could not convict her of 1st degree murder.

BBM. A witness today said that he had heard that the person who found it may have kicked the skull but I think it was struck as hearsay.

 

[Quiche]

Hi all,
New to the forum - been reading the trial thread while trying to catch as much of the trial as I can (while pretending to work). I did not follow this case closely at all until the trial process began. I knew the basic info - ie missing for a month before being reported - the Zanny story - and the party girl pictures - but did not know about any of the evidence etc.

My general consensus is that Casey was responsible for Caylees death - but I am not convinced how or why yet at this point in the trial. Things that make me wonder at this point is why Kronk didn't testify for the state - makes me wonder what the state was concerned about his testimony, what does the gas cans have to do with anything - to me I finished that part of the trial and just went huh? How did Kronk find that skull when everyone has testified that is was very hard to see in the woods and was covered up to the eye sockets with plants - just seems strange that he saw it and knew it was a skull - when it was described as looking like a white round rock. If he didn't touch it or move it - how did he know it was a skull? Just my questions as someone who hasn't followed the case. Again, I don't buy the Defenses story about George either - but if this was all the info I had at this point - I could not convict her of 1st degree murder.

Welcome to WS, Linda505!

:welcome::welcome::welcome:

About the skull, I thought he nudged the garbage bag with his foot when he was going pee, then he saw the skull.

 

[coloradoteacher]

Hi all,
New to the forum - been reading the trial thread while trying to catch as much of the trial as I can (while pretending to work). I did not follow this case closely at all until the trial process began. I knew the basic info - ie missing for a month before being reported - the Zanny story - and the party girl pictures - but did not know about any of the evidence etc.

My general consensus is that Casey was responsible for Caylees death - but I am not convinced how or why yet at this point in the trial. Things that make me wonder at this point is why Kronk didn't testify for the state - makes me wonder what the state was concerned about his testimony, what does the gas cans have to do with anything - to me I finished that part of the trial and just went huh? How did Kronk find that skull when everyone has testified that is was very hard to see in the woods and was covered up to the eye sockets with plants - just seems strange that he saw it and knew it was a skull - when it was described as looking like a white round rock. If he didn't touch it or move it - how did he know it was a skull? Just my questions as someone who hasn't followed the case. Again, I don't buy the Defenses story about George either - but if this was all the info I had at this point - I could not convict her of 1st degree murder.

I agree that the SA took a risk by not calling RK to testify and hearing this from someone who hasn't followed the case makes me even more worried. The talking heads have actually dismissed this a lot though and I hope the SA will be able to call him after the fact or at least as a rebuttal witness to clear this concern up. The commentators have been saying what I think- the SA knew what was coming that day and did not want to turn the day into a "JB circus" (their words not mine) by having JB bring up his RK theory on a day that was meant to be Caylee's voice. I think the SA is too smart to not clear this up and have it hanging out there- I think they just wanted to have the frame of reference of what the crime scene looked like before calling him so that it could support his story. At least I hope this is their plan...

 

[katydid23]

I agree that the SA took a risk by not calling RK to testify and hearing this from someone who hasn't followed the case makes me even more worried. The talking heads have actually dismissed this a lot though and I hope the SA will be able to call him after the fact or at least as a rebuttal witness to clear this concern up. The commentators have been saying what I think- the SA knew what was coming that day and did not want to turn the day into a "JB circus" (their words not mine) by having JB bring up his RK theory on a day that was meant to be Caylee's voice. I think the SA is too smart to not clear this up and have it hanging out there- I think they just wanted to have the frame of reference of what the crime scene looked like before calling him so that it could support his story. At least I hope this is their plan...

bbm
I think that is exactly why they did not call Kronk yet. They called in the EXPERTS. He is just a good citizen who was the first one to find the body. I do not think they wanted to put him in the same position as the officers and forensics experts who did the real work.

Kronk WILL take the stand and he will be heard from. But it did not have to be today. Besides, maybe he was coming in during the afternoon. Before Casey went home.

 

[miss plum]

I think the DT were probably expecting Kronk on the stand today, and I agree with the above posters that JB attacking him would have flipped serious, respectful testimony about the discovery of Caylee's body into a disgraceful Caylee-demeaning fiasco.

I know KC is entitled to rigorous defense but the cold disrespect coming from the whole DT, as well as the defendant, is horrifying to me. If Caylee died as the result of an accident as they claim, why do they not care about her? Where is their sorrow and outrage that she ended up in the woods being attacked by animals? Why turn her tiny bones into dice for a game?

The jury is not a blend of seasoned defense lawyers and cynical talking heads, it is 12 ordinary citizens who are not used to legal machinations and who know the difference between a warm and a cold heart, and between real sorrow and faked sorrow.

 

[cluciano63]

One the things I have learned from WS threads since the trial started is about the behaviors of the Anthony family during most of the past three years...and can't help thinking that the defense will do its best to bring some of that out. Depending upon how much gets out there for the jury to hear, I would be concerned as I would have trouble believing this entire family did not dream up a cover-up to some sort of accident or injury to Caylee, causing her death. It sounds as though the whole family has a history of lying where this case is concerned. And it may make it seem as though the state was trying to cover up for them.

Also, just from JP's opening statement about Kronk calling 911 in August, as a juror I really want to hear more about that and what happened and how it happened that he did not call again until December. I am totally lost on all of that, but my interest is extremely peaked about it, as it just does not make sense to me at this time.

 

[Soulmagent]

bbm
I think that is exactly why they did not call Kronk yet. They called in the EXPERTS. He is just a good citizen who was the first one to find the body. I do not think they wanted to put him in the same position as the officers and forensics experts who did the real work.

Kronk WILL take the stand and he will be heard from. But it did not have to be today. Besides, maybe he was coming in during the afternoon. Before Casey went home.

I dunno ,if we follow in line with the SA it does seems they are skipping him.

They were moving in a timeline and he fit in before the first officer and after the 911 call.

2 of them telling the same story would have been very good for the state.

So I dont think they are going to call him.

Baez needs him but I was wondering if the state had him struck and that why it seems we got tossed into crime scene photos today after all the side bars and hold up this am.

You might be right and I hope you are because I think it would be better for them to call him later then never but I think he should have been called already.

 

[cluciano63]

I dunno ,if we follow in line with the SA it does seems they are skipping him.

They were moving in a timeline and he fit in before the first officer and after the 911 call.

2 of them telling the same story would have been very good for the state.

So I dont think they are going to call him.

Baez needs him but I was wondering if the state had him struck and that why it seems we got tossed into crime scene photos today after all the side bars and hold up this am.

You might be right and I hope you are because I think it would be better for them to call him later then never but I think he should have been called already.

AZ Lawyer said the defense will call him, most likely and if the state doesn't I am going to continue to feel weird about it, no matter what he says to the state when they cross him.

 

[New1]

Could somebody tell me their thoughts on this question?

On Dec. 11, the body was found by Roy Kronk who said he either picked up, kicked, or poked the bag with a stick and the skull rolled out of the bag.

OK, today there was testimony that the skull was EMBEDDED up to the eye sockets with debris. How could the skull have become EMBEDDED up to the eye sockets between the time it rolled out of the bag and when crime scene investigators retrieved it, and why did the prosecution not call Roy Kronk as a witness?

Are we to believe the skull "rolled" out of the bag and just sank into debris up to the eye sockets?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

 

[Ssejors]

Mods, Thanks for the Merge, I'm terrible at searching for threads! /sigh


I wanted to add to this thread myself.

I have been following this case from the beginning. I remember seeing Casey on tv when the case broke and Caylee was still "Missing". The first thing I thought when I saw ICA on tv was.. SHE DID SOMETHING to that baby. It was just a feeling I had. I didnt even HEAR much of the story. I just knew that Caylee was missing, had been missing for 31 days and they showed a picture of ICA. and from that.. I had my own feeling. If i told you all why i get these feelings, yall would thing i was completely nuts... moving on...


I yammer at my Bf about this case ALL the time. It's almost as though he expects me to update him at the dinner table nightly now that the trial is happening. Who was testifying. were there any bombshells?

Last night he posed a hypothetical to me.

He asked if, with all the chloroform evidence, in the trunk, and online searches, was it possible that ICA was making Chloroform to kill her parents and Caylee got into it by mistake and died accidentally. I think deep down he is hoping that no one could "intentionally" kill their own child. He was thinking that maybe ICA was making Chloroform in the trunk, or storing it in the trunk. Perhaps when they were driving it got spilled and the fumes were enough to knock Caylee out and kill her. I like the way he thinks, however the issue i have with this is that i doubt it would be strong enough to kill her if she was in her car seat in the passenger compartment of the car. and if it WERE strong enough to kill her, then surely it would have knocked ICA out if she was ALSO in the car.

... just another newbie theory which i liked and wanted to share.

 

[egnarts]

bbm
I think that is exactly why they did not call Kronk yet. They called in the EXPERTS. He is just a good citizen who was the first one to find the body. I do not think they wanted to put him in the same position as the officers and forensics experts who did the real work.

Kronk WILL take the stand and he will be heard from. But it did not have to be today. Besides, maybe he was coming in during the afternoon. Before Casey went home.

I was not familiar with Kronk & plan to review info on him. However, I did read the ME's Report. The 'experts' seem to have the placement of the remains under control. IMO.

 

[HRCODEPINK]

Mods, if this isn't allowed, please delete. I just want to get a new person's perspective on something in trial...

If/When RK testifies, no matter when that may be, would anything that he has to say, or anything from his past that JB has to offer change your feelings as to KCs guilt in either a premeditated murder or aggravated child abuse?

 

[cluciano63]

Mods, if this isn't allowed, please delete. I just want to get a new person's perspective on something in trial...

If/When RK testifies, no matter when that may be, would anything that he has to say, or anything from his past that JB has to offer change your feelings as to KCs guilt in either a premeditated murder or aggravated child abuse?

Nothing he could say would change my feelings as to whether or not Casey killed Caylee, I believe she did. I just am not sure how, or if she intended to do it, or if she covered up for herself or had help at some point.

Mostly I think she did everything alone, but that it is possible her father knew Caylee was dead sooner than July 15th, or at the latest, on that day.

As long as it doesn't somehow turn out that RK knew GA, I won't consider his testimony as crucial to the case. I just feel that the state should deal with him before the defense does, so as not to make him into a potential mystery.

 

[Donjeta]

I didn't catch all of yesterday's testimony but Casey's body language made her look very guilty imo. The head hanging, as if in shame, the nose covering, as if remembering duct tape over Caylee's, the eye poking, as if, well, trying to poke her eyes out, the pretending to cry, the near-vomiting (did the stench of death make you sick?). At times she looked more angry than sad to me. The female attorney in the DT gave her a few token pats as if trying to comfort but it appeared to me that she soon gave up the pretense and just had a disgusted look on her face, and the impression I got was she couldn't care less about the defendant's feelings.

The duct tape over her face circumferentially, wow. I didn't know that. I'm sure it was a very powerful image for the jurors. Anyone who could do that to their baby...

Anyway, it doesn't look anything like an accidental drowning to me. It doesn't even look like a staged kidnapping. It just looks like murder.

I am still waiting for Roy Kronk to be called because I'm very curious to see him and hear what he has to say and I think it will seem odd if the finder of the body doesn't get a say in the State presentation.

But I am glad he was not called yesterday because it would have made a mockery of the day they showed Caylee's remains to the jury to have the DT attack him to distract the attention away from what their client did to her. Allegedly did, I should say at this point, but I have been convinced that she is responsible.

 

[Nali87]

I think the state worked on their case for months/years and put it all together very nicely. JB blindsided them with his pathetic little theory in his opening statement. Before then they had no idea he'd accuse GA of abuse and Roy about stealing a dead body (where did Roy get the body? According to Jose "we might never know". CONVENIENT!). I don't think the state has to call Roy to testify to anything. JB's opening statement is so ridiculous, let him call Roy and dug himself in deeper in this crazy theory. And after that the state can come in, cross-examine (with leading* questions) and clean it all up nicely.


*If I understood it right when explained in the lawyer's thread.

 

[MsFacetious]

I have someone who hasn't followed the case.

In the beginning he noted Casey was good looking and that was the extent of it.

Caylee's body was found on my daughter's birthday, so he knew about that. However, he has never formed an opinion on Casey's guilt because he hasn't followed the case enough.


When Casey was laughing in the first couple of weeks in court and I was NOT happy about that... he asked me at what point she was allowed to laugh. It has been almost 3 years.

I told him when she was NOT in court on trial for the MURDER of her toddler. That you just don't look happy in COURT on trial for murder. The jury isn't going to look kindly at you. She should NOT be laughing in front of the jury.


Well... since then, in the last two weeks or so he has been inundated with the case.

Today I told him as an afterthought that Casey was sick and they had to adjourn court early.


His response (minus the trucker language) was:

"Ohhhh that poor baby... it must be SO hard for her to get up every morning and have a shower, and eat breakfast, and put on her make up, and put on her dress clothes and get a ride to court and sit there on her laptop playing paralegal with her team of attorney's.

It must be tough remembering how much fun she had for those 30 days when she didn't have a kid anymore... but now she doesn't want to see the results of what she did to that kid?

I wonder what her kid went through? I wonder if SHE felt sick?

Give her a puke bucket and some nausea medication and get her back in court."


I'm just going to take a WILD guess that he thinks she's guilty now?

 

[Hali]

Could somebody tell me their thoughts on this question?

On Dec. 11, the body was found by Roy Kronk who said he either picked up, kicked, or poked the bag with a stick and the skull rolled out of the bag.

OK, today there was testimony that the skull was EMBEDDED up to the eye sockets with debris. How could the skull have become EMBEDDED up to the eye sockets between the time it rolled out of the bag and when crime scene investigators retrieved it, and why did the prosecution not call Roy Kronk as a witness?

Are we to believe the skull "rolled" out of the bag and just sank into debris up to the eye sockets?

I would like to hear your thoughts on this.

I was wondering this also.