We the jury find the defendant Casey Anthony...

[oceanblueeyes]

I wish I could be as could be as sure, but I'm just not. The state almost completely avoided the chloroform in their closing and IMO the jury will notice that and wonder why. You don't spend days on forensic evidence to prove chloroform was involved and then barely mention in it closing unless there's a problem with. I think the duct tape is their strongest shot at getting a first degree conviction, premeditated. MOO

These case was chocked full of CE. The Prosecutors do not have the time to lay everything out and take up time they don't have on one subject when so many subjects must be covered.

Imo Ashton made it perfectly clear that all the experts found chloroform in some form no matter what piece of evidence was tested or how. He also made it clear that chloroform is a volatile substance. Even the DT expert was surprised that he got a detection of chloroform when it had not been sent to him sealed airtight. I think the jury got it and he didn't have to spend his time going over one subject.

I think the chloroform found both in her car and on the internet search 'how to make chloroform' is the strongest evidence showing aggravated child abuse and the duct tape is the premeditating factor after Caylee was knocked out so she couldn't resist the duct tape being put over her mouth and nose.

IMO

 

[angeldust]

I dont think the chloroform was the cause of death but I d bet all that I have that kc was practising making a few bottle s for her daddy and or mommy n some spilled in the boot of her car, it would be easy to make, not perfect granted, but a crude version which could be even more lethal. I do believe her parent/s were supposed to be the receivers of the chloroform its just that poor caylee got murdered because her plan wasnt coming together, as she had dreamt it.

 

[GeekyGirl]

These case was chocked full of CE. The Prosecutors do not have the time to lay everything out and take up time they don't have on one subject when so many subjects must be covered.

Imo Ashton made it perfectly clear that all the experts found chloroform in some form no matter what piece of evidence was tested or how. He also made it clear that chloroform is a volatile substance. Even the DT expert was surprised that he got a detection of chloroform when it had not been sent to him sealed airtight. I think the jury got it and he didn't have to spend his time going over one subject.

I think the chloroform found both in her car and on the internet search 'how to make chloroform' is the strongest evidence showing aggravated child abuse and the duct tape is the premeditating factor after Caylee was knocked out so she couldn't resist the duct tape being put over her mouth and nose.

IMO

You have your opinion, I have mine. I respect that. But I'd venture to say that we're both very intelligent adults so if we can look at the same evidence and view it so differently, I have to wonder if the jury won't have the same problem.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

If I were a member of the jury I'd opt without hesitation for 'guilty'

The reason being that Casey Anthony has chosen NOT to explain how her daughter went from being in her care to a bag in a swamp

Casey Anthony has had innumerable opportunities to explain. She's chosen not to do so, other than to tell easily-disproved LIES, such as 'the nanny took her'. There was no nanny

31 days she had. Followed by three years in jail. With several months in between, during which she played victim and lied through her teeth

As she has NO plausible explanation as to how her daughter went from being alive to becoming a skeleton in a swamp, Casey Anthony has demonstrated to my satisfaction that she killed and disposed of her own child and that spells 'guilty' to me

The trial has been so long that it has been hard to remember everything but today when LDB played that video of Casey talking with Cindy and demanding TonEs number it chilled me to the bone to see it again. How vehement, nasty and angry she could get.......seeing how vulgar she could talk to her mom, brother and friend showed me she is the type of female murderess we don't see often.

One devoid of a conscience all together. She didn't give a crap about Caylee. She knew where Caylee was because she threw her away there but she darn sure didn't know where TonE was and that is all that mattered. Getting to talk to her boyfriend. It is frightening to know people like ICA walk this earth.

IMO

 

[Who_What_When]

These case was chocked full of CE. The Prosecutors do not have the time to lay everything out and take up time they don't have on one subject when so many subjects must be covered.

Imo Ashton made it perfectly clear that all the experts found chloroform in some form no matter what piece of evidence was tested or how. He also made it clear that chloroform is a volatile substance. Even the DT expert was surprised that he got a detection of chloroform when it had not been sent to him sealed airtight. I think the jury got it and he didn't have to spend his time going over one subject.

I think the chloroform found both in her car and on the internet search 'how to make chloroform' is the strongest evidence showing aggravated child abuse and the duct tape is the premeditating factor after Caylee was knocked out so she couldn't resist the duct tape being put over her mouth and nose.

IMO

I think what GeekyGirl was trying to say is that the SA didn't address the DT closing argument on the computer searches made for Chloroform. IMO this was the best part of Jose's closing argument yesterday and I think he created reasonable doubt with the searches, so I too really expected them to address the searches. I am glad that Jeff Ashton spoke about the level of Chloroform in the car as this did make me think about it further but I would have like for them to bring it all together. I think it's a huge leap to go from a computer search to killing. It almost felt like they threw it out there as a suggestion and something that can be used if the jury wanted to believe it.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

You have your opinion, I have mine. I respect that. But I'd venture to say that we're both very intelligent adults so if we can look at the same evidence and view it so differently, I have to wonder if the jury won't have the same problem.

You are absolutely right, GG and I do respect your opinion.

I am sure they will have their different theories. Being a good juror when first starting to deliberate means they shouldn't draw a line in the sand but be willing to listen to others and weigh what they have to offer too backed up by the evidence they say supports their position.

I have never been pressured in a deliberation room. Through respectful deliberations we were able to come to a unanimous decision each time. I hope that it will happen in this case too.

IMO they will evolve as time goes by unless they refuse to deliberate but if that happens I am sure the jury foreman will send a note out advising JP of that issue should it arise.

IMO

 

[GeekyGirl]

You are absolutely right, GG and I do respect your opinion.

I am sure they will have their different theories. Being a good juror when first starting to deliberate means they shouldn't draw a line in the sand but be willing to listen to others and weigh what they have to offer too backed up by the evidence they say supports their position.

I have never been pressured in a deliberation room. Through respectful deliberations we were able to come to a unanimous decision each time. I hope that it will happen in this case too.

IMO they will evolve as time goes by unless they refuse to deliberate but if that happens I am sure the jury foreman will send a note out advising JP of that issue should it arise.

IMO

I hope that happens too. Ultimately, I'll respect whatever decision they hand down, because they were the ones entrusted to deliver a verdict. (Though if it's an acquittal I might not be so magnanimous, but I just can't see that happening)

 

[Nova24]

I mean no disrespect to anyone, but how in the world did anyone vote NOT GUILTY of Counts Four Through Seven (lying to officers)??? I would love to know how this is possible especially since her DT admitted she lied.

I'm hoping someone just hit that button in errow. lol The DT even concedes these charges.

 

[Nova24]

If it was an acquittal I'd be shocked. I still think while I could go 1st and DP that there will be some compromise with this jury. I do think in the end she might not face the most serious consequence but harsh one nonetheless.

 

[Leah0107]

You have your opinion, I have mine. I respect that. But I'd venture to say that we're both very intelligent adults so if we can look at the same evidence and view it so differently, I have to wonder if the jury won't have the same problem.

Regarding the Chloroform that was barely mentioned during closing.

I wonder if they chose not to put too much emphasis on the chloroform because if focused on too much it would have brought some confusion for the jurors. There was so much focus on it during their presentation. Did they intend to make it the forefront of their argument or did I/we perceive it that way. For me it was certainly compelling, but when trying to reconcile it in my mind in terms of premeditation of murder and potential murder weapon, I wasn't convinced and in fact it brought a lot of confusion. Additionally, it certainly wasn't their strongest piece of evidence because no physical evidence was found regarding it. So did they rethink they're strategy? I wonder.

 

[Who_What_When]

For anyone wanting to read the Judges final instructions to the jury here is the link:

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/28440564/detail.html

 

[GeekyGirl]

Regarding the Chloroform that was barely mentioned during closing.

I wonder if they chose not to put too much emphasis on the chloroform because if focused on too much it would have brought some confusion for the jurors. There was so much focus on it during their presentation. Did they intend to make it the forefront of their argument or did we perceive it that way. For me it was certainly compelling, but when trying to reconcile it in my mind in terms of premeditation of murder and potential murder weapon, I wasn't convinced and in fact it brought a lot of confusion. Additionally, it certainly wasn't their strongest piece of evidence because no physical evidence was found regarding it. So did they rethink they're strategy? I wonder.

Who knows? Maybe they read here and saw all the debate I know if I were them I'd check in from time to time for "reviews". I think it's quite possible that they realized there might have been a mistake with the searches, or even if there wasn't, that addressing it would just be more confusing. Then again, perhaps they just avoided it because of Cindy fiasco. Whatever their reason, I think it was a smart choice. The duct tape is simpler for the jurors to wrap their minds around.

ETA: Err... I just reread that last line... No (horribly inapproriate) pun intended.

 

[Who_What_When]

I am 29 years old and I have been called to Jury Duty twice in my life. Both times, I was selected to serve on a jury. Both times, I knew the verdict within a day, if not the moment I walked into the deliberation room.
Jurors take their jobs very seriously. If these people did not want to serve on a jury, they would have come up with an excuse or a way out. But jurors are very serious and oftentimes, arguments happen just for the sake of arguing and hashing it all out with each other, to make sure we are ALL on the same page.
The first jury I was on was a week long trial about a civil matter. We debated for 5 days. We asked the judge, "What do we do if we cannot come up with an agreement??" The answer was, you will sit here until you do. Then it becomes the majority vote trying to convince the one or two jurors that are holding out. We hashed and rehashed the evidence and there was almost gonna be a fight in the jury room. It was crazy! Finally, the lone holdout gave in. I feel bad that he had to "give in", but he was clearly wrong!!!!!
The second jury I was on was only a day long, we deliberated for approx 20 min before declaring the defendant not guilty. We all knew what we believed, but when we went in the deliberation room, we argued just for the sake of arguing. Just to make sure there was no doubt in our minds.

I think this case will take a while to come up with a verdict. At LEAST a few days. There is SO MUCH EVIDENCE and I guarantee you that they are going to want to review the evidence, like the suicide letter and things like that. They wrote notes of stuff they wanted to go back and look at again.

Anyway I just wanted to offer my experience as a juror in two different types of trials. I really enjoyed each one, but the more I think about it, the more I remember that being a juror, and taking it so seriously, they really do presume innocence. In my jury, the state did not meet their burden of proof. I think in this case, the state DID.
IMHO, of course, and please let this verdict come soooooon! The suspense is killing me! Its like a movie that has dragged out for three years, you go to the theater for the last installment, and then right at the climax it says, 'to be continued, fall of 2012', or something!
:banghead:

Thank you for sharing your experiences as a juror. I have always been so intrigued by the whole justice system and loved being on a jury! I too feel that most (hopefully all) jurors take their job very seriously. I can only imagine how relieved they were today to finally be able to talk about the case!

 

[MargotKidder]

Why do we need another poll on this? There was just one along these same guidelines this past week, only it was not public. What is the difference between them?

 

[PalmettoGirl]

Definitely guilty on all accounts, but I think we are all a bit biased here.

 

[Sleuth5]

Got to agree with others. It's the duct tape for me, got to be first degree murder, although I do believe it could have happened (and probably did) in a rage. We've seen that rage emerge during the course of the trial, and certainly beforehand (think the jailhouse tapes -- she just about throws a two-year-old tantrum).

There are only two possibilities with the tape. Either it was put on before or after death. Had ICA had the foresight to lie creatively, she would have taken sole responsibility for the "accidental" drowning, then claimed that she panicked and cooked up the silly kidnapping story. She could have claimed to have put it on shortly after her death. That would have forced the State to prove she was lying, and much higher possibility of a juror with some doubt.

Or, you could believe that GA or RK put it on. Right. That's plausible in some alternate dimension. Or ICA's fevered imagination.

That leaves putting it on before Caylee was dead and thus killing her. I don't see how you can avoid 1st degree, myself, unless you decide to ignore the duct tape. That tape did not float onto that child's skull.

:cow:

 

[Who_What_When]

Why do we need another poll on this? There was just one along these same guidelines this past week, only it was not public. What is the difference between them?

I didn't see one just like this from last week so I can't comment on that but this thread is meant for us to walk through this as if we were jurors in the case and to come to a verdict by following the law and jury instructions given, not just our feelings or what we believe to be true but to actually decide it the way the jury has too. It's basically like our own deliberation room.

 

[nola]

I think that Casey is guilty of felony murder - my theory is that she acted impulsively (crime of passion, if you will) in anger and as a revengeful act against her mother's threat to call police about her stealing money from Cindy's parents checking account - this incident became physical, right? The threat of arrest angered this sociopath to the point of taking it out on poor little Caylee before the sun set on the following day. I think that Casey thought that her mom only cared about Caylee and put Caylee above her -- second fiddle was not the role Casey wanted to occupy. Caylee became everything that was wrong in her life. I think the confrontation with Cindy on Sunday night was Casey's tipping point. I think that sometime between 4pm (after Jim Thompson saw them at Walmart) and 6:30 Monday, Casey killed Caylee. Is that premeditation? Yeah, but I'm not sure if the jury will think that there is enough evidence to prove the pre-meditation.
She is guilty of aggravated child abuse and certainly lying to EVERYONE including an officer.

 

[beachbumming]

If the jurors believe the duct tape was on Caylee's face they will convict of 1st degree murder. If they can't come to an agreement on that there will be a compromised verdict. I can't see a not guilty.

 

[Who_What_When]

I think today, Linda Burdick brought it all together for me. I was on the fence with whether or not this was an accident that she covered up or if this was an intentional act. I felt that Casey’s lies could possibly be a result of her being scared or afraid. That for Casey, it could be easier to just pretend it didn’t happened than for her to face the truth and most of all her mother. However when Linda pointed out that "as the facts and circumstances change over the course of time Casey’s lies changed", this really made me look at this in another view and it made sense. It made a lot more sense than her lying because she was feeling afraid or scared.

I now no longer believe that she was lying because she was scared, she lied because she was guilty.

What do guilty people do? They lie. They avoid. They run. They mislead.
.