We the jury find the defendant Casey Anthony...

[Talina]

I haven't voted yet because I really want to try and be objective and really think about each count, but as of right now I would probably be able to vote for first degree murder only because of today. I haven't always felt that the duct tape was used as the method of murder because I couldn't really visualize how it played out but after the SA spoke today I think they did a great job of bringing this together for me.

I have always questioned the Chloroform in this case and after hearing Jose today I have to admit that he created reasonable doubt for me regarding the Chloroform. I was never convinced that it was used or even a factor in this case and have always thought it had to do with Ricardo's Myspace picture, so to hear that she was on myspace right before searching Chloroform just makes sense to me. It would be exactly what I would do if my boyfriend had the picture posted and I didn't know what it was. I'm still keeping an open mind and will wait to hear what the SA says about the 84 searches and what their thoughts are on it, but as of now I don't believe that Chloroform played a role in her murder.

As far as the other counts, as of right now I would vote guilty on aggravated manslaughter and the 4 counts of lying. I do not see her being guilty of aggravated child abuse.

BBM

I can see that as long as it were only a search for chloroform if someone were to see that photo and not know what chloroform is. At least it would be enough for reasonable doubt as to the chloroform. However, the search was for "how to make chloroform" along with searches for the individual ingredients. Why would someone need to know how to make chloroform?

On top of that, if the search on the computer was completely innocent and explainable, why delete it from the browser history?

 

[Studio_Medic]

BBM

I can see that as long as it were only a search for chloroform if someone were to see that photo and not know what chloroform is. At least it would be enough for reasonable doubt as to the chloroform. However, the search was for "how to make chloroform" along with searches for the individual ingredients. Why would someone need to know how to make chloroform?

On top of that, if the search on the computer was completely innocent and explainable, why delete it from the browser history?

I just type in Chloroform to Google and here is what I came up with:

Searches related to Chloroform( links)

• buy chloroform
  
• purchase chloroform
  
• chloroform recipe
  
• make chloroform
  
• chloroform uses
  
• chloroform effects
  
• ether
  
• chloroform msds

Now I can see where someone might click a link or might type in "make chloroform" As far as deleting the browser's history, I delete my browser's history EVERY day so my temp files, cookies and cache don't fill up......but that is me.....

 

[Talina]

I can see what you are saying but in a death penalty case I would hope that they would give it more thought.

I just know before I could find someone guilty of 1st degree murder I would make sure that I went through every piece of evidence and reviewed everything that was presented in the case. I would never be able to live with myself if I felt I wasn’t 100% certain of my verdict.

On the flip side of what you're saying I also think sometimes our society is so quick to lynch someone before looking at all the evidence.

For me, there is what I would call primary and secondary evidence. For instance, primary evidence to me would be first and foremost 31 days and that it wasn't the mother that reported anything - it was the grandmother. Next is the rather celebratory behavior during those 31 days with the tatoo being the icing on the cake. Next would be lying about where Caylee was when confronted by LE. Once I came to the conclusion that those primary pieces of evidence had me leaning towards she was culpable of something untoward happening to her daughter, I'd move to secondary evidence - forensics.

What forensic evidence either supports or discounts the direction I'm leaning. Without going through all the forensics evidence in this case, I'll just keep it short and say that I am much more convinced by the prosecution witnesses than I was by any of the defense expert witnesses.

We are supposed to keep emotion out of our decision making process and ask our selves is there any "reasonable" doubt, not any doubt. Emotion could go either way - one way would be to be so distraught about what happened to this baby to want to make someone pay, period. The other emotion could be just not being able to believe how on earth a mother could do this to her child so therefore you are unable to even consider the evidence. Both emotions need to be set aside.

For me, at this point, not only is reasonable doubt removed, I believe it is unreasonable to think she is not guilty of 1st degree murder. I feel so strong about that decision that I would not be able to compromise to a lesser charge.

 

[rose222]

Guilty of first degree murder. I believe that reasonable people will come to this reasonable conclusion.

If the jurors believe George's testimony that he did not find a dead Caylee in the pool then jurors must ask themselves why would Casey lie about this? Why would she make up an elaborate lie if this was an accident? Casey is smart. She would not sit in jail for almost 3 years had this been an accident. She would have screamed and shrieked from day 1. Anybody would do the same especially a woman like Casey.

If the jurors believe George then Casey is done. They will see the dark, evil, cruel side of Casey. Had the defense claimed that this was a drowning and that Casey alone was involved they might have felt sympathy. Here they are left with only 2 options. Either Casey is a victim and everyone else is a villan or Casey is a diabolical liar and killer who will not even hesitate to throw her own family and others under the bus.

Reasonable person = reasonable conclusion = Casey murdered her daughter by use of duct-tape and threw her away physically and mentally and when the nanny defense didn't make sense she accused her own family of a coverup = murder 1

 

[Talina]

I just type in Chloroform to Google and here is what I came up with:

Searches related to Chloroform( links)

• buy chloroform
  
• purchase chloroform
  
• chloroform recipe
  
• make chloroform
  
• chloroform uses
  
• chloroform effects
  
• ether
  
• chloroform msds

Now I can see where someone might click a link or might type in "make chloroform" As far as deleting the browser's history, I delete my browser's history EVERY day so my temp files, cookies and cache don't fill up......but that is me.....

I agree with what you are saying about a search giving you alternate links to click on but the forensics IT testimony was that the actual google search was "how to make chloroform". Those exact words were typed in the google search bar. That,along with looking up the individual ingredients afterwards, the part I have a problem with. I see no good reason why anyone in that household would have needed to make chloroform.

ETA - as far as deleting history, etc - If their computer showed that was a normal occurrence, then yes, not a problem. I do, though, remember the testimony being that was not the normal occurrence.

 

[Talina]

According to this link, the IT guy is juror #2. I believe the first 12 are the actual jury (correct me if I'm wrong).

http://blogs.discovery.com/criminal_report/2011/05/casey-anthony-trial-juror-profiles.html

Yes, the first 12 are the jurors.

 

[lettersinkanji]

I just type in Chloroform to Google and here is what I came up with:

Searches related to Chloroform( links)

• buy chloroform
  
• purchase chloroform
  
• chloroform recipe
  
• make chloroform
  
• chloroform uses
  
• chloroform effects
  
• ether
  
• chloroform msds

Now I can see where someone might click a link or might type in "make chloroform" As far as deleting the browser's history, I delete my browser's history EVERY day so my temp files, cookies and cache don't fill up......but that is me.....

IIRC, LDB made it a point to ask about the deleted search history files during the rebuttal case. The computer expert testified that the only deleted internet history on the entire computer was from March 2008. So it's not as simple as someone always deleting their history. Those searches were deleted specifically and for a particular reason, IMO. I also would find it hard to believe that it's simply a coincidence that chloroform was found in the analysis of the car trunk and the computer happened to have deleted internet searches about it. :cow:

 

[BlOnDe_GuRrL]

Did someone actually vote NOT guilty on the providing false statements charges???
Are they not following the same case?

 

[Studio_Medic]

IIRC, LDB made it a point to ask about the deleted search history files during the rebuttal case. The computer expert testified that the only deleted internet history on the entire computer was from March 2008. So it's not as simple as someone always deleting their history. Those searches were deleted specifically and for a particular reason, IMO. I also would find it hard to believe that it's simply a coincidence that chloroform was found in the analysis of the car trunk and the computer happened to have deleted internet searches about it. :cow:

Sorry, I missed the part about the history being deleted in the March 2008. That does sound "hinky" if those were the only searches deleted.....:waitasec:

 

[Talina]

Sorry, I missed the part about the history being deleted in the March 2008. That does sound "hinky" if those were the only searches deleted.....:waitasec:

Actually, and I could be wrong, but IIRC the history deletion was done early morning July 16 and only for the search history in the Firefox browser for the month of March 2008.

Forensics IT said there were years of history on the computer that had never been deleted, just that portion and it was very recent, all grouped together in unallocated space.

Someone please correct me if that is wrong.

 

[lettersinkanji]

Actually, and I could be wrong, but IIRC the history deletion was done early morning July 16 and only for the search history in the Firefox browser for the month of March 2008.

Forensics IT said there were years of history on the computer that had never been deleted, just that portion and it was very recent, all grouped together in unallocated space.

Someone please correct me if that is wrong.

I just went back to watch the computer expert's testimony. The deleted internet history ranged from March 4 - March 21 2008. I don't recall there ever being testimony about when these searches were actually deleted, but I might have forgotten. I have seen others on here say that they were deleted on July 16th, but I'm not sure if that was brought up at trial or if that information comes from somewhere else. I also don't recall if there was any testimony that the entire Firefox browser was deleted. Sorry I couldn't be more help!

Here's a link to the computer expert talking about the deleted history and the dates (where he says March 4-21):
http://www.wftv.com/video/28423426/index.html
It starts around the 28:00 mark.

 

[milliac]

Guilty of first degree murder. I believe that reasonable people will come to this reasonable conclusion.

If the jurors believe George's testimony that he did not find a dead Caylee in the pool then jurors must ask themselves why would Casey lie about this? Why would she make up an elaborate lie if this was an accident? Casey is smart. She would not sit in jail for almost 3 years had this been an accident. She would have screamed and shrieked from day 1. Anybody would do the same especially a woman like Casey.

If the jurors believe George then Casey is done. They will see the dark, evil, cruel side of Casey. Had the defense claimed that this was a drowning and that Casey alone was involved they might have felt sympathy. Here they are left with only 2 options. Either Casey is a victim and everyone else is a villan or Casey is a diabolical liar and killer who will not even hesitate to throw her own family and others under the bus.

Reasonable person = reasonable conclusion = Casey murdered her daughter by use of duct-tape and threw her away physically and mentally and when the nanny defense didn't make sense she accused her own family of a coverup = murder 1

Nicely said. I think Linda should use this today.

 

[susan1215]

Can the charges Aggravated Child Abuse or Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child be combined with say the second degree murder charge, or does the jury choose only one?

 

[Kavya01]

Having to separate what I know/feel, and considering myself as if i were one of the jurors, I think I could only give second degree. For my conscience. But as me, now: 1st.

guilt clearly established though!! Just not 100 % certain about passion and spite vs planning or pattern of treatment of Caylee with chloroform or tape or trunk having been 100% established for outsiders,.

 

[jeepgirlva]

I recall when OJ's not guilty verdict was first announced, the courtroom camera immediately scanned over to show Ronald Goldman's distraught sister doubling over in grief and shock, with Fred Goldman trying in futility to console her.

In addition to their outrage over denied justice for their brother, the Goldman's could have legitimately feared for their lives, with OJ free to retaliate against them.

If ICA were to be freed on acquittal, I wonder who might legitimately feel concern over a possible retaliation by ICA?

:waitasec::banghead::waitasec:

Who will be distraught if she is aquitted ?

 

[Kavya01]

Who will be distraught if she is aquitted ?

I cannot even oversee the fallout that would cause.
Really, I cannot even begin to picture the mayhem. ~Shudder~

 

[stilettos]

Who will be distraught if she is aquitted ?

Aquitted??? I will.

 

[Murphismo]

I'm leaning toward 1st degree murder (felony not premiditated per se). This is a recent revelation, I really in the beginning thought it was an "unintentional" result of Casey up to no good, not acccidental..... I just couldn't wrap my head around why or how a mother could do this. I'm not 100% sold on the chloroform and or duct tape being the precurser to death. I don't know how she was killed or how long she deliberated on forming premeditation but whatever she did to Caylee was no damn accident. You could convince me the sky was yellow and the earth flat before I bought into that cockemamey defense of hers. She killed her, people just don't do what she did when there is an accident. How she could feel no remorse, that will always haunt me...

 

[Wise Old Owl]

Please check this thread!

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6845238#post6845238"]Websleuths Trivia Contest While Jury Is Out - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[jeepgirlva]

How long will it take?