For those who agree with the verdict...help me understand.

[MissJames]

This is an excellent post.However it doesn't help me understand why the jury came up with their verdict.Please, someone help me.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143911"]2011.07.08-10 Today's Current News **NO DISCUSSION HERE PLEASE** - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]
:seeya:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/article1179177.ece Juror # 2's story
He thinks she's guilty of manslaughter at the very least and was the last holdout (of 6) He end's by saying
"For me it was not a good outcome," said Juror No. 2, his voice breaking. "Those pictures … I'll probably never forget them.
"To think that somebody would do that to a child."
The article includes Juror #3's interview which is equally perplexing.
In the Today's Current News thread there's also an article about a comment JA made on CNN
Casey Anthony prosecutor responds to juror remark

<snip>

A prosecutor in the Casey Anthony trial responded Thursday to a remark by one of the jurors who acquitted Anthony, saying the jury should not have considered possible penalties in deciding whether she was guilty.

"I hope that was not what they based it on," Jeff Ashton told CNN.

"I did not say she was innocent," said Ford, who had previously only been identified as juror number 3. "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

Speaking to CNN, Ashton said the jury "shouldn't have been even considering punishment during the guilt phase."

Ashton said the jury was instructed that sentencing was not part of what they should consider.

"If they did it based on the penalty then they didn't follow the law," he said.

Much more at link: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-07/j...er?_s=PM:CRIME
Reply With Quote
:banghead:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...red-jury-fell-prey-to-idiotic-groupthink.html A surprisingly good article by Marcia Clark helps explain what happened.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

You may be right. I'm not stating it as fact. But, I do believe it in my heart. I think CA is a sick as the rest. Do you know how many mother's know its happening and do nothing? You may be surprised. However, I think CA was told and she was conflicted. I think that is at the heart of the separations, filing divorce. But, she would let him come back. Maybe she didn't believe Casey. God knows Cindy knows she lies. Maybe Cindy played both sides of the fence and that fed the fued between her and Casey. Who really knows. But it is my opinion. I think that was a really dark house. This stuff doesn't just happen in poor, poverty driven, uneducated homes. I know this is not a welcome topic on here. But, it is within the heart of the case. It was used by DT in the trial. It explains the disassociation, the cover up, some of the weird comments. Hope I'm not offending anyone. I really don't mean to. I'll shut up now.

Hey,you don't need to shut up. Just be careful with naming individuals doing things that there's no proof of. Your opinion is appreciated.

 

[pcrum12]

I respect your opinion.
Had chloroform not been in that trunk and researched on the computer (that CA took responsibility), and I had not seen some pics of
Caylee that lead (just me) to believe that it had been used and the fact that Casey's claims are VERY vague...along with her being out of touch with the real world... makes me question repeated use over the years and brain damage... Along with the fact he has never spoken out in a public forum to deny the allegations- (he doesn't have to but it would have helped- and no he owes me personally no explanation)
Maybe I am faulting the wrong guy. Could have been LA I guess.
I think she won't face her mom because she let it happen and never stopped him. I also think JB has damning evidence that will prove it that has not been released. Hopefully The Sunshine law will allow someone t have it unsealed.
GA is no stand up guy. He is a swindler and i believe he is capable of anything!



moo

BBM:
I Totally Agree. It is very possible.

 

[Baznme]

You may be right. I'm not stating it as fact. But, I do believe it in my heart. I think CA is a sick as the rest. Do you know how many mother's know its happening and do nothing? You may be surprised. However, I think CA was told and she was conflicted. I think that is at the heart of the separations, filing divorce. But, she would let him come back. Maybe she didn't believe Casey. God knows Cindy knows she lies. Maybe Cindy played both sides of the fence and that fed the fued between her and Casey. Who really knows. But it is my opinion. I think that was a really dark house. This stuff doesn't just happen in poor, poverty driven, uneducated homes. I know this is not a welcome topic on here. But, it is within the heart of the case. It was used by DT in the trial. It explains the disassociation, the cover up, some of the weird comments. Hope I'm not offending anyone. I really don't mean to. I'll shut up now.

It's OK......I get your logic....I just don't think as strong as a personality that CA is, she would even remotely not pay attention to this kind of thing, much less let it go on. But, now I'm confused. How does this meld into how or why Caylee died?

 

[AnaTeresa]

I believe you have misinformation. Dr. Spitz did not find coloring consistent with drowning. He said there COULD be coloring that is sometimes consistent with suffocation, but it was NOT found on Caylee's skull. The state also clearly, and sufficiently rebutted the claim by Dr. Spitz that the skull should have been opened.

The state did rebut that claim well. I was disappointed with Dr. Spitz on the stand. We've consulted with him previously for his opinion, and I thought he was very good at explaining medical findings and giving insight for a case. It was like night and day contrasting the telephone conference I sat in on and watching his testimony. That said, I do think there's something to Dr. Spitz' assertion that the skull should have been opened. I've had access to many autopsy reports with my job, and we've also had some consults with four or five forensic pathologists. They've all opened the skull, even with decomposing remains.

I do think the state did a good job at rebutting that assertion, but my outside knowledge about autopsy did make me question the state a bit. When they didn't do something that I had seen others do, combined with a lack of evidence as to cause of death, that introduced doubt. It's possible that, even though I found the state's rebuttal solid, the jury did not, and that was one more instance of doubt. I do think that not having a cause of death and not selling that motive really damages the prosecution's case.

As always, just my :twocents:

 

[pcrum12]

It's OK......I get your logic....I just don't think as strong as a personality that CA is, she would even remotely not pay attention to this kind of thing, much less let it go on. But, now I'm confused. How does this meld into how or why Caylee died?

I believe Caylee died from a drowning accident. If an autopsy had been performed on Caylee the above would have come out therefore they had to cover it up. Someone up thread asked well ok that explains GA but why didn't Casey call 911. Shame. It's the most shameful thing of all. Whether it's you, your daughter, or both. Shame. Ok now I promise not to talk about it anymore. I just felt I needed to tie it all in. All JMO. Mods if needed, do what you must.

 

[MissJames]

I do not believe there was any molestation. It's just another lie that morphed from the one before. She played the victim card to divert the attention away from her culpability in Caylee's demise. Do you honestly believe if there was any molestation going on in that house that Cindy would have put up with it for one minute?! She would have taken care of the molester in a heartbeat! He!!, KC ran that house......do you honestly think she would have put up with it? She would have been spilling the beans especially to her cop boyfriends to the top of her lungs. Jesse G. got the story as her brother being the molester. She gets arrested and all of a sudden, it's her father? C'mon........she's a pathological liar and Baez ate every bit of it. If she is innocent and these accusations are true, why can't she face her own mother? Because she knows......it's a lie.

I agree. I'm befuddled that the DT's opening Statement is considered factual ,even though there was not one shred of evidence to back it up,yet the abuse/murder for which there was plenty of evidence is dismissed. How does that happen? Because JB said it it must be true? Well why not apply the same logic to the SA's opening statement?
If you listen to the Juror's explanations it's even more frustrating.:banghead:

 

[pcrum12]

O/T: Good night folks! Loved this thread. Alot of great post.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

2011.07.08-10 Today's Current News **NO DISCUSSION HERE PLEASE** - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
:seeya:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/article1179177.ece Juror # 2's story
He thinks she's guilty of manslaughter at the very least and was the last holdout (of 6) He end's by saying
"For me it was not a good outcome," said Juror No. 2, his voice breaking. "Those pictures &#8230; I'll probably never forget them.
"To think that somebody would do that to a child."
The article includes Juror #3's interview which is equally perplexing.
In the Today's Current News thread there's also an article about a comment JA made on CNN
Casey Anthony prosecutor responds to juror remark

<snip>

A prosecutor in the Casey Anthony trial responded Thursday to a remark by one of the jurors who acquitted Anthony, saying the jury should not have considered possible penalties in deciding whether she was guilty.

"I hope that was not what they based it on," Jeff Ashton told CNN.

"I did not say she was innocent," said Ford, who had previously only been identified as juror number 3. "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

Speaking to CNN, Ashton said the jury "shouldn't have been even considering punishment during the guilt phase."

Ashton said the jury was instructed that sentencing was not part of what they should consider.

"If they did it based on the penalty then they didn't follow the law," he said.

Much more at link: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-07-07/j...er?_s=PM:CRIME
Reply With Quote
:banghead:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...red-jury-fell-prey-to-idiotic-groupthink.html A surprisingly good article by Marcia Clark helps explain what happened.

Thanks for the links.When more jurors come forward, I believe we will hear some very interesting things.MOO.

 

[StJohn]

Count me as one who is inclined to believe that Casey was molested by GA. As pcrum12 pointed out, incest victims tend to keep the abuse secret and feel a deep sense of shame. As for whether Cindy would have put up with it, she may not have known. She worked long hours, & being a nurse, it is possible that in Casey's younger years she could have been working a night shift @ a hospital so anything could have been going on. I would not rule out that Cindy suspected it, but stayed in denial about it, I say this from my own experience as an incest survivor. All that being said, I am still not convinced that GA knew anything about Caylee drowning, or participated in a coverup. I think it is possible, but it is also possible that GA wasn't at home when it happened, & Casey panicked & orchestrated the coverup on her own. It is also possible that Casey murdered Caylee, but I did not hear enough evidence to convince me, so I have to say I agree with the verdict.

 

[Aqua_Green_Bean]

If you are to believe Casey was molested, It's not a far stretch to think Caylee may have been as well. And IF that is the case, the autopsy would bring that to light. All JMOO.

Now this right here, I have to admit, if it were brought in as evidence is a legitimate cause for reasonable doubt. It makes sense, gives a reason and a motive for George to dispose of Caylee's body in the manner it was found. If I were to believe that GA did molest ICA (which I don't) this logic and explanation would cause reasonable doubt.

BUT... the jurors were not supposed to take any allegations of sexual abuse into account or consideration when deliberating. So even if they came to the logical reasoning that you did in your theory, it should not have been a factor in their verdict. So while what you say makes sense, if you believe molestation occurred, it still should not have played any part in deciding ICA was not-guilty.

 

[gngr~snap]

I have never had decomp in my car, but I have had kids spill chocolate milk in the floorboard. I sprayed all kinds of cleaners and thought I got the odor, but the next day it was back. Just thinking about hearing ICA (i think) on the 911 call say "Ill never get this car clean". Maybe the smell was covered pretty good for that time and got worse again?

o/t
it's the gift that keeps on giving isn't it.. I rented a car once that had had a gallon of milk spill in the trunk. It was good til noon the next day. & I tried not to be one of those people that complain but.uke: I treid to clean it more... eww 2 days and I was fuming with them... I made the guy go smell it... :laugh:

I got an upgrade.:great:

on topic: as close as she was to the house I don't get why "whoever" put her in a trunk. it does seem as though it had to be the 18th and that would be Casey unless she and GA met up somewhere and dropped his car off only driving hers back. The 24th gas can issue sure sounds like she was being set up. I am still baffled. NO way I'd let anyone put a body in my car- guess she didn't know any better.

 

[gngr~snap]

It's OK......I get your logic....I just don't think as strong as a personality that CA is, she would even remotely not pay attention to this kind of thing, much less let it go on. But, now I'm confused. How does this meld into how or why Caylee died?

Maybe they weren't paying attention to Caylee at the time arguing about who's the daddy or whatever. It was Father's Day the day before.- it fits in this nightmare somewhere...
moo

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Now this right here, I have to admit, if it were brought in as evidence is a legitimate cause for reasonable doubt. It makes sense, gives a reason and a motive for George to dispose of Caylee's body in the manner it was found. If I were to believe that GA did molest ICA (which I don't) this logic and explanation would cause reasonable doubt.

BUT... the jurors were not supposed to take any allegations of sexual abuse into account or consideration when deliberating. So even if they came to the logical reasoning that you did in your theory, it should not have been a factor in their verdict. So while what you say makes sense, if you believe molestation occurred, it still should not have played any part in deciding ICA was not-guilty.

I have seen people buy into Baez's opening statement and run with it.Their entitled to do that.The jury was told that was not evidence and they could not consider it in their deliberations.I hope that they didn't.When we ask how to understand the juries verdict, I hear theories from Baez's opening statement. Not a good sign.

 

[MissJames]

Ok, when I have more time (got to get ready for work), I'll have to go back to the closing statements (I know they're not evidence) to see who Baez put up there. I'm only working from memory here.

Baez mentioned the friends (from TonE's) who rode in the car once,but they rode in the car before June 16th. Imagine that. He didn't really lie,he just insinuated that they would have smelled it. Anyone not remembering the specifics would have gone by what he said instead of what the evidence was.
:crazy:

 

[MissJames]

Maybe they weren't paying attention to Caylee at the time arguing about who's the daddy or whatever. It was Father's Day the day before.- it fits in this nightmare somewhere...
moo

Respectfully to you,and please forgive me for using this statement,but this is what I don't get. Why pull something out of thin air to explain what happened when there is plenty of evidence about what really happened?
No one has ever mentioned an argument about who Caylee's daddy was .
Again,I get speculating,but I don't understand using it when the actual evidence is tossed aside. No disrespect to you personally. :seeya:

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Respectfully to you,and please forgive me for using this statement,but this is what I don't get. Why pull something out of thin air to explain what happened when there is plenty of evidence about what really happened?
No one has ever mentioned an argument about who Caylee's daddy was .
Again,I get speculating,but I don't understand using it when the actual evidence is tossed aside. No disrespect to you personally. :seeya:

I think some people are trying to be cute and it falls flat. Well, maybe more than flat.

 

[gngr~snap]

Respectfully to you,and please forgive me for using this statement,but this is what I don't get. Why pull something out of thin air to explain what happened when there is plenty of evidence about what really happened?
No one has ever mentioned an argument about who Caylee's daddy was .
Again,I get speculating,but I don't understand using it when the actual evidence is tossed aside. No disrespect to you personally. :seeya:

I was trying to say in a nice way that maybe with Father's Day the day before ... Casey didn't see George. Maybe Caylee was mentioning where her daddy was or something. GA and Casey got into a discussion and lost track of Caylee. I didn't mean a knock down drag out.
That's ok.:seeya: I don't think she drowned anyway. Just might explain why 2 adults were not watching a 2yr old...

 

[gngr~snap]

I think some people are trying to be cute and it falls flat. Well, maybe more than flat.

That did kinda fall huh? ok :doh: innuendo didn'twork
If at the time he didn't know for sure who the father of Caylee was. IF he feared it might be him...
Casey has him by the nose hair. Piss her off she is taking the kid and turning him in.
I'm sure he mentioned the fight the night before with CA.
I'm sure CA insisted that he set her straight.
I am beginning to surmise only Caylee was there Casey had left alone.
However CA tells her mom Casey left with Caylee that night. GA says Casey wasn't home at midnight but she magically appears after CA leaves. CA says she hears them breathing through the door. GA says Caylee saw CA before she went to work. I really wonder if they were even at home! The cell phone and computer put her there.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I was trying to say in a nice way that maybe with Father's Day the day before ... Casey didn't see George. Maybe Caylee was mentioning where her daddy was or something. GA and Casey got into a discussion and lost track of Caylee. I didn't mean a knock down drag out.
That's ok.:seeya: I don't think she drowned anyway. Just might explain why 2 adults were not watching a 2yr old...

I think I liked it better when I thought you were trying to be cute.What does "Caylee was mentioning where her daddy was" supposed to mean?