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

[beccalecca1]

I agree, beccalecca1. There can still be a doubt, but only to the extent that it would not affect a reasonable person's belief regarding whether or not the defendant is guilty. I think the doubts presented in this case were such that they would affect a reasonable person's determination.

I thought there was reasonable doubt. Does that make me a crazy, fantastical story believing person? I understand that people are frustrated with the verdict, but sometimes this belittlement of the jury's determination bleeds over us posters who agree with the verdict. Each of us has our own dirty lens that we see this case through. Is it so hard to accept that all of us may be rational, intelligent, critical thinkers but see the evidence in this case through our own perspectives? A different opinion is not a wrong opinion.

ITA!!:clap::clap:

I, myself, am guilty of wondering "What are you thinking??" to the opposing side. :iamashamed:

 

[GracieLu]

snipped


The whole point of this thread is to try to get an understanding from the posters who agree with what the jury came back with.

It is hard to understand when most of everything I theorize, and some of the other theories out there, are being disputed. It's like the minds of the ones on the other sides of the fence are still not ready to hear why the jury decided what they did. That's fine, but if someone really wants to understand, they're going to have to lay their personal thoughts and feelings inside and listen to what someone else is saying.

I don't think the intentions of this thread was to debate every bit of evidence all over again. That was done throughout the whole case, beginning 3 years ago. And, debating the evidence isn't going to really do anything; there's no way to try her again. I believe the OP started this to try to understand and make peace with the decision. MOO

Okay, now Im confused... the title of this thread is "for those of you who agree with this verdict, please help me understand." The consensus, not by all but by most, who agree w/this verdict seem to be doing so by speculation (most of what was said in JB's opening statement) about GA. Are you saying the jury came back w/not guilty because of speculation about GA? I would hope they came to their decision by the facts presented throughout the trial (not by sleazy innuendo w/nothing to back it up). *Although imo I do not believe the examined the evidence and Caylee deserved much more than 10 hours!*

And, I too believe the OP who started this thread wants to understand and make peace with this decision, however, I do not believe the OP will find peace and understanding by statements such as "GA acted defensive on the stand while JB was insinuating he molested his daughter" (which is absurd imo, and I too, like an earlier poster stated, would have jumped over the podium thingy and strangled JB on the spot!). With all due respect, and I truly mean it, the only logical way to reply to this post would be by examining all the evidence (not unsubstantiated sleazy innuendo).

ICA is a sociopath (well liked w/charm and high charisma, usually don't care about other people, think mainly of themselves, blame others for the things they do, disregard for rules, lie constantly, seldom feel guilt, do not learn from their punishments) and all the EVIDENCE (not sleazy innuendo) points to her and her alone!

IMO of course!

 

[beccalecca1]

Okay, now Im confused... the title of this thread is "for those of you who agree with this verdict, please help me understand." The consensus, not by all but by most, who agree w/this verdict seem to be doing so by speculation (most of what was said in JB's opening statement) about GA. Are you saying the jury came back w/not guilty because of speculation about GA? I would hope they came to their decision by the facts presented throughout the trial (not by sleazy innuendo w/nothing to back it up). *Although imo I do not believe the examined the evidence and Caylee deserved much more than 10 hours!*

And, I too believe the OP who started this thread wants to understand and make peace with this decision, however, I do not believe the OP will find peace and understanding by statements such as "GA acted defensive on the stand while JB was insinuating he molested his daughter" (which is absurd imo, and I too, like an earlier poster stated, would have jumped over the podium thingy and strangled JB on the spot!). With all due respect, and I truly mean it, the only logical way to reply to this post would be by examining all the evidence (not unsubstantiated sleazy innuendo).

ICA is a sociopath (well liked w/charm and high charisma, usually don't care about other people, think mainly of themselves, blame others for the things they do, disregard for rules, lie constantly, seldom feel guilt, do not learn from their punishments) and all the EVIDENCE (not sleazy innuendo) points to her and her alone!

IMO of course!

I personally feel that GA had something to do with the way ICA behaves now, and she is extremely similar to someone who has suffered sexual abuse from a close relative. But, that is MOO, not really the jury's feelings.

And, I was under the impression there were a few news reports out there already with some of the jury stating that they had no consideration in the accusations of the sexual abuse. They didn't feel confident in George's testimony because of the lies (and probably because he wasn't so forthcoming with information).

I posted my theory way back on why I agree with what the jury decided. I didn't post in that theory my sole reason for siding with the jury was because I think she was sexually abused. There was a lot of actual facts, testimony, and evidence that I felt pointed away from Casey. Although, most of the ones disagreeing with me sees the same evidence in a different light.

I don't think ICA is a sociopath. She definitely has her issues, but I find it hard to believe she is a sociopath. She's just not "unfeeling" enough for me to believe that. Again, I must be looking through a different light when I see her then what you are.

 

[GracieLu]

I am pretty sure I heard Baez say Caylee drowned. That means Casey knew her daughter had died.

Just curious, did JB say he was there when Caylee drowned? JB did say that ICA is a liar (several times) - so we are supposed to believe that ICA lies about everything but is telling the truth about Caylee drowning, GA covering it up, GA molesting her, LE almost molesting her.....

I find it funny that the only truth she tells gets her butt out of jail, hmmmmm, odd how that worked out....

IMO of course

 

[crucibelle]

I just wanted to clear up something about the 84 "searches". These were not searches, they were HITS on a website. One report said there were 84 hits, another report said there was only one hit.

 

[jandkmom]

I didn't see where anyone had posted this, so here it is.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shapiro-caylee-anthony-20110709,0,4550760.story



Shapiro goes on to list these reasons:

prosecutors overcharged the case


prosecutors overtried the case

Any article by a member of the OJ defense team is already tainted IMHO. He already got one murderer off. Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman did not receive justice through the criminal court in their case either. It just can't be said enough that because the accused is found not guilty does not mean that they were innocent of the crime.

I don't believe in a rush to judgement, and I was a last holdout for hoping that this was an accident. Caylee deserved a mom who loved her and would not go on about life the day of her death. A hot body contest, video rentals, and a sexual relationship of a month immediately after Caylee's death shows no respect or concern of her life. I really want someone to help me understand that even if you go with the accident theory, how could she party and go on without a care in the world? I came to my own conclusion that KC got rid of Caylee and I do respect other points of view, I just don't understand. I guess that those who don't believe it was murder can no more make me understand than I can convince you of the evidence to prove the murder.

 

[gngr~snap]

I just wanted to clear up something about the 84 "searches". These were not searches, they were HITS on a website. One report said there were 84 hits, another report said there was only one hit.

oh no, no, no...
Does that mean what I think it does?

 

[crucibelle]

oh no, no, no...
Does that mean what I think it does?

Not sure, what do you think it means?

 

[GracieLu]

I personally feel that GA had something to do with the way ICA behaves now, and she is extremely similar to someone who has suffered sexual abuse from a close relative. But, that is MOO, not really the jury's feelings.

And, I was under the impression there were a few news reports out there already with some of the jury stating that they had no consideration in the accusations of the sexual abuse. They didn't feel confident in George's testimony because of the lies (and probably because he wasn't so forthcoming with information).

I posted my theory way back on why I agree with what the jury decided. I didn't post in that theory my sole reason for siding with the jury was because I think she was sexually abused. There was a lot of actual facts, testimony, and evidence that I felt pointed away from Casey. Although, most of the ones disagreeing with me sees the same evidence in a different light.

I don't think ICA is a sociopath. She definitely has her issues, but I find it hard to believe she is a sociopath. She's just not "unfeeling" enough for me to believe that. Again, I must be looking through a different light when I see her then what you are.

bolded by me..... WOW, out partying it up while her litte 2-year-old daughter had been thrown away like trash is "just not unfeeling enough" for you?

 

[allycat1208]

I thought at first Ashton and team did a good job establishing that KC was responsible for her daughter's death but I and many of us were wrong. I think the prosecution's mistake is that they were too overconfident and left out more evidence that should have been brought in.

I think now looking back the trial should have started with GA as it did or CA focusing on the fact that KC was the only who used that car and she was often out with Caylee and the never took buses. The prosecution never brought out the fact that KC never did enquire about the whereabouts of her car after she abandoned it at Amscot. The prosecution shows it was left at Amscot but later on they never ask any of the phone call experts or Yuri Melich to confirm through phone call records, that KC never called to enquire about her car's whereabouts and therefore, she was obviously not interested in getting it back, for a good reason. Although I don't know what KC was thinking as to how she would get around after Amy came back, she obviously did nothing to get it back. This should have been brought up in the trial. Here on Web Sleuths everyone analyzed KC's behavior as to why she left the car at Amscot pointing to theories that she hoped it would be stolen or somehow the horrible odor would just disappear. I don't think the jury thought about it much at all though and this should have been stressed. I don't remember if the prosecution ever stated that she left the car at Amscot right before Tony had to go to New York when she expected to drive him in her car to the airport. If that was brought out in the opening or closing statement I think it should have been emphasized that she could not let Tony in the car anymore. Did the prosecution ask Tony if he spoke to KC about the whereabouts of her car after he returned from N.Y. and especially when Amy is about to return from Peurto Rico? I don't remember this either and I think it should have been stressed.

Also, there was a witness who said he saw KC and Caylee at his store in the afternoon of 6/16. I don't know why the prosecution never brought him in because this would have shown that GA was already gone off to work at this time. The prosecution was too overconfident because they had very qualified scientific experts, but I think the jury compared the prosecution and the defense's experts and thought they contradicted each other and they decided to rely on lay witnesses instead. There were a few people who said they did not smell a bad odor, such as the tow company guy who picked the car up from Amscot and the woman who worked at Amscot....maybe this was enough to raise reasonable doubt.
I always thought River's testimony would be important and it was because more people believed her rather than GA according to a comparison here on Web Sleuths. I think because of the text that was read: "I need you in my life" from GA to River proved the were more than just friends. You would not send a message like that to volunteers which GA said he did. You might say "I really appreciate all your help." or "I sincerely thank you." to volunteers. Since they believed that George was lying about the alleged affair, they most likely would believe River who said that George told her "it was an accident that snowballed." River's testimony was important because even if the jury was thinking that George really meant he believed it was an accident or he wanted to believe it was an accident, some may have questioned this. I believe that George did tell River this and at times he believed it, although I think he had conflicting views on the subject of how Caylee died.

 

[time]

Any article by a member of the OJ defense team is already tainted IMHO. He already got one murderer off. Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman did not receive justice through the criminal court in their case either. It just can't be said enough that because the accused is found not guilty does not mean that they were innocent of the crime.

I don't believe in a rush to judgement, and I was a last holdout for hoping that this was an accident. Caylee deserved a mom who loved her and would not go on about life the day of her death. A hot body contest, video rentals, and a sexual relationship of a month immediately after Caylee's death shows no respect or concern of her life. I really want someone to help me understand that even if you go with the accident theory, how could she party and go on without a care in the world? I came to my own conclusion that KC got rid of Caylee and I do respect other points of view, I just don't understand. I guess that those who don't believe it was murder can no more make me understand than I can convince you of the evidence to prove the murder.

I have no love for defense attorneys/commentators who seem to want fame and money, believe me (BTW, I don't particularly like Shapiro who helped start companies like www.legalzoom.com who make it easy for criminals to start shell companies in places like Wyoming and Delaware). However, I think your argument is basically illogical. I agree with Shapiro's simple arguments here of why the prosecution was wrong. I think they could have gotten Casey convicted of a lesser charge and I don't mean lying to the police.

Did you read the article?

I know many have a lot of emotions invested in this case, but perhaps you can at least entertain the idea that the prosecution failed everyone. Instead many people want to blame the jurors - and even go after them. I think that is a shame.

You may think in your heart it was first degree murder but that is different than showing evidence that is what happened.

 

[logicalgirl]

JB didn't accuse George of disposing Caylee's body. Listen to his OS again. The information you're posting about is spun half-truths that NG stated the night after OS, and I've heard many other TH's repeat that. Again, JB never said George disposed of the body. He didn't say anything about how the body got in the woods.

And, I would think I'd compose myself knowing that I'm telling my story to 12 jurors sitting right next to me, and if I'm out of line it'll probably look like I'm hiding something. And, if I couldn't keep myself composed and just HAD to act like a defiant teenager; maybe I'd explain my reasoning on the stand for behaving that way. I would've given him a little more credit if he said something like, "I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be so upset up here, I'm just bothered by the accusations and want you to know I never harmed my daughter, EVER." And, perhaps he could've moved on and provided the information asked. Instead, each and every time he was on that stand (and we all know that was many), he was perfect for JA and completely argumentative for JB.

George knew way before it was time for trial what he was being accused of. I think he probably had a heads up even longer before him speaking with his attorney. He had a long time to get over it and get the truth out there. Instead, he acted as if this was all knew to him and it was time to go toe-to-toe with JB. I believe that was the worst time for him to get all macho. Not in front of the jury at least.

BBM:

I can emphatically state I did not hear NG or any talking heads make that statement - but I most definitely did hear Baez imply that it was George who disposed of the remains like the family pet. THEN he want haywire to say that Kronk took the body and did.....well who knows what - Baez didn't quite get his notes finished on that one.
Which was why LDB asked George if he tossed the body in the swamp to get that "mistaken" accusation out of the "defense evidence".

 

[teedie2]

But the body was NOT hidden well...it was down the road..20 feet from the road...not even buried. Its sheer incompetance from the blundering LE that it wasn't found sooner.

What about .. the body was under water for quite a while from a storm. Not visible.

What about TES didn't want to search that spot because it was underwater because if Caylee were there, it would destroy evidence to go walking in or on horseback?

 

[beccalecca1]

bolded by me..... WOW, out partying it up while her litte 2-year-old daughter had been thrown away like trash is "just not unfeeling enough" for you?

Not if she was a victim of abuse. And, I believe the expert testified that was the normal form of grieving for a early 20 something. I'm sorry. I just don't see going out a couple nights "unfeeling".

 

[logicalgirl]

snipped


The whole point of this thread is to try to get an understanding from the posters who agree with what the jury came back with.

It is hard to understand when most of everything I theorize, and some of the other theories out there, are being disputed. It's like the minds of the ones on the other sides of the fence are still not ready to hear why the jury decided what they did. That's fine, but if someone really wants to understand, they're going to have to lay their personal thoughts and feelings inside and listen to what someone else is saying.

I don't think the intentions of this thread was to debate every bit of evidence all over again. That was done throughout the whole case, beginning 3 years ago. And, debating the evidence isn't going to really do anything; there's no way to try her again. I believe the OP started this to try to understand and make peace with the decision. MOO

I understand your thoughts and intentions about this thread but it is really really hard to read complete misunderstandings about facts and jury instructions and leave them to lie there mistakenly being quoted as "truths". Really hard. No one is arguing feelings and thoughts - but facts? Hard to do.

 

[annalia]

Not if she was a victim of abuse. And, I believe the expert testified that was the normal form of grieving for a early 20 something. I'm sorry. I just don't see going out a couple nights "unfeeling".

Going out a couple of nights?? For real? When is 31 days and nights considered a couple of nights?

There is zero evidence, none, nada that she is a victim of abuse. That so called expert never reviewed Casey personally. Anyoen can find an expert to say anything they want them to say. Where's the proof?

I would say that many convicted criminals were victims of abuse of some form or another,should they all get a pass too?

 

[logicalgirl]

Not if she was a victim of abuse. And, I believe the expert testified that was the normal form of grieving for a early 20 something. I'm sorry. I just don't see going out a couple nights "unfeeling".

Are you talking about Mustang Sally? She argued that any behavior at all could be described as "grieving". Anything at all.

 

[beccalecca1]

BBM:

I can emphatically state I did not hear NG or any talking heads make that statement - but I most definitely did hear Baez imply that it was George who disposed of the remains like the family pet. THEN he want haywire to say that Kronk took the body and did.....well who knows what - Baez didn't quite get his notes finished on that one.
Which was way LDB asked George if he tossed the body in the swamp to get that "mistaken" accusation out of the "defense evidence".

JB didn't say Kronk took the body either. JB didn't say much of anything after the accident happened, and then just stated that Kronk was holding onto a lottery ticket with the body, ready to cash in when he felt like it. Whatever implications derived from that were your own. He didn't say anything about who put Caylee there. He didn't say Kronk took Caylee to another spot just to return her there when he wanted... (and why would Kronk take Caylee from that spot just to return her there... why not put her somewhere else at his convenience??).

 

[logicalgirl]

I have no love for defense attorneys/commentators who seem to want fame and money, believe me (BTW, I don't particularly like Shapiro who helped start companies like www.legalzoom.com who make it easy for criminals to start shell companies in places like Wyoming and Delaware). However, I think your argument is basically illogical. I agree with Shapiro's simple arguments here of why the prosecution was wrong. I think they could have gotten Casey convicted of a lesser charge and I don't mean lying to the police.

Did you read the article?

I know many have a lot of emotions invested in this case, but perhaps you can at least entertain the idea that the prosecution failed everyone. Instead many people want to blame the jurors - and even go after them. I think that is a shame.

You may think in your heart it was first degree murder but that is different than showing evidence that is what happened.

Judge Stan Strickland did a news taping this afternoon on Wesh.com, discussing evidence and circumstantial evidence. You may find his comments interesting. Judge Strickland was of course the first judge on the case.

Or a synopsis of his comments in available in the Today's News - No Discussion at the beginning of the Caylee Threads.

 

[Nova]

[/B]

Not even showing a little attitude to the man who in front of the world accused you of disposing of your beloved grandchild's body by placing duct tape over her nose and mouth, packaging her up in a bag and two garbage bags and throwing her away into a swamp just down the road from your house - AND accused you of being a pedophile and a monster who sexually abused your daughter from the age of 8? Insinuations that will stick to you without a shred of proof for the rest of your life? I think you just might have had a bit of attitude.

I thought George showed amazing restraint for someone we know has a temper. Me? I'd have been over that witness stand and at Baez long before he'd finished asking his questions, and gladly taken my lumps in whatever HHJP handed me.

People who think George's testimony was a little "hinky" could perhaps give their own comments just a little more thought. That was the look of a man who was itching to punch JB right on the nose or tell him what he really thought of him and felt he couldn't - had been counselled over and over not to lose his temper.

THANK YOU! I really don't get those who find something suspicious in GA being "combative" with Baez. How was GA supposed to act?

Had he somehow summoned the inner strength to response politely to JB, it would have been interpreted as consciousness of guilty by the same people who now blame GA for being "combatative."

***

P.S. to poster above: when a witness' testimony is "impeached", it shouldn't mean that intelligent jurors simply throw out everything that witness said.

IF GA lied about having an extramarital affair (I don't know that he did), that is no reason to assume he lied about the last time he saw his granddaughter.

IF CA lied about internet searches in an effort to save her own daughter from the death chamber (seems likely), that doesn't mean that everything CA said was a lie.

Just like the rest of us, witnesses will shade the truth in some areas for reasons of their own while being totally truthful in other regards.