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

[WillChgo]

I did all of the above, and I believe the state failed to prove Caylee was murdered. While you feel insulted, I must point out that it is insulting to think that those who believe there was reasonable doubt did NOT follow the evidence, hearings and trial. Some of us did. And we STILL think there is reasonable doubt!!

Speaking for myself only, I always assume innocence until evidence proves otherwise. While I may "feel" that Casey is responsible for Caylee's death, I KNOW that the evidence allows for reasonable doubt. The FBI reports on the trunk point out that all of their findings DO NOT MEAN that a human being was decomposing in that trunk. There was DNA on the duct tape that did not belong to Caylee, Casey OR the lab worker. I've got more reasons than this, but time is short, and I have listed several reasons several times.

...


THANK YOU! I've tried to say this before, but never spelled it right out like you've done. There was UNIDENTIFIED Dna on the tape, not Caylee's, not Casey's, not the lab worker's.

Intelligent people can disagree. So far the jury interviews do not reveal that the juror's evaluated the totality of the evidence in a rigorous way.

I have not read all your post but I really have a hard time understanding the arguments you present in this one.

Even if you discard Dr.Vass's forensics as speculative science, which I do not. all the people who identified the smell of a decomposing body in the trunk, and the trained dog plus the hair with banding on the trunk prove to me beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee's decomposing body was in the trunk.

As for the allele 17 it was not consistent with GA. The fact that Caylee's DNA was not found in the duct tape indicates to me that the original DNA had decomposed. The remaining DNA likely came later. The duct tape came from the Anthony household IMO beyond a reasonable doubt. Some unidentified DNA marker is a mystery but not IMO reasonable doubt.

Overall I don't think people in this board will come to a consensus. I was worried about a hung jury and if you and I had been it that may be what have happened.

IMO the prosecution failed to explain the meaning of circumstantial evidence and that reasonable doubt does not mean that every single thing is crystal clear. The real world is not CSI.

 

[beccalecca1]

I'm well aware of that.....again, my point being that this jury gave more weight to a "theory" and they themselves speculated on what could have happened instead of weighing the evidence presented. while it would not be unreasonable to believe she could have drowned....there was no evidence before them upon which they could have inferred this. Again, a pic of Caylee with her hand on the door, a couple of pics with Caylee on the ladder? There was direct testimony to the contrary. No one testified that Caylee had ever previously attempted same. No one testified that Caylee had ever been out of anyone's sight long enough for something like this to happen. Hell, no one even testified as to what context that pic of her at the door was from? It could have been Caylee closing the damn door instead of opening it.

This jury did not follow the instructions, now the law that applied. Instead they inserted their own 'theory' of how it MAY have happened and rendered their verdict accordingly. They did not do their jobs, period.

I completely disagree. Tony L testified that Casey had stopped Caylee from running into the apartment's pool. Caylee loved to swim, why is it so far fetched to believe that she didn't understand her own limitations (like most children) and went in all by herself?

 

[kelian36]

It's far fetched and imo ridiculous to 'understand' Caylee entering the pool alone and drowning. I'm sure you've heard the same responses for days on end.........an accidental drowning ends in someone calling 911...not with someone duct taping a babies mouth, throwing them in trash bags with their blanket and stashing them in the swamp behind one's house.:banghead:

 

[beccalecca1]

respectfully..then please point out exactly what evidence you are referring to come to this conclusion.

#1: There was no child-proofing measures taken to prevent Caylee from going in the back yard.

#2: Caylee could have gotten out of the cracked door in the photo if she was determined to go swimming.

#3: The pictures of Caylee with Cindy climbing the pool ladder was taken a year before and she could climb the stairs mostly by herself, after a year I'd think she could climb them all by herself.

#4: I posted a video in this thread, a couple pages back, showing the A's in the backyard eating at their patio table. No one was swimming and no one was in swimming attire, and the pool ladder is attached in the background. Shows they were NOT religious in taking the ladder down.

 

[beccalecca1]

BBM...
but this is contradictory for the reasoning you used previously about Dr. Vass's analysis and testimony...that it wasn't 'proven' science, etc. and a jury isn't supposed to rely on something that's not in evidence. They can't speculate as to what may or may not have been found. The defense witness who testified said there wasn't enough DNA to give a full profile, and the marker she said was there, she admitted it was below the accepted standards. A jury is supposed to be able to try and discern fact from fiction...that's what they were there to do....not insert their beliefs, feelings, or speculation on how something may or may not have occurred. :maddening:

I don't recall pointing out that Vass' evidence wasn't "proven" science. I know many other posters on here argued that, but I don't recall I did. I did argue the probability of the chemicals (1/10th of Vass' equate to human decomposition, 1/80+ equate to the German's human decomposition).

But, given that the judge allowed that evidence in (Vass' testimony), I'm not sure why this guy couldn't have analyzed the DNA further to see if he could get a better reading.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

(1/10th of Vass' equate to human decomposition, 1/80+ equate to the German's human decomposition).

.

I'm sorry to have to ask but what does this mean? Specifically " the German's human decomposition"

 

[beccalecca1]

yes, if you watch her entire testimony, she says one thing to Baez and she says another to JA. her testimony in and of itself was contradictory....so shouldn't that have been a wash then? that's how you explained expert witness contradictory testimony in previous posts?

I don't recall explaining expert witness testimony previously.

But, KH isn't an expert, so the explanations wouldn't apply to her anyways. I recall, from memory, that she maintained her position with JA: "It was an accident that snowballed out of control". I recall JA trying to razz her and get her to change what she said, but before they went to side bar and she started crying, she was adamant about it being said that way, word for word. I'd have to go back and listen to cross in order to hear her sway her story because I don't remember it happening like that.

 

[mombomb]

I may be wrong, but I believe in her deposition she said something like, GA thought it was an accident that snowballed out of control and didn't believe he could raise a daughter who would kill someone.

and, i guess im really wrong, but I SWEAR I remember JA questioning RC (or the other name she uses for which I am still not sure why? Does anybody know the answer to this?) and she did admit on the stand that he said "he thought it was an accident that snowballed out of control."

and going further, what father would believe otherwise anyway? If something happened to my child (GOD FORBID) and I was somehow involved (NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS) my father would be the first one screaming IT WAS AN ACCIDENT! This doesn't mean GA knew this for fact, most likely what any father would think if their child was being accused of murder.

BBM - I believe her real name is Krystal Holloway. She also goes by River Crews because her father used to call her River and Crews is her mother's maiden name. Odd - but that's the explanation she gave in an interview I believe.

 

[Nova]

I completely disagree. Tony L testified that Casey had stopped Caylee from running into the apartment's pool. Caylee loved to swim, why is it so far fetched to believe that she didn't understand her own limitations (like most children) and went in all by herself?

It's not farfetched that a toddler might drown. It's a leading cause of death of toddlers in FL, AZ and CA.

What is hard to believe is that a mother didn't call experts to try to save her baby. What is preposterous is that she was willing to dump her baby's body in a swamp rather than allow the corpse to be afforded some dignity. What is absolutely absurd is that an experienced police detective thought it was a good idea to make the accident look like a murder.

This is the sort of reasoning we have a right to expect from jurors. They aren't CSI viewers sitting on a couch and waiting for William Petersen to tell them who did it.

(beccalecca1, I am only talking about this one issue. I realize you have reasonable doubt in a number of areas and I'm not dismissing those doubts. I'm just saying that on this issue, jurors should have been able to reason past the drowning theory (for which there was no evidence whatsoever, I might add).)

 

[beccalecca1]

Thank you for pulling up the video :seeya:
Around the 29 min mark JA refers to a note GA sent her saying he had been trying to reach her and left several messages for her with her daughter,security and her husband. She gets fidgety and instead of answering she says "I'm not married sir" .But of course JA goes on to show why GA would use the term husband.
Immediately after to about 33,JA impeaches KH aka RC,with the statement she made to LE under oath ,that she and GA DID NOT have an affair.

And can I just add how truthful she appears when JA questions her about her changing story and the timeline of selling it to the National Enquirer? She just screams of someone with honor and character (Not)

Immediately following is the exchange when JA refers back to her statement to LE under oath,when she told them GA said "I really believe it was an accident and things went wrong and she tried to cover it up".
Now this is where KH aka RC ,gets combative.

So GA is the liar and guilty of something.He was combative with JB so he must be guilty.

Krystal Holloway,who also goes by the name of River Cruz (nothing hinky about that ) is impeached by her previous sworn statement ,becomes angry and combative with JA during that exchange (isn't that what is being said about GA?) is the person that is believed . I guess changing her story when she got an offer from the National Inquirer is no reason for concern to anyone trying to get to the truth. Nothing hinky there.:crazy:

So George is the one they thought was lying and this <unusual person> was believable. :waitasec:

YW for posting the video. It's nice to have handy while debating this


Honestly, my take of her was she didn't want to have anything to do with it. No part of it at all. When she first went to the police station, there were news cameras there filming her. You could just see how awkward she felt about the whole thing. I think she felt the same emotion on the stand, if she could've run from it without getting into trouble, she would have. Bury the embarrassing chapter in her life.

Either that or she was a good actor (almost as good as you claim Casey to be), and she put on that show for sympathy. When she began to cry on the stand, I thought she was crying out of frustration of not being able to articulate what she wanted to say. I do believe that she was conned by the National Enquirer, didn't even think that it would look bad for her to have her story there. She just bought the idea that them, and only them, would allow her to tell her whole story. All the other media would twist it.

I don't see her as being combative on the stand, especially if you're going to compare GA to her. He repeatedly says on the stand to JB "I'm not trying to be argumentative here *snicker*...." In fact, all of the snickering together is sickening. She wasn't like that at all.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

BBM - I believe her real name is Krystal Holloway. She also goes by River Crews because her father used to call her River and Crews is her mother's maiden name. Odd - but that's the explanation she gave in an interview I believe.

Yes its odd. I wonder why she wouldn't just change her name to the one she prefers?

 

[beccalecca1]

As to whether she's old enough to walk around or that somebody else wasn't in the pool, you are just speculating. That is not evidence nor a reasonable inference.

I completely disagree. Lee didn't live in the home at the time. You can hear Cindy and Casey in the background, so who would you speculate was using the pool?

And, Caylee looks like the same age as the pic of her climbing the ladder with Cindy.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

#1: There was no child-proofing measures taken to prevent Caylee from going in the back yard.

#2: Caylee could have gotten out of the cracked door in the photo if she was determined to go swimming.

#3: The pictures of Caylee with Cindy climbing the pool ladder was taken a year before and she could climb the stairs mostly by herself, after a year I'd think she could climb them all by herself.

#4: I posted a video in this thread, a couple pages back, showing the A's in the backyard eating at their patio table. No one was swimming and no one was in swimming attire, and the pool ladder is attached in the background. Shows they were NOT religious in taking the ladder down.

But you said there was evidence. None of this is evidence that Caylee drowned.

 

[Black Water]

I completely disagree. Tony L testified that Casey had stopped Caylee from running into the apartment's pool. Caylee loved to swim, why is it so far fetched to believe that she didn't understand her own limitations (like most children) and went in all by herself?

And why is that not reasonable doubt. My opinion is that first of all this was not a search for the truth and true motives were not explored. I guess the family was just not going to share the events of the night that Casey left with Caylee as Grund has told the new that Lee Anthony shared with him.
Jose Argues that Caylee had no shoes on and therefore was at home. I would say that since Caylee had a shirt on that he grandmother had NEVER seen and shorts that were old and never worn, those were items Casey kept in her car. That at some point she changed Caylee into those out of her P.J s if indeed they did leave the night of the 15th after a heated arguement where Cindy had Casey by the throat. I notice how Cindy portrayed the night of the 15th, with her and Casey watching video's of her greatgrandpa who was near death and how Casey cried with her mother. That is a far cry from Cindy confronting Casey about her stealing from this grandpa's assisted living fund and this situation escalating to the point where Cindy had Casey by the throat. Cindy to me does not seem stable in the least and did Caylee get to witness her mother being strangled in this manner? How often did this go on?
What reason does Grund have to make it up? Grund also talking about how Cindy came into the room when he was over and attacked Casey about when she was going to pay her back for the hospital bills? Why did Cindy even pay the bills? In what world does a registered nurse not know that an unemployed 19 year old only has to fill out some paperwork to have those bills paid for by the state???? Instead she wants her young daughter to start out parenting with this kind of large dept on her shoulders? Cindy I submit has all kinds of motives and many of them do seem to be in the worst intrest of Casey.

Back to the outfit. Either Caylee and Casey never did come home before Caylee died OR after she knew George was gone, Casey and Caylee came home. Where were they the night before? Did Casey not have a place to go and parked somewhere getting no sleep while Caylee got plenty setting up a situation for the next day when Casey fell asleep, the ladder was up and the baby got into the pool? It is enough doubt for me.

The defense I submit knew the deal that George did not know what Caylee was wearing when he says he saw them on the 17th because George never did see them on the 17th. I submit he lied because of the events of the previous night. Which must have been so volitle that he even being her dad thought it created motive and would help the prosecution if it was reveled in court that Casey took Caylee and left that night after this violent altercation with her mother. So, the defense took full advantage of that and it did make GA look like a liar.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

But you said there was evidence. None of this is evidence that Caylee drowned.

I guess the post means that if something is possible then its evidence that an event took place.Doesn't make sense to to me, but that's my opinion only.

 

[beccalecca1]

Yes, there was. The duct tape and the body dump in the woods indicate murder and contra-indicate accidental death.

Regardless, you agree that there was no such evidence for an accident.

There was also other confirming evidence for murder or manslaughter, such as no 911 call and the concealment of the fact of the dead child and lies about her being missing and no admission to any other scenario, and no visible evidence of remorse or grief, until the trial started (then the waterworks finally begin).




I feel I supported it well enough with reason.

The duct tape and the body being dumped doesn't equate to murder. That is speculation and the jury is instructed to not do that.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

The duct tape and the body being dumped doesn't equate to murder. That is speculation and the jury is instructed to not do that.

What would it equate to? Are you serious?

 

[beccalecca1]

.

and, i guess im really wrong, but I SWEAR I remember JA questioning RC (or the other name she uses for which I am still not sure why? Does anybody know the answer to this?) and she did admit on the stand that he said "he thought it was an accident that snowballed out of control."

Snipped

I saw reports, or interviews, or something like that, stating she changed her name because she was in a highly abusive relationship in New York. When she fled to FL, she changed her name so the guy couldn't find her.

 

[Nova24]

It's not farfetched that a toddler might drown. It's a leading cause of death of toddlers in FL, AZ and CA.

What is hard to believe is that a mother didn't call experts to try to save her baby. What is preposterous is that she was willing to dump her baby's body in a swamp rather than allow the corpse to be afforded some dignity. What is absolutely absurd is that an experienced police detective thought it was a good idea to make the accident look like a murder.

This is the sort of reasoning we have a right to expect from jurors. They aren't CSI viewers sitting on a couch and waiting for William Petersen to tell them who did it.

(beccalecca1, I am only talking about this one issue. I realize you have reasonable doubt in a number of areas and I'm not dismissing those doubts. I'm just saying that on this issue, jurors should have been able to reason past the drowning theory (for which there was no evidence whatsoever, I might add).)

Nicely stated, Nova.

 

[beccalecca1]

version used in Florida and actually given to the jury rather than a general overview which a jury would never be given to utilize.



It is solely based upon this specific instruction to this jury that I find their verdict lacks support in light of their own statements. The Foreman actually uses the word "speculate" many times, acknowledges they spent time "speculating" about George rather than reviewing the evidence as instructed. This case was about Casey not about George yet they became sidetracked onto a discussion of George's possible guilt although that was not even suggested by the defense, that George may have murdered Caylee.

They say they believed she was guilty and were "sick" about finding her NG. Maybe they should have spent a smidgen of time reading the darn instructions. The instructions cover that :

I think Mr. Know it All Foreman seriously led this jury astray. Why is the lingering question for me.

Thanks for providing the definition specifically given to the jury.

In that definition, it states that a reasonable doubt can be attained from a conflict of evidence. I think that is exactly what happened. There was a lot of conflicting testimonies.