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

[Kimberlyd125]

Logically, the State was saying animals were spewing everything everywhere. What duct tape can sit on rotting flesh, and then tighten against the skull? Its just not logically possible, it really isn't.

jmo

What????
It's just not logically possible???

BS


What held it in place???

 

[cmsg2002]

I NEVER said he should lie. Actually I stated he should answer questions. George however did more than just answer questions. On July 24, 2008, he went to LE to volunteer information. On the stand, he voluntarily told the juror that he now believed his daughter harmed his granddaughter. His daughter was facing the death penalty and he volunteered his opinion.

Most parents have an extremely hard time being witnesses against their child even if they believe their child should be held responsible.

First, in July 2008 they were all being told by KC that Caylee was alive and had been kidnapped. If I was a parent in the same situation, I would feel the need to tell LE the exact same thing if I had my suspicions, because its the right thing to do. he was doing the right thing then, IMO.
GA stated on the stand that he believed his daughter harmed his granddaughter was because 6 weeks earlier they were informed of the DT's new theory...and as GA knew firsthand he wasn't involved in any accidental drowning or coverup, he then had no doubts left that KC had harmed that child, willfully or neglectfully. And he did have a hard time prior to that....both he and Cindy went out of their way, and ultimately to their own and Caylee's detriment to protect KC.

 

[Solace]

The jury instructions specifically say "if you have an overiding conviction that the defenendant is guilty, you must vote guilty. Six had this and then they were swayed.

 

[Chablis]

The jury instructions specifically say "if you have an overiding conviction that the defenendant is guilty, you must vote guilty. Six had this and then they were swayed.

Juries deliberate, its just part of the Judicial process! Thats what they do vote and then start talking!

 

[cmsg2002]

Here is what I think could have happened, ..but since its speculation don't hold me to factual reference

Assume the drowning story, then:

*Assume there is an element to the drowning which could point to culpable negligence
*GA does in fact tell Casey "you'll go to jail for the rest of your life for child neglect"
*Casey believes it (not hard to fathom).
*GA feels he too will be blamed for this Cindy/LE/media or that the death would prompt discovery of something else, for whatever reason GA decides that its in his best interest to cover-up and Casey is afraid to go to jail for the rest of her life.
*GA agrees to keep quiet, tells Casey its her responsibility to properly bury Caylee
*Casey buries Caylee in the back yard, tells GA when asked what she did
*GA becomes furious tells her to get Caylee's body off the property
*Casey removes Caylee tells GA she will go bury her somewhere else
*Casey gets cold feet - leaves body in trunk, escapes (mentally)
*Car starts to smell - Casey puts Caylee where she is found
*Casey tells GA that she buried Caylee in a cemetary and marked the spot
*GA goes there and cannot find the spot, starts to suspect Casey just dumped the body

fast forward to December 2008.

*By this point State had ALREADY (before body found) put the death penalty on the table, in an effort to get Casey to point them to the body
*Casey has told JB the story - he calculates she'll never get convicted of murder 1
*After body found w/duct tape, State will accept plea for manslaughter, nothing less (regardless of what story she tells)
*JB/Casey decide to roll the dice in court vs plea to manslaughter
*Casey sits in jail for another 2.5 years in an effort to get off with time served (checks, lying to LE which JB tells her will be 3 years anyhow) rather than accept 10 year sentence in a plea deal on top of that.

BBM...but the problem was she was facing a murder trial that carried a death penalty. And while I am loathe to give much credit to Baez, even he would not have advised his client to roll the dice on a murder charge vs. taking a plea for manslaughter.....no attorney would, that would be gross malpractice.

and KC would have sung like a bird if there was someone else she could lay the blame on. She and she alone was responsible for the death of her child.

 

[WillChgo]

(1) does nothing to prove homicide. Failure to report an accidental death is not evidence of homicide.

(2) Casey's behavior was testified to as "not abnormal" for her age by the grief expert...remember the magical thinking stuff?

(3) a body in the trunk does not prove manner of death was homicide.

(4) there is reasonable doubt as to when and where the duct tape was applied through expert testimony.

Nothing you listed above IMO proves anything beyond a reasonable doubt - even when considered together.

I posted a possible (not beyond a reasonable doubt) scenario above which takes 1-3 into account.

(1) I didn't say it was evidence of homicide. It is evidence of Casey's culpability, at least of negligence. The only other alternative would be some widely speculative theory, such as the one Baez presented in the opening statement, WITHOUT EVIDENCE, or molestation. Reasonable doubt is not wild speculation.

(2) The grief expert did not examine Casey. There is no evidence of "magical thinking" in Casey's part. Her lies were clearly manipulative and to get her way; she changed them to make it convenient to her. She made up people to deflect attention from her deeds and misdeeds. The magical thinking theory is widely speculative and without evidence. Even if you believe the expert's opinion, that is only evidence that some people could respond to grief with magical thinking, not that Casey did so.

(3) I could see that a body in the trunk is consistent with negligence leading to death, but not to a non-negligent accident. Negligence leading to death would be manslaughter. If Casey was innocent and not negligent, why would she hide the body?

(4) Here is where common sense has to be tied to expert testimony and to other pieces of evidence. The tape belonged to the Anthony family. It is not reasonable to assume that RK or an outsider had access to the tape. Even if we don't know exactly when and where if it's an accident why duct tape the face and head? The duct tape had to be placed by one of the Anthony's (and given 1-3, and other evidence it had to be Casey). Why would one of the Anthony's place Caylee's body in Casey's trunk, place duct tape afterwards, as then throw the body in a swamp without proper burial? IMO, this does not make sense, even if a DT expert witness testified that it is theoretically possible.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Logically, the State was saying animals were spewing everything everywhere. What duct tape can sit on rotting flesh, and then tighten against the skull? Its just not logically possible, it really isn't.

jmo

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/19801867/detail.html

UCF Osteological Analysis
Page 3, third and fourth paragraphs...

On December 11 Dr. Utz and Dr. Schultz removed the skull from the brown paper collection bag by tearing the corners of the bag to expose the skull. A hair mat was noted on the base of the skull and grayish colored tape was noticed covering the mouth and nasal aperture areas. The tape remained in place because it was adhered to the hair of the skull. In addition, the mandible was still retained underneath the base of the cranium positioned slightly posterior. Dr. Utz removed the tape and the hair matt for analysis. At that time, Dr. Schultz provided a preliminary age based on the completed erupted primary dentition and the developing secondary detintion that was approximately 2.5 and 3 years of age based on the dental eruption and development chart by Ubelaker (1989).

Opinion:
Considering the dispersal of the skeletal remains, it would not be expected to find the mandible in this position unless something affixed the mandible in this position prior to decomposition and the hair matting forming. In skeletal cases involving surface depositions, the mandible and cranium are normally found disarticulated because there is nothing to hold the mandible in place after the soft tissues decomposes. Based on the position of the tape and mandible, it can be inferred that the mandible remained in this position because the tape held it in place prior to the hair forming into a matt on the base of the skull.

 

[cmsg2002]

You just made my point. You followed the case for years. I bet you even formed an opinion on guilt prior to the start of the trial. You were naturally going to give the prosecution's evidence more weight as it supported your prior opinion.

As far as legal backgrounds and knowledge of how to apply the law, there are MANY who have "legal experience" and the knowledge of how to apply the law who agree with the verdict.

I did not insult anyone. Actually, I showed an understanding why people do not understand that verdict without any personal attack. That same understanding is not shown to the jurors or those who agree with the verdict.

your original post that I was responding directly to, stated that the reason people didn't agree with the verdict is because they didn't understand reasonable doubt. And my response was that was simply not true for the majority of us that have closely followed this case from day one. I didn't say you were insulting, I said your reasoning was. you painted many here with a broad stroke and I was pointing out that inaccurate and incorrect assessment.

and in speaking only for myself....I did not believe with 110% certainty that she was guilty of murder prior to the trial. I too wanted to believe that someone couldn't or wouldn't do that to their own child; that perhaps it was some type of accident, that she panicked and it all somehow got away from her, even with the duct tape. But what convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt is when at trial, the DT came out with their ridiculous and bizarro theory.....that minute is when I was convinced she was guilty of purposely harming that child.

 

[Chablis]

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/19801867/detail.html

UCF Osteological Analysis
Page 3, third and fourth paragraphs...

On December 11 Dr. Utz and Dr. Schultz removed the skull from the brown paper collection bag by tearing the corners of the bag to expose the skull. A hair mat was noted on the base of the skull and grayish colored tape was noticed covering the mouth and nasal aperture areas. The tape remained in place because it was adhered to the hair of the skull. In addition, the mandible was still retained underneath the base of the cranium positioned slightly posterior. Dr. Utz removed the tape and the hair matt for analysis. At that time, Dr. Schultz provided a preliminary age based on the completed erupted primary dentition and the developing secondary detintion that was approximately 2.5 and 3 years of age based on the dental eruption and development chart by Ubelaker (1989).

Opinion:
Considering the dispersal of the skeletal remains, it would not be expected to find the mandible in this position unless something affixed the mandible in this position prior to decomposition and the hair matting forming. In skeletal cases involving surface depositions, the mandible and cranium are normally found disarticulated because there is nothing to hold the mandible in place after the soft tissues decomposes. Based on the position of the tape and mandible, it can be inferred that the mandible remained in this position because the tape held it in place prior to the hair forming into a matt on the base of the skull.

Are you saying the mandible was in place, because I am pretty sure the duct tape was not found wrapped tight on the skull, or did I miss that?

 

[Solace]

Juries deliberate, its just part of the Judicial process! Thats what they do vote and then start talking!

I understand that but in the instructions it says to use "common sense". The jury focused on "physical" proof of KC committing this murder and said they did not see it. They were allowed to use their "common sense" in putting all the evidence together to form an opinion on guilt or innocence. I think the fact that they DID NOT look at the evidence while deliberating shows a gross lack of deliberation.

They were allowed to take her actions into consideration and not just the 31 days - her actions after that with Fogey and other LE, shows she is lying to lie now and we should look into it. They did not.

Anyway.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Are you saying the mandible was in place, because I am pretty sure the duct tape was not found wrapped tight on the skull, or did I miss that?

I'm not saying anything. I provided a link to an official document.

Read what I typed above (that I typed word from word from the document I linked to).

ETA: This part...
Based on the position of the tape and mandible, it can be inferred that the mandible remained in this position because the tape held it in place prior to the hair forming into a matt on the base of the skull.

 

[1Chump]

After watching GA and CA for 3 years, I can say they would have torn that pool down as soon as they found out Caylee drowned in it.

No matter what others think of GA and CA, their love for Caylee is clear. They worshiped that child.
They lived for her.

It is my opinion, they would never keep a huge reminder of Caylee's death in their back yard.

IMO, Casey learned denial from her Mom. Cindy removing the pool would force her to face Caylee's death. Despite wearing Caylee's ashes around her neck, Cindy still believed Caylee was alive. She did not stop looking for Zanny until 6 weeks before the trial.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

IMO, Casey learned denial from her Mom. Cindy removing the pool would force her to face Caylee's death. Despite wearing Caylee's ashes around her neck, Cindy still believed Caylee was alive and was looking for Zanny 6 weeks before trial.

Cindy thought Caylee was with Casey those 31 days.
She was being lied to by the queen of all liars.

She did not have any idea until they picked up that car that something this serious could be wrong.

I'm not buying that GA and CA knew Caylee drowned.

I'm not buying that Caylee drowned at all.

 

[dizzychick]

I could have bought the accident theory had it not been for this:
1. puter searches even dismissing the 84 chloroform searches there were enough other searches for killing type things like neck breaking that her intent was to kill maybe her parents and then after the fight it was little Caylee who was the victim

2. Caylee was 100% her responsibility and she couldnt handle that; way too immature

3. the theft of phone money from granny Pleasea and the fight between Cindy and Casey set her off and out of revenge anger and rage Caylee was killed

4. Casey obviously has impulse issues and this murder was clrealy an act of impulse

Nope folks she killed that kid for either the reasons stated or reasons we have yet to find out. How this jury got lost in the forest baffles me. it is a shame but this is our laws and nothing we can do now. im sorry for Caylee and for all of us as a nation we wanted justice and instead we got defeat failure and the devil won this one...

 

[Solace]

Just read an interesting article by a Judge who said the reason they came back with a not guilty verdict was because there was no instruction on "circumstantial evidence". If there had been and they were told they could include circumstantial evidence in their deliberations, it is possible the verdict would have been different.

But I have an "abiding" feeling that the male juror who spoke with Greta had an intense dislike for the Ashton and the others and so much as said so when he was annoyed that they did not say good morning to them.

Sounds petty on my part, but I believe people can be influenced by many things and we never know their background and why something would influence them, but this juror sounded extremely opinionated on many things and basically had a wall up. When you don't look at 300 pieces of evidence on a major case, there is something wrong and no justification for that.

 

[marlame]

Just read an interesting article by a Judge who said the reason they came back with a not guilty verdict was because there was no instruction on "circumstantial evidence". If there had been and they were told they could include circumstantial evidence in their deliberations, it is possible the verdict would have been different.

But I have an "abiding" feeling that the male juror who spoke with Greta had an intense dislike for the Ashton and the others and so much as said so when he was annoyed that they did not say good morning to them.

Sounds petty on my part, but I believe people can be influenced by many things and we never know their background and why something would influence them, but this juror sounded extremely opinionated on many things and basically had a wall up. When you don't look at 300 pieces of evidence on a major case, there is something wrong and no justification for that.

I read the article, too! And a a couple of years ago I recalled reading about "circumstantial eveidence" here on websleuths. I searched and sure enough a verified lawyer addressed it. See AZlawyers post here...
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87042"]Reasonable doubt-Jury instructions and More #2 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]


"It appears that Florida has completely omitted any distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence in its standard jury instructions. Recent Florida Supreme Court cases say that the circumstantial evidence instruction was deemed unnecessary in light of the reasonable doubt instruction:

Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following:

A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt. Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.

It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.

A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence, or the lack of evidence.

If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty."

The instructions were clear...Possibly the Florida Supreme Court will reconsider their position on instructing future Juries about "CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE"???

 

[1Chump]

Cindy thought Caylee was with Casey those 31 days.
She was being lied to by the queen of all liars.

She did not have any idea until they picked up that car that something this serious could be wrong.

I'm not buying that GA and CA knew Caylee drowned.

I'm not buying that Caylee drowned at all.

How does Cindy's action during those 31 days have anything to do with Cindy's refusal to accept that Caylee was dead AFTER she was wearing her ashes or why she was still looking for Zanny?

As far as Cindy's actions those 31 days, I did more to find out why my 16 year old nephew had not returned my call two days in a row. The call was not even important. It was the fact that I left him a message to call me and and he did not call. He ALWAYS returned my calls. I raised him until he was 8 years old. I was more of a Mother to him than his bio-Mom. The third day, I drove to his house because I KNEW something was wrong. Sure enough, they were hiding from me that he had run away from home. One call from me and he was home. Because he did not want me to worry about him out on the streets.

So for me, Cindy's story never rang true.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

The theory that the whole Anthony family knew Caylee drowned and kept the pool up so it wouldn't look suspicious is flat out crazy to me.

Why would CA find a friend of ICA's to bring her to ICA and insist on ICA bringing her to Caylee?
Why would she call 911 in a panic when ICA could not bring her to Caylee?

Makes no sense.

 

[Chablis]

The theory that the whole Anthony family knew Caylee drowned and kept the pool up so it wouldn't look suspicious is flat out crazy to me.

Why would CA find a friend of ICA's to bring her to ICA and insist on ICA bringing her to Caylee?
Why would she call 911 in a panic when ICA could not bring her to Caylee?

Makes no sense.

I agree. Why even call 911 to report the child missing?

 

[logicalgirl]

How does Cindy's action during those 31 days have anything to do with Cindy's refusal to accept that Caylee was dead AFTER she was wearing her ashes or why she was still looking for Zanny?

As far as Cindy's actions those 31 days, I did more to find out why my 16 year old nephew had not returned my call two days in a row. The call was not even important. It was the fact that I left him a message to call me and and he did not call. He ALWAYS returned my calls. I raised him until he was 8 years old. I was more of a Mother to him than his bio-Mom. The third day, I drove to his house because I KNEW something was wrong. Sure enough, they were hiding from me that he had run away from home. One call from me and he was home. Because he did not want me to worry about him out on the streets.
Your son is not an adult. ICA was an adult and CA had no ability to control or order her adult child to do anything.



So for me, Cindy's story never rang true.

At 16 your son was still a child and legally your responsibility. ICA was an adult - and at 22 could choose to call her mother or not call her mother. CA had no legal ability to insist ICA do anything.