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

[jrb0124]

Even if that's true, how is 56% not a majority?

Nevertheless, these polls aren't very useful in judging the verdict validity without knowing how much of the trial the poll respondents watched. I doubt their sample watched as much as the population of this board.

You will have to go back and read the post I was responding to in order to understand my response to the sentiment: that only a small minority of the country at large are not convinced of the State's case.

 

[jrb0124]

Actually, the one thing the State failed to do was to IMPRESS upon the jury that this is a circumstantial case and that is the key word but that MOST CASES are solved with circumstantial evidence and that they SHOULD LOOK at all the circumstances surrounding this KILLING and put them in perspective and unfortunately, they needed a jack hammer to drill it into their heads but I think Ashton must have forgotten the jack hammer. Thus a not guilty verdict.

Incredibly rude to Caylee. But KC, imo, will rear her head again. No doubt.

They did look at the circumstances, the evidence, the testimony, the lack of evidence, the conflicting evidence. The State just didn't make a strong enough case...sorry.

A jack hammer wouldn't have helped JA, but maybe if he had not taken such a condescending tone towards the defense witnesses, not smirked and made faces throughout the trial, and not objected so often it appeared the State was trying to suppress information....well, maybe the jury may not have been so turned off by him?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

One can argue that evidence/testimony excluded or included unduly affected the verdict, but not that any verdict is incorrect.

The verdict is always "correct", because by its nature its a product of the jury. There is no right or wrong answer in an envelope that is compared to a jury decision.

This is non-responsive to the point and evasive. The point is in some cases there can be a clear "best" verdict with respect to the evidence.

If one disagrees with a verdict, that does not make the verdict incorrect. Anyone can be 100% convinced she is guilty (as are 20% of the people in this country) but that does not make her so.

That's my point. It's the arguments and reasoning behind a verdict or belief that makes it wrong or right in reality, not the verdict itself or a belief about the verdict itself.

Casey Anthony may not be innocent, but a jury found her not-guilty. Guilty or Not Guilty is determined in a court of law (or the court system at least) and nowhere else;

Legal guilt is determined in court and has been settled. Real life factual guilt is a matter independent of any verdict, and which can be argued at will. The competence of the verdict can also be argued. It's not holy and impervious from criticism.

therfore, she is not and never will be "proven" guilty. L

Only in court to that specific jury's opinion. There's a difference between "reasonably proven with best methods" and "proven to a specific person or persons."

 

[pcrum12]

If they were all in the backyard with Caylee, there was plenty of immediate supervision and the video cannot be used as evidence of same as there is no context into when it was taken, what the circumstances were, maybe they were all going swimming shortly....you can't take one pic and paint the entire issue of whether the Anthony's were or were not religious in taking the ladder down. there was plenty of other testimony that showed exactly how safety-concious they were with Caylee around.

IIRC, HHJP made it very clear that JB was NOT to argue anything about the drowning because the defense had presented no evidence to back that up.

He only stated that to the molestation. He allowed the drowning theory because he said the DT had enough evidence to infer it could have happened. Not exact words but something like that.

 

[sacrablue]

I did the same thing. I made a few posts as to why I agreed with the verdict, and tried to be quite clear that my posts were my opinion only, in an effort to help the OP understand why I agreed. Of course, I have been posting my minority opinions here for nearly two years, so many may have me on their ignore list LOL, so I didn't get all the responses you have. I admire the way you have handled yourself and stuck to your guns. BTW I pretty much agree with all the posts you have made.

I do find it hard to understand that IF the duct tape was over the mouth and nose, and if the decomposition was done in two weeks, and after decomposition the duct tape was no longer sticky due to decomp fluids, and again this took place within two weeks, then as you say, if the only thing the duct tape was adhering too after two weeks was a hair matt, what was holding the mandible in place during Tropical Storm Faye, and during the dispersement by animals?

Good question that seems to bother some. The hair will stay as described as a 'matt' or clump. It tends to tangle and weave itself into a nest of hair. I am sure you have noticed how a bird nest seems to last and stay together over time well after use. Animals really have no use for hair other than to avoid it while feeding on flesh so to see hair matt in place makes perfect sense to me.

Now, why did tape keep lower jaw in place after all this feeding and decomposition? It did not appear there was any animal assault to the skull. The skul was found in a logical place as left. The tape wrapped around the head, later the skull would act as a sling of sort plus there is not much flesh in thickness on skull area. Not tight fitting as decomposition too place but holding lower jaw in place as debris collected around lower jaw and skull. A kind of cushion or support that helped along with the tape remnants.

 

[goldenlover]

They did look at the circumstances, the evidence, the testimony, the lack of evidence, the conflicting evidence. The State just didn't make a string enough case...sorry.

A jack hammer wouldn't have helped JA, but maybe if he had not taken such a condescending tone towards the defense witnesses, not smirked and made faces throughout the trial, and not objected so often it appeared the State was trying to suppress information....well, maybe the jury may not have been so turned off by him?

Thank-you , Thank-you, Thank-you for saying that. That is exactly what I have been saying, but I thought I was the only one who felt that way. I did not like JA's tone in the trial at all, and his facial expressions, he was always blowing his cheeks in and out, he would not sit down between his never-ending objections until JP told him to. He seemed so "on edge" durint the defense's case. It gave me impression that if I were on the jury I would be wondering "geez, what is it that the prosecution is hiding? He was just plain rude to the defense witnesses and had a very belittling demeanor. I don't know why he did this becaue I don't feel it helped him any, and now that I have seem him in his media interviews he much more likeable. I think if he would have been more like that in the courtroom he may have scored a few more points with the jury.

 

[Chablis]

Thank-you , Thank-you, Thank-you for saying that. That is exactly what I have been saying, but I thought I was the only one who felt that way. I did not like JA's tone in the trial at all, and his facial expressions, he was always blowing his cheeks in and out, he would not sit down between his never-ending objections until JP told him to. He seemed so "on edge" durint the defense's case. It gave me impression that if I were on the jury I would be wondering "geez, what is it that the prosecution is hiding? He was just plain rude to the defense witnesses and had a very belittling demeanor. I don't know why he did this becaue I don't feel it helped him any, and now that I have seem him in his media interviews he much more likeable. I think if he would have been more like that in the courtroom he may have scored a few more points with the jury.

I would read the threads through the days of trial, the who won this day, and I never saw what anyone else saw in JA. He was arrogant and acted like Jose was some big joke. The jurors are very receptive to things like this, and of course the day after the first one making the circuit was JA.

 

[jrb0124]

This is non-responsive to the point and evasive. The point is in some cases there can be a clear "best" verdict with respect to the evidence.

I am not being evasive, I just think you are missing my point.

A jury verdict is not, and should not be held to the same standards as an opinion arrived by a legal analyst, an ex-judge, or someone (like you and I) with much greater knowledge of the circumstances of the case, or far more experience in the court system. That's the whole point of our jury system.

A (subjectively) clear "best" verdict which is not met by the actual verdict means nothing, because the clear "best" verdict has no influence over deliberations.

In this case, I would venture 90% of those closely following the case are 100% convinced of her guilt. I think its impossible to separate from that personal conviction in order to cleanly evaluate the testimony, evidence and jury instructions and come away with at least less conviction in that personal verdict. You would have to do that to be honest with yourself IMO. You cannot say "because I am 100% convinced she is guilty, guilty is the only correct verdict".

Casey Anthony may be guilty of everything she was charged with, but that does not make the verdict "wrong". The jurors have even said they do not believe she is innocent and that it made them sick to their stomachs, but the evidence and jury instructions compelled them to vote not guilty.

For the juror its not "do I think she did it?", its "did the State prove she did it?". The answer to that is NO.

 

[Hot Dogs]

It did not appear there was any animal assault to the skull. The skul was found in a logical place as left.

The found position of the skull was rather odd. It was upright on the ground. It couldn't have started out that way. When the skull was still attached to the vertebrae it could not have been positioned upright. The skull would be laying on one of it's sides (l, r, front or back). After the skull detached from the neck it somehow ended up sitting upright.

There was debris material adhering to one side of the skull cavity suggesting that it was laying on its side during the very late stages of decomposition (when there is no longer any brain material left). Then it switches to an upright position. I think that is probably unusual.

 

[Who_What_When]

He only stated that to the molestation. He allowed the drowning theory because he said the DT had enough evidence to infer it could have happened. Not exact words but something like that.

Thank You for pointing this out!!! I don't know why everyone keeps saying this, the DT obviously wouldn't have been able to talk about it in closing if the judge didn't allow it.

 

[cluciano63]

Jurors are jurors for a reason...they are supposed to be a regular group of people, listening to the powers of the state and/or government and deciding if those powers have proven the charges made against a particular defendant. They are not meant to be legal eagles, crime watchers, or even college-educated. I feel pretty certain that if this same group of 12 had given a guilty verdict, no one would be questioning their IQ's or wondering how they came to their verdict so quickly. And there were plenty of negative comments and insults towards the jury long before they started talking, so it is not just because of their reasons.

I guess I am borderline moronic, as I think they made the right choice, from the charges they were given.

 

[pcrum12]

The jaw bone does not stay attached to the skull without being held there by something after it becomes skeletal.

The duct tape was there.

The duct tape came from the Anthony home.

If the duct tape (that was stuck in Caylee's hair) did not hold the jaw bone in place, what did?

the plant growth?

 

[Chablis]

Jurors are jurors for a reason...they are supposed to be a regular group of people, listening to the powers of the state and/or government and deciding if those powers have proven the charges made against a particular defendant. They are not meant to be legal eagles, crime watchers, or even college-educated. I feel pretty certain that if this same group of 12 had given a guilty verdict, no one would be questioning their IQ's or wondering how they came to their verdict so quickly. And there were plenty of negative comments and insults towards the jury long before they started talking, so it is not just because of their reasons.

I guess I am borderline moronic, as I think they made the right choice, from the charges they were given.

I honestly want to think this got so exploited because this happened so close to when Nancy had the twins and she was just, oh, whats the word, EMOTIONAL, on so many levels that it interfered in a good true crime show and turned this into.........this....

 

[jrb0124]

The found position of the skull was rather odd. It was upright on the ground. It couldn't have started out that way. When the skull was still attached to the vertebrae it could not have been positioned upright. The skull would be laying on one of it's sides (l, r, front or back). After the skull detached from the neck it somehow ended up sitting upright.

There was debris material adhering to one side of the skull cavity suggesting that it was laying on its side during the very late stages of decomposition (when there is no longer any brain material left). Then it switches to an upright position. I think that is probably unusual.

I haven't said much about the skull/tape issue, because IMO RK ruined the integrity of the recovery site. I don't care what was found where, after Mr. "I shook the bag 3 times....a skull rolled out" completely undermines the positioning of everything. Physical contamination of a crime scene = unreliable evidence.

 

[Hot Dogs]

I don't care what was found where, after Mr. "I shook the bag 3 times....a skull rolled out" completely undermines the positioning of everything.

He changed that story to one where the skull didn't roll out. He had numerous different stories. Take your pick.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Wait a second. JA was arrogant but not the DT?

I support the prosecution's case and I think JA was very good act asking the most pertinent questions but I will agree JA came off bad at times when questioning defense witnesses. Personally, I think it backfires to be so aggro. It gives the impression the witness worries you. Many lawyers do act that way though, so maybe they think it helps somehow.

But, holy moses boutrous ghali, how can anyone say that about JA as though the DT was absent any behavioral problems? That's just blind partisan cheerleading.

Thank-you , Thank-you, Thank-you for saying that. That is exactly what I have been saying, but I thought I was the only one who felt that way. I did not like JA's tone in the trial at all, and his facial expressions, he was always blowing his cheeks in and out, he would not sit down between his never-ending objections until JP told him to.

Did you not notice JB frequently objecting and standing and making faces, often a smirking smile?

He seemed so "on edge" durint the defense's case. It gave me impression that if I were on the jury I would be wondering "geez, what is it that the prosecution is hiding? He was just plain rude to the defense witnesses and had a very belittling demeanor.

CM was the rudest one of them all. When one poor CSI was answering questions, she would look at the jury as it seems they are all advised to do, but CM didn't like it and yelled to her "I'm over here." He was lecturing witnesses as though he was their a**hole dad.

He was arrogant and acted like Jose was some big joke.

Nobody made Jose look like a joke more than Jose himself.

The jurors are very receptive to things like this, and of course the day after the first one making the circuit was JA.

Of course, a good juror would try to be conscious to discount any personal opinions of the attorneys. Their behavior and words are not evidence. The most you should take from them is some input on how to put all the evidence together.

 

[jrb0124]

I honestly want to think this got so exploited because this happened so close to when Nancy had the twins and she was just, oh, whats the word, EMOTIONAL, on so many levels that it interfered in a good true crime show and turned this into.........this....

Nancy Grace's coverage of tot-mom, and the ratings which followed prompted this case to become the media sensation it did. Soon, everyone was covering it, everyone was invested in it.

The script went something like this: foster outrage, be the first to break more salacious details, evaluate and interpret every move of every player in the case, provide gavel to gavel coverage bookended by legal analysts and commentary, conviction and then...for the grand finale...the penalty phase. Will she live or die?

but, both the conviction and the grand finale were cancelled leaving all the talking heads with no script and an angry audience who had been anticipating justice in the form of a conviction and a needle in the arm. The talking heads of course cannot take blame for overselling the State's case and leaving their audience empty handed, so they directed the outrage towards the jury. Cowards and Charlatans.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I am not being evasive, I just think you are missing my point.

A jury verdict is not, and should not be held to the same standards as an opinion arrived by a legal analyst, an ex-judge, or someone (like you and I) with much greater knowledge of the circumstances of the case, or far more experience in the court system. That's the whole point of our jury system.

This is all besides the point and a strawman.

A (subjectively) clear "best" verdict which is not met by the actual verdict means nothing, because the clear "best" verdict has no influence over deliberations.

That makes no sense. The "best" verdict should be their goal. They shouldn't be thinking, we're just a bunch of average joes and so shouldn't think we can do the best job possible.

In this case, I would venture 90% of those closely following the case are 100% convinced of her guilt. I think its impossible to separate from that personal conviction in order to cleanly evaluate the testimony, evidence and jury instructions and come away with at least less conviction in that personal verdict. You would have to do that to be honest with yourself IMO.

You mean this can't go both ways or from either view?

And are you saying the evidence not submitted in trial adds more credence to guilt?

You cannot say "because I am 100% convinced she is guilty, guilty is the only correct verdict".

Egregious strawman which would have to ignore about everything I've said.

Casey Anthony may be guilty of everything she was charged with, but that does not make the verdict "wrong".

Never said that's what makes it wrong. I've said the exact opposite in fact. Try responding to the words I wrote.

The jurors have even said they do not believe she is innocent and that it made them sick to their stomachs, but the evidence and jury instructions compelled them to vote not guilty. For the juror its not "do I think she did it?", its "did the State prove she did it?". The answer to that is NO.

Yet another circular argument from you, that assumes the State didn't adequately prove the case and that there was no incompetence or dereliction from the jurors.

 

[jrb0124]

He changed that story to one where the skull didn't roll out. He had numerous different stories. Take your pick.

You got that right.

How did Ashton's excuse for not calling him as a State witness go again? "Mr. Kronk can spin a good tale so to speak".

Really? kind of like Casey Anthony "can spin a good tale"?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

You will have to go back and read the post I was responding to in order to understand my response to the sentiment: that only a small minority of the country at large are not convinced of the State's case.

OK, on the "small minority." Still, where did you get that poll data from?