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

[Chablis]

It Also says" help me understand". I think listening to the jurors and where they made mistakes ,helps us understand the verdict.JMO
We don't know everything and we never will,but the statements some have made,shows error in concluding NG

Honestly. If the cars trunk, was cleaned and aired out for hours before the cops take custody of it, how logically can anyone argue those samples are true representation of what that car was like when Casey was driving it? I need help to understand how this is ok.

 

[annalia]

she couldn't face it IMO

Was there any evidence given that points to that?

 

[Chablis]

Was there any evidence given that points to that?

She couldn't even admit she was pregnant! Her family came to see her graduate when she was a credit behind and they didnt learn till the day of! She has a history of not dealing with things normal people do.

 

[annalia]

I have a question for those who believe the defense OS that George molested Casey. No evidence was ever presented at trial or at anytime AFAIK.

How does someone possibly prove that they didn't do it? That accusation was thrown out there precisely for that reason, to put george on trial as there's no way he could ever disprove it. Everyone will always say, well it is possible.

That is NOT a good enough reason to acquit anyone when all of the other evidence points to them. That is what should have been ignored since there was absolutely nothing to support it.

JMHO

 

[annalia]

She couldn't even admit she was pregnant! Her family came to see her graduate when she was a credit behind and they didnt learn till the day of! She has a history of not dealing with things normal people do.

She's a pathological liar, that doesn't mean she can't face things.
She isn't the first to try to hide a pregnancy, especially as a teenager.

 

[AnaTeresa]

I have a question for those who believe the defense OS that George molested Casey. No evidence was ever presented at trial or at anytime AFAIK.

How does someone possibly prove that they didn't do it? That accusation was thrown out there precisely for that reason, to put George on trial as there's no way he could ever disprove it. Everyone will always say, well it is possible.

That is NOT a good enough reason to acquit anyone when all of the other evidence points to them. That is what should have been ignored since there was absolutely nothing to support it.

JMHO

I do agree with this from a trial-based standpoint. You're only supposed to allege things in an opening which will later be proven by evidence in the trial. Frankly, I found that assertion distasteful, and it did not play a part in my opinion that she should be found not guilty.

I think some of the WSers who support that theory point to other evidence not introduced at trial, but based upon trial evidence alone, it never should have been mentioned in the opening. That said, I still didn't find George's testimony very compelling and I wasn't inclined to believe it as truthful.

 

[TexasLori]

I'm still not sure what I think of Caylee's Law. I see a lot of problems with it, and am not sure that it's necessary. Right now I think it's something of a kneejerk response out of frustration with the verdict. I'm still thinking on this one.

It may be a knee jerk reaction, but what harm can come to making it against the law to not report your child missing or injured?

 

[MarthaM]

I do agree with this from a trial-based standpoint. You're only supposed to allege things in an opening which will later be proven by evidence in the trial.

Actually, a lawyer can present something like that in his Opening. Depending on how the testimony goes during the trial, he may or may not be allowed to use it in his Closing. The court can't foresee just what the testimony will specifically be. In this case, the judge didn't allow it in Closing because he said there were no facts in evidence during the trial to support it and no reasonable inferences to be drawn about it.

 

[Chablis]

She's a pathological liar, that doesn't mean she can't face things.
She isn't the first to try to hide a pregnancy, especially as a teenager.

No arguments from me about that. But, it shows a pattern she has problems with admitting real life stuff. The defense successfully argued this.

 

[AnaTeresa]

Actually, a lawyer can present something like that in his Opening. Depending on how the testimony goes during the trial, he may or may not be allowed to use it in his Closing. The court can't foresee just what the testimony will specifically be. In this case, the judge didn't allow it in Closing because he said there were no facts in evidence during the trial to support it and no reasonable inferences to be drawn about it.

There might not be a procedural rule, but I was instructed in my trial advocacy class that you are not supposed to allege anything you will not be proving via evidence in your case.

From my textbook:
"Opening statements are supposed to be limited to summaries of the basic facts you intend to prove. Three rules follow from this: 1) you may not misstate or exaggerate the evidence, 2) you may not refer to inadmissible evidence, and 3) you may not discuss evidence you expect your opponent to introduce that will not be part of your own case." The Trial Process: Law, Tactics and Ethics, J. Alexander Tanford, p. 155.

As Baez had no proof, he couldn't have alleged it. As far as I am aware, he also did not inform the prosecution of evidence supporting this allegation, which is why he got a strong talking-to from the Judge. Just my opinion, but even if there's not a procedural rule against it, it's still looked down upon, because it primes the jury for evidence you cannot produce, and then they will look unfavorably upon your side because you can't back up what you're alleging. Just :twocents:

 

[pcrum12]

Several of the jurors have told us what they were thinking and it doesn't conform with jury instruction or the law.

I included links in this thead or you can go to Today's Current News thread

I know alot of the public and media are looking for reasons why this was not a guilty verdict. Everyone is dissecting everything the jurors say. But, In MOO, and after reading the jury instructions, based on the law, I would have voted Not Guilty.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

I know alot of the public and media are looking for reasons why this was not a guilty verdict. Everyone is dissecting everything the jurors say. But, In MOO, and after reading the jury instructions, based on the law, I would have voted Not Guilty.

I completely agree. After reading the jury instructions more carefully I am even more certain than before of a NG verdict.

 

[pcrum12]

Was there any evidence given that points to that?

I know they didn't put on mental health experts. However, they did present evidence that Casey didn't start lying and living a fake job, lifestyle, etc. just when Caylee died. She had been living those lies for at least 2 years. That was proven. It's obvious where she was taught and trained to do that.

 

[pcrum12]

She couldn't even admit she was pregnant! Her family came to see her graduate when she was a credit behind and they didnt learn till the day of! She has a history of not dealing with things normal people do.

ditto. You answered that much better than me lol. Thank you

 

[annalia]

I know they didn't put on mental health experts. However, they did present evidence that Casey didn't start lying and living a fake job, lifestyle, etc. just when Caylee died. She had been living those lies for at least 2 years. That was proven. It's obvious where she was taught and trained to do that.

So that means she shouldn't be held accountable for her actions?

It was proven she was a liar. She had been living those lies for two years doesn't point to her being molested as a young girl. The point is that no they didn't put on mental health experts that had examined Casey so there wasn't any evidence supporting the DT theories. Just conjecture.

Maybe here on out everyone on trial can use those excuses, no evidence is required.

JMHO

 

[gngr~snap]

She couldn't even admit she was pregnant! Her family came to see her graduate when she was a credit behind and they didnt learn till the day of! She has a history of not dealing with things normal people do.

She told her dad in April or May still pretty far along but CA knew CA was in denial not Casey.

 

[pcrum12]

I have a question for those who believe the defense OS that George molested Casey. No evidence was ever presented at trial or at anytime AFAIK.

How does someone possibly prove that they didn't do it? That accusation was thrown out there precisely for that reason, to put george on trial as there's no way he could ever disprove it. Everyone will always say, well it is possible.

That is NOT a good enough reason to acquit anyone when all of the other evidence points to them. That is what should have been ignored since there was absolutely nothing to support it.

JMHO

Take the molestation out of the equation. SA still did not prove the 3 main charges and their lesser included charges. IMO alot of reasonable doubt. the computer searches were refuted, the chloroform levels were refuted, the interpretation of the duct tape left all kinds of reasonable doubt, could have been here, could have been there, yadda, the remains site was changed, the investigation wasn't complete and they dropped the ball in quite a few areas. The only thing that to me was solid was that there was a dead body in that trunk. But, that doesn't answer whether its murder or an accident. JMO

 

[pcrum12]

There might not be a procedural rule, but I was instructed in my trial advocacy class that you are not supposed to allege anything you will not be proving via evidence in your case.

From my textbook:
"Opening statements are supposed to be limited to summaries of the basic facts you intend to prove. Three rules follow from this: 1) you may not misstate or exaggerate the evidence, 2) you may not refer to inadmissible evidence, and 3) you may not discuss evidence you expect your opponent to introduce that will not be part of your own case." The Trial Process: Law, Tactics and Ethics, J. Alexander Tanford, p. 155.

As Baez had no proof, he couldn't have alleged it. As far as I am aware, he also did not inform the prosecution of evidence supporting this allegation, which is why he got a strong talking-to from the Judge. Just my opinion, but even if there's not a procedural rule against it, it's still looked down upon, because it primes the jury for evidence you cannot produce, and then they will look unfavorably upon your side because you can't back up what you're alleging. Just :twocents:

It's possible he planned on Casey taking the stand and testifying to the molestation. Might have changed his mind real quick when he seen how good at cross examination JA was lol.

 

[pcrum12]

So that means she shouldn't be held accountable for her actions?

It was proven she was a liar. She had been living those lies for two years doesn't point to her being molested as a young girl. The point is that no they didn't put on mental health experts that had examined Casey so there wasn't any evidence supporting the DT theories. Just conjecture.

Maybe here on out everyone on trial can use those excuses, no evidence is required.

JMHO

I am not saying that lying is an excuse to commit murder or that she shouldn't be held accountable for her actions. Only that it explains her outward appearance and why she would cover it up. But at the same time, you CANNOT find her guilty just because she lied and didn't react the "normal" way when the evidence and law says not guilty. It's just my opinion. And I really appreciate everyone's opinion. I just see something other's may not. Who knows. We may never know.

 

[Boytwnmom]

and makes determinations in all manner of deaths so she would know. It's not like she only deals with accidents. Drowning can be a homicide too but she is talking about drowning accidents which she says have people calling 911 even when it is clear the child has been dead for some time. The only accidents/homicides/unattended deaths she wouldn't know about are those where the body hasn't been found yet and when the body is hidden and 911 not called and the death not reported, those are all indications it's not an accident but a homicide.

100% of the drowning cases that she knows about has been reported.
Of course, if she knows about them, they were reported.