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

[kelian36]

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.

So you would accept the jury instructions and ignore facts of the case?

 

[Boytwnmom]

the mere existence of a pool and a person old enough to climb a ladder does not evidence drowning, especially when the medical examiner has determined that the manner of death was homicide. There was evidence of a child and a pool not a drowning.

The ladder discussion was much disputed anyway as to when it actually happened as it was shown that Cindy never called George any time that week as she said she did when she found the ladder up. She also testified she didn't leave the ladder up so how did it get up that day for Caylee to drown. She obviously couldn't move it herself. And if Casey put it up for Caylee to purposely find and climb and so she would drown well, that would no longer be an accident either.

Judge Perry did not state specifically.

However, Cindy, her co-worker and Yuri all testified about Cindy's pool ladder claim BEFORE Casey was arrested.

The LDB questioned Cindy about the slider including the height of the handle to try to imply that Caylee could not open the door. But she NEVER asked Cindy if Caylee could open the door. As soon as she was done, JB asked Cindy if Caylee could open the door and Cindy admitted that she could. Then you had pictures show she could open the door and climb the ladder.

The State NEVER really disputed it. They stated in their closing it was too ridiculous to consider.

Therefore, what "little" pool evidence was presented was NEVER disputed.

 

[rotterdam]

I think the DT practiced a subtle effective brainwashing technique on the jury.
Baez kept harping on the same basic fairy tales multiple times, each time with a slight variant, like the multiple pet deaths, only the name/date was different . The jury was tired, sequestered and vulnerable/open to planted suggestions. It worked on about half of the jury. Like if you say it often enough , it will stick. Baez closing statement kept harping on variations of reasonable doubt.
Plus the post trials remarks of some of the (alternate)jurors also seem to suggest that.
Like remembering verbatim the "accident that snow balled out of control".
That is the only logical way , I can explain the NG verdict rendered by apparently 12 sane people.
Wonder if they teach brainwashing techniques at Law schools.

 

[JBean]

http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=143263&page=28
I realized I posted in the wrong thread, so I moved my post and subsequent repsonse to the right thread. this post is for the benefit of those that may think they are losing their minds and their posts right now.

 

[annalia]

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.

I never said she should be convicted on her lies alone, but her lies are a major part of the whole package.

I don't see that it explains her lies at all, at least not according to any evidence presented, I think it shows the opposite when taken in combination with everything else, that she is a manipulator. You posted in another post to take the molestation out of it, but if that's one of the basis' for your belief than it can't be taken out of it.

But we can agree to disagree, like you said we may never know.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

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:

Is it possible that JB thought in good faith he would be able to bring in evidence to prove his OS, only to have the evidence he sought to bring in disallowed by HHJP? There were numerous side bars, could JB have asked at these sidebars to have evidence allowed in, and the pt objected and HHJP agreed with the pt and didn't allow it in?

 

[Chablis]

Is it possible that JB thought in good faith he would be able to bring in evidence to prove his OS, only to have the evidence he sought to bring in disallowed by HHJP? There were numerous side bars, could JB have asked at these sidebars to have evidence allowed in, and the pt objected and HHJP agreed with the pt and didn't allow it in?

Jose asked George once, did you molest your daughter? Once was enough, and anything else would have been badgering the witness. If Baez had proof of George abusing Casey, don't you think George would have been in jail long ago? The State said she duct taped her daughter and killed her with chloroform, they didn't prove that, so Baez not proving abuse is nothing, in the grand scheme of things.

 

[AnaTeresa]

Is it possible that JB thought in good faith he would be able to bring in evidence to prove his OS, only to have the evidence he sought to bring in disallowed by HHJP? There were numerous side bars, could JB have asked at these sidebars to have evidence allowed in, and the pt objected and HHJP agreed with the pt and didn't allow it in?

It's possible. However, a lot of this would have had to been turned over the the prosecution under rules of discovery and then hashed out in pretrial and through motions in limine. I'm fairly sure that Baez would have known prior to his opening statement whether he would have Casey testify or whether the evidence that would support an allegation like that was allowed in. He got a pretty strong reprimand that he couldn't bring it up in closing because he hadn't introduced any evidence proving the claim. There's no way he had enough evidence to prove the claim in good faith that went poof, or was suddenly unusable because the prosecution was strong on cross. Just my opinion, but I think he was spinning the story he'd been told and trying to get a fast one by the judge.

While I agree with the verdict, I'm not so impressed with the defense counsel, to be honest.

 

[pcrum12]

So you would accept the jury instructions and ignore facts of the case?

Of course not. Shall I add following the case since day 1, watching more TH's I care to admit to include wild woman sensationist NG, watching every hearing from the very beginning to include bond, motions, and all pretrial, watching every minute of the trial, listening to every single witness, expert and layperson, reading every page of every doc dump, scouring the internet for news articles, and probably reading about every post on this forum. Add the instructions and verdict forms. Not Guilty IMO.

 

[goldenlover]

Of course not. Shall I add following the case since day 1, watching more TH's I care to admit to include wild woman sensationist NG, watching every hearing from the very beginning to include bond, motions, and all pretrial, watching every minute of the trial, listening to every single witness, expert and layperson, reading every page of every doc dump, scouring the internet for news articles, and probably reading about every post on this forum. Add the instructions and verdict forms. Not Guilty IMO.

I have to agree with you..I also have to say Not Guilty according to the jury instructions AND the evidence presented at trial.

 

[pcrum12]

the mere existence of a pool and a person old enough to climb a ladder does not evidence drowning, especially when the medical examiner has determined that the manner of death was homicide. There was evidence of a child and a pool not a drowning.

The ladder discussion was much disputed anyway as to when it actually happened as it was shown that Cindy never called George any time that week as she said she did when she found the ladder up. She also testified she didn't leave the ladder up so how did it get up that day for Caylee to drown. She obviously couldn't move it herself. And if Casey put it up for Caylee to purposely find and climb and so she would drown well, that would no longer be an accident either.

No it doesn't. But I do believe she did. JUST SPECULATING but maybe Casey went swimming after CA/GA/Caylee went to bed and forgot it up. Why would it have to be on purpose? She wanted to swim and Cindy told her no earlier that evening. Just a thought.

However, Dr. Spitz seeing no discoloration inside the skull indicates no suffication either and Dr. G didn't even check. I don't know. If we had 12 different jurors we may have had a different verdict. Everyone interprets the evidence in there own way. IMO/ Just saying.

 

[pcrum12]

Jose asked George once, did you molest your daughter? Once was enough, and anything else would have been badgering the witness. If Baez had proof of George abusing Casey, don't you think George would have been in jail long ago? The State said she duct taped her daughter and killed her with chloroform, they didn't prove that, so Baez not proving abuse is nothing, in the grand scheme of things.

Does everyone know how hard it is to PROVE any sexual assault? Especially after the fact. He may have planned on putting her on the stand and changed his mind.

 

[AnaTeresa]

The mere existence of a pool and a person old enough to climb a ladder does not evidence drowning, especially when the medical examiner has determined that the manner of death was homicide. There was evidence of a child and a pool not a drowning.

The flip side of that is the existence of a body hidden does not determine a death was homicide. The medical examiner determined it was a homicide because of how the body was found, not because of any forensic evidence on the body which indicated manner of death. It's equally possible that an accidental death could have occurred and Caylee was disposed of to cover up that accident.

Yes, I know this isn't a logical response to an accident, but the Anthony's are on another planet from logical, as a whole. For me personally, the state needed to do more to prove homicide.

 

[AnaTeresa]

Does everyone know how hard it is to PROVE any sexual assault? Especially after the fact. He may have planned on putting her on the stand and changed his mind.

I doubt it. Most defense attorneys don't place the defendant on the stand, particularly if they aren't going to come across extremely sympathetic to the jury.

 

[Baznme]

Help me to understand this..........if KC didn't murder Caylee......who did?

 

[Chablis]

Help me to understand this..........if KC didn't murder Caylee......who did?

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

 

[Baznme]

Three things tell me this was no drowning.

1. There was a very short window of time between the time GA left to go to work and the time KC went to the house, then left again to go meet TonE for their Blockbuster shopping spree for eery movies to watch. She seemed very cool, calm and collected in the video at Blockbuster. Much more composed than any mother that just lost her child in a drowning. Caylee is in the trunk at this time because she is dead and she sure isn't at home alone.

2. The duct tape. If you have a child that drowns, why are you putting duct tape on her face?

3. The bags. Why three bags unless you are trying to coverup the fact that you have a dead child in your trunk and cannot handle the remains unless contained in bags?

If it was accidental, why not just tell the truth? Wouldn't it have been better than the zanny story, the abuse and the pressure of 3 years in jail?

 

[Baznme]

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.

http://abcnewsradioonline.com/natio...-sexual-abuse-claims-barred-from-closing.html

Before closing arguments began Sunday, Judge Belvin Perry said that there is no proof that sexual abuse occurred.

"There's absolutely no evidence the defendant was sexually molested by her father or her brother," the judge said.

 

[beccalecca1]

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.

Well, it's definitely not a perfect law (you have to report a death in 24 hours, what about deaths in hospitals... are they required to call LE). I do believe though a law like this is needed to state it loud and clear, you will be held accountable for the care of your own children.

 

[Boytwnmom]

which was triple bagged and thrown in a swamp. It was not reported. There was duct tape on her face according to the testimony as it had held the mandible in place and there is no reason for duct tape to be on a child's face. There was also the fact that the ME said 100% of the accidents/drownings that occur are reported/911 is called. The mother lied for a month about where the child was. Then the mother lied about a nanny kidnapping the child. This lie was maintained for months/years.

So, to me, it is completely unreasonable to disregard the evidence and testimony in order to believe a story that first surfaces in a murder trial 3 years after the death and after the defendant has been sitting in prison for all that time and to believe, despite the fact no other accidental drowning has ever happened in this way, that somehow all the evidence is wrong and misleading and that, in fact, the most likely cause of a duct taped body triple bagged in a swamp with a cover story of a kidnapping nanny which story is only told after 31 days and a parent forcing the issue and despite the fact that this terrible accident caused absolutely no distress to the mother as evidenced by her renting movies and spending the next day in bed having sex with her boyfriend and then entering a hot body contest and partying for a month and the smell of decomposition and a death banded hair in the trunk, the most likely cause, was an accident. Despite all the aforementioned, we are supposed to believe that it is reasonable to conclude that it was just an accident and no one's fault and therefore no one needs to be punished for anything.

The flip side of that is the existence of a body hidden does not determine a death was homicide. The medical examiner determined it was a homicide because of how the body was found, not because of any forensic evidence on the body which indicated manner of death. It's equally possible that an accidental death could have occurred and Caylee was disposed of to cover up that accident.

Yes, I know this isn't a logical response to an accident, but the Anthony's are on another planet from logical, as a whole. For me personally, the state needed to do more to prove homicide.