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

[cluciano63]

IMO, George was a major factor in why the defense won this case but I do not believe he was trying to help Casey, I think he was just so angry and so frustrated that he came across as aggressive and evasive. I also believe the jail tapes, in some parts, did him more harm than they did Casey-there was an underlying theme of something being kept secret or hidden on all of them. Casey came off as an immature, selfish whining brat, but she had already shown her lack of character by all of her lying at this point, so maybe that did not shock the jurors as much as it should have. And then Lee, with his ridiculous "strategy" with Casey, all top secret and in code...who does that? Just from the tapes alone, one could conclude that this entire family, with the possible exception of Cindy, was party to, or had knowledge of what happened to Caylee.

I think forensics got lost in the antics and dynamics of the Anthony clan, and also by the totally opposite opinions of each expert, they may have cancelled one another out. If it came down to simple human behavior, I think the jury could not make themselves believe that only Casey was involved and maybe they did not feel they could convict her for something that she may have only played an (unknown to them) role in.

In a different family, there could have been no question...but then again in a different family, we probably would have seen George and Cindy shouting at Casey, not placating her, same with Lee. Sure, maybe they acted the way they did because she is a "sociopath" but that fact was not known to the jury. They just saw, IMO, a family hiding behind a wall of secrets.

 

[MissJames]

I really don't understand why the chloroform is in dispute. The DT's expert tested the air in the trunk without the liner . It had already been removed. They were unable to dispute the high chloroform levels.

 

[MissJames]

Slandering an innocent man ,knowing it's not true , is unethical and immoral.

As I have pointed out before,in the sidebar transcript from June 24th the DT refers to their defense as a THEORY. It's a shame the jury took it for fact.

 

[logicalgirl]

Here's how I view circumstantial evidence and how I'd have approached it if I'd been on this jury:

I would consider each piece of evidence as testimony about it was presented and then refuted by the other side. Circumstantial evidence is subject to interpretaton, so I'd decide whether I thought the evidence favored Position A (prosecutor) or Position B (defendant). If I could go 50/50 on a piece of evidence, then I'd have to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt on that piece, given that the prosecutor has the burden of proof and hadn't tipped the scales in their direction on that piece.

In this case, my common sense and the way I view circumstantial evidence led me to believe, as the jurors did, that I wouldn't be able to convict on Murder One.

A few examples:

Body in the trunk? I thought the evidence showed there was a body in there, so prosecution gets that one.
Chloroform? I didn't think any of that testimony proved anything, so defense gets that one.
Casey leading a 'normal' life for a month after anyone last sees Caylee? I didn't think that proved anything, so defense gets that one.
Duct tape? This is a 50/50 one for me; could have been over nose & mouth but just as easily might not have been. Defense gets that one.

Even on just those few things, the prosecution would have already failed for me as a juror. And yes, I have common sense and a rational approach to evidence. I've even seen trials where one of the jury's instructions specifically says that if one piece of circumstantial evidence can have two equally reasonable interpretations, the jury should remember the prosecutor's burden of proof and can tip the scales in favor of the defense. I don't think that instruction was given in this trial, but it's one that makes sense to me when analyzing evidence.

BBM
Both the defense and the SA experts agreed there was chloroform in the trunk.

Normal? Did you see the tattoo and the blue dress hot body contest and not going home but staying with her boyfriend for a month? Lies to mother to say she was not in Orlando when in fact she was?Normal for a mother who can't find her child?

I posted the autopsy report up thread - it may help you with this one. The tape was found covering the area of the mouth and nose, and was matted right into the mass of hair.

the only trouble with the circumstantial evidence the is Defense experts argued is that each time, with the DT expert on the stand, each agreed with what the SA's expert testified to. So what was the jury weighing about circumstantial evidence?

 

[MissJames]

Juror # 2 believed she was guilty and was the last holdout.Juror # 3 says she was sick to her stomach over the NG verdict. Juror #11 said he cried ?
One of the Scott Peterson Jurors suggested that if they felt that way ,that she was probably guilty,why didn't they spend more time digging through the evidence and discussing situations at length.Why not ask to have some testimony read back to them?


Is it even possible the jurors all remembered all the details the same way? 6 weeks of testimony ?
I've figured out one thing that helps me understand the verdict.After hearing what the 3 jurors have to say, I believe something hinky went on in that jury room. For sure ,given their own statements they did not follow jury instructions. I just don't know what kind of hinky it was .JMO
HTH

 

[WillChgo]

Here's how I view circumstantial evidence and how I'd have approached it if I'd been on this jury:

I would consider each piece of evidence as testimony about it was presented and then refuted by the other side. Circumstantial evidence is subject to interpretaton, so I'd decide whether I thought the evidence favored Position A (prosecutor) or Position B (defendant). If I could go 50/50 on a piece of evidence, then I'd have to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt on that piece, given that the prosecutor has the burden of proof and hadn't tipped the scales in their direction on that piece.

In this case, my common sense and the way I view circumstantial evidence led me to believe, as the jurors did, that I wouldn't be able to convict on Murder One.

A few examples:

Body in the trunk? I thought the evidence showed there was a body in there, so prosecution gets that one.
Chloroform? I didn't think any of that testimony proved anything, so defense gets that one.
Casey leading a 'normal' life for a month after anyone last sees Caylee? I didn't think that proved anything, so defense gets that one.
Duct tape? This is a 50/50 one for me; could have been over nose & mouth but just as easily might not have been. Defense gets that one.

Even on just those few things, the prosecution would have already failed for me as a juror. And yes, I have common sense and a rational approach to evidence. I've even seen trials where one of the jury's instructions specifically says that if one piece of circumstantial evidence can have two equally reasonable interpretations, the jury should remember the prosecutor's burden of proof and can tip the scales in favor of the defense. I don't think that instruction was given in this trial, but it's one that makes sense to me when analyzing evidence.

All the evidence needs to be considered together. not separately. The body in the truck with Caylee's hair with banding shows that Caylee's body was in Casey's car.

If Caylee's body was in Casey's car who put her there and why? There is no evidence that anyone in the Anthony family had access to the car or the trunk other than Casey. Therefore the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt indicates that Casey put Caylee's body in the trunk.

If this was an innocent accident why did Casey hide the body in the truck? If George was somehow involved without Casey being blameless why did she lead the converup? IMO neither of these scenarios makes sense.

If it was not an an innocent accident, there are three possibilities: (1) accident due to negligence, (2) intentional attempt to control Caylee through duct tape, chloroform or other means, or (3) premeditated murder. Two or three would lead to first degree murder. one would lead to a lesser charge but not to a not guilty murder.

If this was an accident due to negligence (say she left her in the car but with no intent to actually harm Caylee) why did Casey panic and tried to hide the body? Given Casey's modus operandi it would have been a lot easier for her to lie and claim that she had nothing to do with it than to get involved in an elaborate coverup. IMO the elaborate coverup under this scenario does not make sense. And even if you disagree, this would be criminally negligent manslaughter although not murder.

But even if you believe that she panicked after criminally negligent behavior, I don't believe this fits with the other evidence of the case. For example,
three pieces of duct tape close to the body- one with hair and the mandible tied to the skull are clear evidence that the duct tape was put shortly after Casey's death, consistent with Dr. G. and not Dr. Spitz, or that Kronk somehow did it. You cannot just look at one aspect of the duct tape evidence but at all the aspect of the duct tape evidence. And why would a panicked mother (ore a grandfather for that matter) put duct tape on the dead child? The logical explanation, and this is what circumstantial evidence is all about is that it was done on purpose, hence it was murder. And given the body was in Casey's car, it was Casey and not anyone else who committed that murder. The tape came from the Anthony household and only Casey had access to both the tape and the car.

All the aspects of the duct tape evidence are IMO evidence of felony murder or premeditated murder.

All the other pieces of evidence are consistent with this first degree murder, including Casey's behavior, not just for 31 days but perhaps most crucially for the day of Caylee's death. Is going to Blocbuster's with your boyfriend consistent with a panicked mother who loves her child? IMO, not.

IMO the jury needs to connect the dots.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

All the evidence needs to be considered together. not separately. The body in the truck with Caylee's hair with banding shows that Caylee's body was in Casey's car.

If Caylee's body was in Casey's car who put her there and why? There is no evidence that anyone in the Anthony family had access to the car or the trunk other than Casey. Therefore the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt indicates that Casey put Caylee's body in the trunk.

If this was an innocent accident why did Casey hide the body in the truck? If George was somehow involved without Casey being blameless why did she lead the converup? IMO neither of these scenarios makes sense.

If it was not an an innocent accident, there are three possibilities: (1) accident due to negligence, (2) intentional attempt to control Caylee through duct tape, chloroform or other means, or (3) premeditated murder. Two or three would lead to first degree murder. one would lead to a lesser charge but not to a not guilty murder.

If this was an accident due to negligence (say she left her in the car but with no intent to actually harm Caylee) why did Casey panic and tried to hide the body? Given Casey's modus operandi it would have been a lot easier for her to lie and claim that she had nothing to do with it than to get involved in an elaborate coverup. IMO the elaborate coverup under this scenario does not make sense. And even if you disagree, this would be criminally negligent manslaughter although not murder.

But even if you believe that she panicked after criminally negligent behavior, I don't believe this fits with the other evidence of the case. For example,
three pieces of duct tape close to the body- one with hair and the mandible tied to the skull are clear evidence that the duct tape was put shortly after Casey's death, consistent with Dr. G. and not Dr. Spitz, or that Kronk somehow did it. You cannot just look at one aspect of the duct tape evidence but at all the aspect of the duct tape evidence. And why would a panicked mother (ore a grandfather for that matter) put duct tape on the dead child? The logical explanation, and this is what circumstantial evidence is all about is that it was done on purpose, hence it was murder. And given the body was in Casey's car, it was Casey and not anyone else who committed that murder. The tape came from the Anthony household and only Casey had access to both the tape and the car.

All the aspects of the duct tape evidence are IMO evidence of felony murder or premeditated murder.

All the other pieces of evidence are consistent with this first degree murder, including Casey's behavior, not just for 31 days but perhaps most crucially for the day of Caylee's death. Is going to Blocbuster's with your boyfriend consistent with a panicked mother who loves her child? IMO, not.

IMO the jury needs to connect the dots.

Welcome to Websleuths. Great post.

 

[GracieLu]

All the evidence needs to be considered together. not separately. The body in the truck with Caylee's hair with banding shows that Caylee's body was in Casey's car.

If Caylee's body was in Casey's car who put her there and why? There is no evidence that anyone in the Anthony family had access to the car or the trunk other than Casey. Therefore the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt indicates that Casey put Caylee's body in the trunk.

If this was an innocent accident why did Casey hide the body in the truck? If George was somehow involved without Casey being blameless why did she lead the converup? IMO neither of these scenarios makes sense.

If it was not an an innocent accident, there are three possibilities: (1) accident due to negligence, (2) intentional attempt to control Caylee through duct tape, chloroform or other means, or (3) premeditated murder. Two or three would lead to first degree murder. one would lead to a lesser charge but not to a not guilty murder.

If this was an accident due to negligence (say she left her in the car but with no intent to actually harm Caylee) why did Casey panic and tried to hide the body? Given Casey's modus operandi it would have been a lot easier for her to lie and claim that she had nothing to do with it than to get involved in an elaborate coverup. IMO the elaborate coverup under this scenario does not make sense. And even if you disagree, this would be criminally negligent manslaughter although not murder.

But even if you believe that she panicked after criminally negligent behavior, I don't believe this fits with the other evidence of the case. For example,
three pieces of duct tape close to the body- one with hair and the mandible tied to the skull are clear evidence that the duct tape was put shortly after Casey's death, consistent with Dr. G. and not Dr. Spitz, or that Kronk somehow did it. You cannot just look at one aspect of the duct tape evidence but at all the aspect of the duct tape evidence. And why would a panicked mother (ore a grandfather for that matter) put duct tape on the dead child? The logical explanation, and this is what circumstantial evidence is all about is that it was done on purpose, hence it was murder. And given the body was in Casey's car, it was Casey and not anyone else who committed that murder. The tape came from the Anthony household and only Casey had access to both the tape and the car.

All the aspects of the duct tape evidence are IMO evidence of felony murder or premeditated murder.

All the other pieces of evidence are consistent with this first degree murder, including Casey's behavior, not just for 31 days but perhaps most crucially for the day of Caylee's death. Is going to Blocbuster's with your boyfriend consistent with a panicked mother who loves her child? IMO, not.

IMO the jury needs to connect the dots.

JUST WOW! Thank you so much!!!!

 

[beccalecca1]

again, that is assuming and/or speculating on something that was not in evidence, so it should not have been considered in their deliberations whatsoever. But even if one were to believe that this could have or did occur....wouldn't the fact that the mandible was still in place strengthen the evidence that the tape was placed on the face?

Actually, isn't RK's testimony part of evidence? This is something he testified to in front of the jury.

And, if the skull were moved, the mandible is still in place and the tape is overlaying the area of the mandible, but not stuck to it... it wouldn't mean to me that the tape actually was holding it in place. The tape wasn't stuck there, so how would it be holding the mandible there while it was moved? I would conclude that something else was holding the mandible there. Roots maybe?

 

[beccalecca1]

Because the face that the tape was attached to decomposed beneath it .Then ts Faye came through .

You did know Caylee had no face left when she was found,right?

The duct tape went across the skull from one side to the other ,over the area that the face used to be ,each end attached to her hair.

Hideous,isn't it? Juror #2 said he can't get those pictures out of his head.He also said he doesn't know how anyone could do that to a child.

Actually, the tape was attached to the hair mat and extended to the mouth/nose area. It wasn't wrapped around the skull. And, yes, my point exactly, Caylee had completely decomposed, the tape was no longer sticky, but it still held the mandible in place? I think not. I'm sorry we can't seem to get on the same page with the same pieces of evidence. I don't understand how people can see the same things and be on the complete opposite sides of what they mean.

 

[Never4GetCaylee]

It boggles my mind that the jury gave JB's OS so much credibility. From the second I heard it I thought she was done...it was the most ridiculous story I have ever heard. The BEST part was when JB totalled stammered and stumbled over when this all happened... "It was in the morning, no the afternoon, no actually in the morning." Are you kidding me?

No one has ever explained or offered even idea of an explination as to WHY George would cover up an accident. Especially George the Molester who would not want the scrutiny and investigation that he must know will come in a kidnapping investigation. I would love someone to ask one of the jurors what they thought George's possible motive could be for a cover up of an ACCIDENT.

When JB described ICA and George looking for Caylee it didn't make an ounce of sense. They looked through the house, under the beds, in the closets and in the GARAGE before they looked in the backyard/pool????

ICA went out the triple locked front door that Caylee could not possibly have opened???

ICA went out the front and George out the back essentially at the same time, but George had enough time to get Caylee out of the pool and I would assume check to see if she is alive and be standing there holding her by the time ICA came around the to the backyard?

Forget 911, nobody tried CPR? JB said ICA took Caylee and stood there and cried ... and cried ... and cried. Who wouldn't grab their child and try CPR no matter how hopeless it seems? Yes, I know we are talking about ICA, but still.....

It. makes. no. sense. How could anyone have considered this as being least bit plausible is beyond me.

 

[beccalecca1]

Come on logicalgirl. If you are to understand this verdict, small details like a break in need to be ignored.I'm having a hard time understanding this verdict because apparently the defense angle is the only one considered.I would like someone to take multiple defense experts cross examination testimony and use it to show reasonable doubt.

In all honesty, and this is not meant to be rude at all, it have a lot more meaning to you if you were to take a look at the defense experts testimony again, and try to figure out why the jury voted that way.

It is quite clear at this point that no matter what the people who agree with the jury say, no one is here to understand why we agree. We're all disputing the evidence all over again.... my interpretation vs. your interpretation; etc. I don't think the point of this thread was to open the door for a debate on evidence, testimony, facts, etc.

I really think the easiest thing for everyone who is REALLY trying to understand why they voted that way, would be to truly try to look at what was presented in court, and only what was presented in court. Look at both JA and JB (and the rest) with equal eyes. See if you can reach the same verdict as the jury.

Nothing I can say will convince anyone to think the way I think. Nothing you can say will convince me that she should've been found guilty. :twocents:

 

[Deleted member 39678]

Actually, the tape was attached to the hair mat and extended to the mouth/nose area. It wasn't wrapped around the skull. And, yes, my point exactly, Caylee had completely decomposed, the tape was no longer sticky, but it still held the mandible in place? I think not. I'm sorry we can't seem to get on the same page with the same pieces of evidence. I don't understand how people can see the same things and be on the complete opposite sides of what they mean.

Why couldn't the tape hold the mandible in place?

 

[MarthaM]

- it may help you with this one...

I wasn't looking for help, because I was stating how I look at circumstantial evidence in general and in this case in particular. This thread was supposed to be about helping others to understand the thought process of those of us who thought the verdict was correct or see ourselves as voting the same way if we were jurors. I understand that others would disagree with my take on the evidence and the trial, but I'm not interested in a debate on the specifics at this point, and especially not on this thread. That's becoming repetitive and pointless IMO.

All the evidence needs to be considered together. not separately... IMO the jury needs to connect the dots.

Sure, and I agree. But the only way I can make an assessment of evidence in a trial this complicated is to break it down into smaller pieces and then step back and look at what I've got as a whole. In this case, I ended up with a prosecution that didn't meet their burden of proof.

My method works best for me because it gives me much truer picture of what the prosecution had (or didn't have, in this trial).

 

[Deleted member 39678]

I wasn't looking for help, because I was stating how I look at circumstantial evidence in general and in this case in particular. This thread was supposed to be about helping others to understand the thought process of those of us who thought the verdict was correct or see ourselves as voting the same way if we were jurors. I understand that others would disagree with my take on the evidence and the trial, but I'm not interested in a debate on the specifics at this point, and especially not on this thread. That's becoming repetitive and pointless IMO.



Sure, and I agree. But the only way I can make an assessment of evidence in a trial this complicated is to break it down into smaller pieces and then step back and look at what I've got as a whole. In this case, I ended up with a prosecution that didn't meet their burden of proof.

My method works best for me because it gives me much truer picture of what the prosecution had (or didn't have, in this trial).

If your not interested in debate, then perhaps this thread is a waste. I'm sorry, pointless.One thing for sure , I'm still interested in trying to understand this verdict.

 

[beccalecca1]

Why couldn't the tape hold the mandible in place?

The tape wasn't sticking to anything besides the hair mat... so how could it be holding the mandible in place?

 

[Deleted member 39678]

The tape wasn't sticking to anything besides the hair mat... so how could it be holding the mandible in place?

I hope your not saying it was not sticking to anything ever are you? Because that doesn't make sense.

 

[beccalecca1]

I hope your not saying it was not sticking to anything ever are you? Because that doesn't make sense.

When the skull was discovered, the tape was only sticking to the hair mat. When the skull was discovered, the mandible was still in place. The only part of the tape that was sticky still was the area that was in the hair mat (and I want to believe that it wasn't really even sticky, but the 2 had just molded together through the heat of FL, etc.).

Being that the mandible was still in place (after Roy testified to slightly moving it with his reader stick), I would be left to assume that something other then the duct tape was holding the skull and mandible together. My impression is with this level of decomposition, the mandible always falls off. And, we're talking about it staying together throughout all weather conditions, animal activity, etc. I don't feel comfortable with believing the duct tape had to be there when it wasn't sticking to the mandible at the time of her being discovered. Something else was holding it together in my opinion.

 

[Deleted member 39678]

In all honesty, and this is not meant to be rude at all, it have a lot more meaning to you if you were to take a look at the defense experts testimony again, and try to figure out why the jury voted that way.

It is quite clear at this point that no matter what the people who agree with the jury say, no one is here to understand why we agree. We're all disputing the evidence all over again.... my interpretation vs. your interpretation; etc. I don't think the point of this thread was to open the door for a debate on evidence, testimony, facts, etc.

I really think the easiest thing for everyone who is REALLY trying to understand why they voted that way, would be to truly try to look at what was presented in court, and only what was presented in court. Look at both JA and JB (and the rest) with equal eyes. See if you can reach the same verdict as the jury.

Nothing I can say will convince anyone to think the way I think. Nothing you can say will convince me that she should've been found guilty. :twocents:

Wow. I'm sorry I missed this post. Your dead on. I would like some one to look at the testimony from both sides and help me understand the juries verdict.Not just the defense angle.Why should it be that hard?

 

[goldenlover]

I hope your not saying it was not sticking to anything ever are you? Because that doesn't make sense.

The point is, no one know what it ever was sticking to. No one knows.