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

[gngr~snap]

bolded by me.... that's exactly what I don't get.... My mom calls when Im in the shower and if I don't answer she will continue to call until I do pick up (omgosh we have so many arguments about me being a "grown up" and not to panic if i don't pick up the phone right away, lol).... anyway, my thoughts (which are just as valid as yours of course) are that they new why she was calling and didn't pick it up on purpose....

i think what you are saying is that Caylee could have died the night before
and that's as good a theory as mine!!!! I don't think we will ever know the truth but aside from theories, i do believe the evidence (including the 31 days) points to one person only, ICA, and one thing only, murder!

hope Im not offending anyone, it's getting late here and Im getting post loopy, lol

my dad does the same, then starts calling my husband and kids and friends...
I tell him I'm brushing my teeth and I'll call back! 15 people calling all at once is irritating!

 

[Just Jayla]

thank you very much.... love your dog pic, profile name, and all your posts by the way.... i've been catching up on WS for 3 years now and I always look forward to what you have to say!

Aw, thank you! That's the late Jesse...he had to replace avatar Jayla after the trial in memory of all of those we lost in 2008 and the promise that died with them. Jesse was a great dog. Jayla, Savage, Binky, Napoleon and Josephine will be back around from time to time, too. And I love your cutie!!

As to my posts: Some may write that you have lost your marbles if you agree with me :crazy: - But I say there's a fine line between insanity and brilliance! I'm about 5 yards past the line, not sure which side yet...

 

[Black Water]

Actually, you addressed the evidence more thoughtfully in this 2 minute read than the jury did during their whole time at trial.

I do not think this is fair. Unless one is an avid Nancy Grace viewer and was sold on her guilt before this trial, the prosecution just did not make their case.
This is one wacko family and for all I know when Cindy went for Casey's throat on the 15th Caylee got in the way and ended up dead. Way too many things could have taken place and way to many liars were on the stand. Plus, when I listen to the 911 the entire call and at the end Cindy says to Casey, the kid is next, I am going to get (whatever she said affidavit or something) the way that Cindy said THE KID IS NEXT was like Caylee was a thing. A thing to use against Casey and if Casey did kill Caylee then I bet this was the motive and the truth just did not come out.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

-As far as the "flury" of calls on the 16th that were unanswered by GA and CA, I believe they knew why she was calling, and that's why they didn't answer...

Here's what I think happened... I think RM's myspace joke set the ball in motion (unintentionally of course, but none the less ICA saw it and went as far as googling "how to make chloroform"). RM testified that ICA was a good mother, no problems, other than getting Caylee to go to sleep. In ICA's sick mind she looked up chloroform and found that it is relatively cheap and easy to make. She made chloroform initially to get Caylee to sleep faster! On the 15th ICA and CA had a big fight about grandma's money. CA tells ICA "no more, you stole from grandma, we know you dont have a job, you're on your own!" Maybe in a fit of anger she said something to the effect of "NO MORE BABYSITTING CAYLEE!" ICA leaves for work on Friday, telling GA Caylee is going to Zanny's (when there is no Zanny and no friends lined up to watch Caylee while she has a date planned with TL). ICA comes back home after GA leaves, calls CA and GA several times hours later ("flury of calls") because Zanny couldn't babysit afterall because (insert lie here). CA and GA do not answer the calls, but why? The only explaination I can come up with is because THEY KNEW WHY SHE WAS CALLING! She needed something and they weren't giving in this time! In a fit of rage, ICA chloroforms Caylee, throws on duct tape, and no more worries about what mommy and daddy might do, or not do, because she doesn't need them anymore....

I know this has nothing to do with evidence, I just like my theory, LOL!

and again, WHAT A WONDERFUL GRANDMA YOU ARE!!!!! :great:

I concur with your theory about motive. It's too bad the evidence for this is almost all hearsay, so it didn't have much chance of getting in trial, but there is a boatload of testimony that Casey and Cindy had a contentious relationship, that Cindy was very critical of Casey, would demean her in front of her friends, and she even told one to stay away from Casey, that she is a "sociopath" (maybe because she stole from every single person in the immediate family plus the grandparents). Cindy had even threatened to kick her out of the house and file for custody of Caylee. Maybe she did it for one last time on that 15th. Cindy's myspace post fits in with all this, which was allowed in trial, but Cindy wouldn't admit to much about fighting. Cindy's lies helped her daughter's lies. Maybe Cindy feels some guilt and that's why she helped her so much.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Re the backyard video,

I completely disagree. Lee didn't live in the home at the time. You can hear Cindy and Casey in the background, so who would you speculate was using the pool?

Is this your argument? That nobody else could possibly be there and that the unseen people heard on the video and possibly unknown unheard people couldn't possibly be going into the pool? You expect anyone to believe that must be so other than the choir?

You want this video to be some kind of smoking gun, but it's not. The video is equivocal to any point either way about their habit of taking down the ladder. It tells nothing useful on its own. Even Baez didn't use it for that and he used anything no matter how baseless.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

There was NO evidence of molestation. It was unethical for Baez to bring it up without offering evidence. It was inappropriate for the jury to consider it.

The molestation opening statement tainted the juror's mind about George.

You can believe all the Anthony's lie and this by itself does not raise reasonable doubt.

You have to look at the totality of the evidence.

I have no doubt that there was a decomposing body in the trunk (six people and one trained dog independently smelled it). If you say the probability that any one of them was wrong was 20% and that the trained dog was wrong was 5% the probability that they were all wrong is 0.00032% which rounds out to 0 probability of there NOT being a decomposing body. The idea that the trash or garbage bag however you want to call it would generate that smell IMO makes no sense.

I could go on, but overall if you examine all the evidence even if you ignore the Anthony's statement there is no reasonable doubt of Casey's guilt.

Even if you somehow construct a scenario that somehow George was also involved, this would only mean that George is also somehow guilty not that Casey is not guilty.

There was NO evidence of molestation. It was unethical for Baez to bring it up without offering evidence. It was inappropriate for the jury to consider it.

The molestation opening statement tainted the juror's mind about George.

You can believe all the Anthony's lie and this by itself does not raise reasonable doubt.

You have to look at the totality of the evidence.

I have no doubt that there was a decomposing body in the trunk (six people and one trained dog independently smelled it). If you say the probability that any one of them was wrong was 20% and that the trained dog was wrong was 5% the probability that they were all wrong is 0.00032% which rounds out to 0 probability of there NOT being a decomposing body. The idea that the trash or garbage bag however you want to call it would generate that smell IMO makes no sense.

I could go on, but overall if you examine all the evidence even if you ignore the Anthony's statement there is no reasonable doubt of Casey's guilt.

Even if you somehow construct a scenario that somehow George was also involved, this would only mean that George is also somehow guilty not that Casey is not guilty.

This is well said. The key is the TOTALITY of the evidence must be accounted for. The only explanation that fits the totality of the evidence is that Casey killed Caylee (no matter duct tape or some other means). Other explanations (like drowning) can fit certain pieces of the total pie of evidence, but not all of the pie. Comparing the probabilities of different scenarios is also needed to analyze it all. I don't believe the jurors understood this well enough.

I like pie.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

bolded by me....

I totally agree with what you said! and am going to add, (hope it is okay) - how in the world could she not question him about this after he said it? She initially met the Anthony's because she was volunteering to help find their missing granddaughter. She was supposedly having an affair with GA (so im assuming this means they shared a lot of personal things) yet GA says something like this (about the missing baby you have voluntered to help locate) and you don't question him about it? WHAT? WHAT? WHAT? I think KH/RC is all about the money, imo!

and excuse my spelling mistakes, too tired to spell check,,,

Yep, that would be my first or second reaction: Do you know this?... Then how did it happen?...

Though, that's not to say he didn't tell her any of of it.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the other "could have happened" statements.

There were pictures showing how she could've gotten out of the house and into the pool, and testimony stating that there wasn't precautions taken to prevent that. I don't recall hearing anything in the case about her slipping in the tub, putting a fork in a light socket, or went to sleep and didn't wake up.

I do realize that you're attempting to say the defense's statements were as ridiculous as the statements that you just made, but I disagree.

No. What I'm trying to say is...

You said there was evidence that Caylee drowned. You listed what you think is the evidence.

None of what you listed is evidence she drowned.
What you listed states she MAY have or COULD gave drowned.

If the Anthony house has a tub she could have slipped in, a fork she could have stuck in a socket, or a bed she could have died in her sleep in... Those are just as much as a possibility.

There is no evidence of any of those things. There is also no evidence she drowned.

However, there is evidence that points to murder.

 

[pcrum12]

Were was the frantic call to 911.The people who would have answered the 911 call would have helped.That basic fact has been taught to children for years now.I'm sure KC was taught that at an early age.

This is just a maybe, I have nothing to back it up. But some families/kids are taught and brought up to not trust the police for various reasons. Kids are taught by watching adults. Alot of families would not call the police no matter what because there are unlawful things going on inside the family/home.

 

[pcrum12]

I believe RC, I think she originally lied to protect GA. I think she cared for him and he used her. It doesnt bother me she got paid for her story, she lost money to George, lol.
Right or wrong everyone gets paid for their story, I dont think that necessarily makes her less credible.

And like she said, she was embarrassed. Both were in other relationships. both were cheating with each other on their significate other. It would be embarrassing.

 

[cmsg2002]

THANK YOU! I've tried to say this before, but never spelled it right out like you've done. There was UNIDENTIFIED Dna on the tape, not Caylee's, not Casey's, not the lab worker's.

but if the duct tape wasn't used as a weapon, but instead slipped there from the elements, or was part of the burial process.......like the jury indicated....then what difference does it make that there may have been unidentified DNA on the tape?

IMO....it doesn't.

 

[cmsg2002]

I completely disagree. Tony L testified that Casey had stopped Caylee from running into the apartment's pool. Caylee loved to swim, why is it so far fetched to believe that she didn't understand her own limitations (like most children) and went in all by herself?

For one, Tony L knew KC and Caylee for about 3 weeks before Caylee went missing....he only met/saw her 2 - 4 times. Its not far-fetched to believe she would want to go in the pool by herself, but there was little to no evidence presented to show this. But what's more far-fetched is the whole scenario cooked up by the DT....which was done in preparation for trial....6 weeks before trial.....which had never been put forward in the 3+ years since this all began. KC and GA were at home, all of a sudden one of them realizes Caylee's not around, and they check every other place in the home and garage....but leave the pool for last to check? (the pool would have been the 1st place to check if Caylee had such a pattern) And then when GA allegedly finds her in the pool, he yells at KC, blames her....tells her CA will never forgive her....and neither one of them ever tries to resuscitate Caylee, that both of them then cover-up an accident...by making it look like a kidnapping and murder? That KC that very night goes with her new bf Tony, rents movies, watches them...and proceeds to tell everyone, including her family, friends, new boyfriend, people she bumps into in chance meetings, that Caylee is with the nanny, provides elaborate and specific details,etc. for 31 days? then lies some more to her family, lies to the cops, tells them she spoke with Caylee that very day, etc. Had every opportunity to admit it was an accident, hell, she could have even blamed it all on George! But no, instead she kept up with the nanny story, didn't care what had happened to Caylee's body or where GA had put it...never asked GA about that; and faced a potential death penalty conviction....instead of coming clean about an accidental drowning?

anyone can find fault or doubt when anaylyzing each individual statement, exhibit, etc......but when all of the issues, facts and circumstances in this case are taken in totality...there is no way in hell this jury should have come up with not guilty on all major counts! total lack of logic and common sense.

 

[jrb0124]

but if the duct tape wasn't used as a weapon, but instead slipped there from the elements, or was part of the burial process.......like the jury indicated....then what difference does it make that there may have been unidentified DNA on the tape?

IMO....it doesn't.

BBM: once you reach that possibility, that's reasonable doubt. Whether it fits with the defense "story" or not is inconsequential because it directly contradicts the State's theory. State has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense does not have to prove any alternate explanation of the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. When you take away the piece that their ME claims is a foundation for her opinion it was a homicide, there is no homicide.

 

[cmsg2002]

#1: There was no child-proofing measures taken to prevent Caylee from going in the back yard. There was no evidence or testimony that there weren't any child-proofing measures. This is speculation on your part.

#2: Caylee could have gotten out of the cracked door in the photo if she was determined to go swimming. Could have, would have or should have...again no evidence was presented and again more speculation.

#3: The pictures of Caylee with Cindy climbing the pool ladder was taken a year before and she could climb the stairs mostly by herself, after a year I'd think she could climb them all by herself. I do not recall any testimony from Cindy as to when that pic was taken, and again, lets remember that it was very obvious Cindy's testimony for the DT was colored by the fact that she was trying to help her daughter. if the jury wasn't taking that into consideration, then that's another fault of theirs.

#4: I posted a video in this thread, a couple pages back, showing the A's in the backyard eating at their patio table. No one was swimming and no one was in swimming attire, and the pool ladder is attached in the background. Shows they were NOT religious in taking the ladder down.

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.

 

[cmsg2002]

I don't recall pointing out that Vass' evidence wasn't "proven" science. I know many other posters on here argued that, but I don't recall I did. I did argue the probability of the chemicals (1/10th of Vass' equate to human decomposition, 1/80+ equate to the German's human decomposition).

But, given that the judge allowed that evidence in (Vass' testimony), I'm not sure why this guy couldn't have analyzed the DNA further to see if he could get a better reading.

I'm guessing by "this guy" you mean Eikenbloom? Did you watch or review any of the Frye hearings they had prior to trial and specifically where touch DNA and the Eikenblooms? If I am recalling correctly, and I apologize in advance in my recollection is not accurate, but the court had ruled prior that if the DT wanted to pursue this, they could use someone in the US, and further that Eikenbloom's expert testimony was limited in scope due to various other legal reasons. So if the DT wanted to pursue this DNA further....why didn't they then? Again, if this was all one big accident that snowballed out of control....what difference does it make?

 

[sacrablue]

One detail about the Amscot parking lot has me wondering. What position was the Pontiac Sunfire left in next to dumpster?

 

[jrb0124]

Noting the lack of drowning criteria is not a nitpick. In drownings it is particularly well known people can be resuscitated. Casey was not an incompetent. Caylee was healthy, so presumably the family, including Casey, made sure to give her medical care when she needed it. It shouldn't be Casey's instinct to not get help, unless she willfully did not want to help.

This doesn't answer the point of 100% of people calling 911. That 100% would assuredly include people who tried on their own to give aid. Particularly, if there's two people on the scene, as you just hypothesized, then it makes it easier for one to call while the other tries to help.

One would assume in cases of a apparently dead toddler after: electrocution, ingesting adult strength medicine, falling from a height, suffocation with a plastic bag, backed over by a car...most parents would think a child could be resuscitated - which is why I don't put drowning in a different category.

The only reasons I can imagine that an accidental death would go unreported is if: the supervising adult (or adults) had reason to believe they would be legally implicated for negligence, afraid of the consequences (family/publicity) of accidental death vs 'missing', or something very illegal going on at the time in that place. All of those circumstances would involve less than sympathetic or loving supervisors/parents, probably some personality issues as well.

Hypothetical: not saying it happened this way, but I can imagine GA finding Caylee in the pool, dead for an hour, and knowing (via his experience in LE) that she was beyond resuscitation. I can imagine him making this clear to Casey in a less than empathetic way. That would account for no immediate call to 911.

Of the hundreds of thousands of children classified as 'missing' in the United States - would you think its reasonable to believe that some of those children suffered an accidental death which was covered up by the parents who hid the body and simply reported the child as missing? I think that's reasonable.

 

[jrb0124]

So if the DT wanted to pursue this DNA further....why didn't they then?

The State objected (sustained) when JB asked Eikenbloom why he wasn't allowed to conduct further testing.

I understand the objection, because it calls for hearsay from Eikenbloom and its probably an issue the attorneys and the judge had already discussed.

Nonetheless, the point conveyed is that it wasn't the defense which prevented this.

 

[cmsg2002]

Thanks for providing the definition specifically given to the jury.

In that definition, it states that a reasonable doubt can be attained from a conflict of evidence. I think that is exactly what happened. There was a lot of conflicting testimonies.

of course there is going to be conflicting testimonies...that is the nature of a trial in and of itself. Of course the DT is going to try and find someone who will do their best to refute, dispute state evidence. The jury's job is to discern the truth, weigh the credibility of the witnesses, evidence, etc. a contradictory opinion in and of itself does not equate to inferring a reasonable doubt...nor does it automatically give a point to the defense. I'm not certain if it was you or another poster elsewhere in this thread, but that analogy was used....if the state says blue and the defense says green...well, its contradictory..therefore point to the defesnse?? that's just ludicrous IMO.

 

[beccalecca1]

Re the backyard video,



Is this your argument? That nobody else could possibly be there and that the unseen people heard on the video and possibly unknown unheard people couldn't possibly be going into the pool? You expect anyone to believe that must be so other than the choir?

You want this video to be some kind of smoking gun, but it's not. The video is equivocal to any point either way about their habit of taking down the ladder. It tells nothing useful on its own. Even Baez didn't use it for that and he used anything no matter how baseless.

Ok, I get your argument. But, I still have to say that I disagree someone was about to go into the pool, with the clothing and the setting of the video I just find that hard to believe.

I didn't want the video to be some smoking gun, I was just saying what it means to me. It still means the same thing to me, they didn't always take the ladder down like they claim.