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

[jrb0124]

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.

That's the problem. Everything taken in totality - the promised "mosaic" of circumstantial evidence never materialized.

For one, the defense countered all the forensics with their own witnesses. At least some of those tiles in the mosaic were obscure at best.

And, the defense presented evidence/testimony which became out of place tiles in the mosaic.

In the end, the jury was left with a clusterf*** of tiles, and only pockets of clarity...not the the complete mosaic. In fact some of those pockets of clarity looked like they belonged in another "mosaic".

I will occassionally hear that there was less CE in the SP trial, but at least the prosecutors there left the jury with a CLEAR "mosaic".

 

[sacrablue]

One would assume in cases of a apparently dead toddler after: electrocution, ingesting adult strength medicine, falling from a
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.
.................................................................................................
There is no such thing as beyond resuscitation. It is your duty as a human being to always make an attempt to resusitate a drowning victim. I can't believe anyone could think differently.

 

[cmsg2002]

I find it hard to believe that Casey would put shorts on Caylee that didn't fit. Casey would know what size clothing her daughter wears. And, I find it hard to believe that shorts that she outgrew months ago were still sitting in Casey's car, since up until the 16th Casey and Caylee spent every day in that home.

again, there was testimony that Caylee had almost completely been potty-trained, that she was wearing pull-ups instead of a full diaper, that she had slimmed down since becoming more mobile, that there was still drawers and closets full of the same size shorts that were found with her body. and I don't believe there was any evidence presented that said those shorts were on her body..only that they were found with it or in close proximity thereto.

 

[beccalecca1]

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.

Ok, I'll clarify the evidence statement. There is 'supportive evidence' into the drowning.

If there was evidence of murder, then why was she acquitted? The evidence that is thought to point straight to murder was argued on the stand. There was a contradictory argument to a lot (if not all) of it.

 

[Chablis]

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.

Yeah, but Cindy Anthony was desperate and manic and frantic on that 911 call when she learned Caylee was "kidnapped" or shes the best actress on the earth. And if you knew your grandchild was dead, why call 911 to report the child gone? Its not like there was a father for Caylee in the picture that would question her absence.

 

[jrb0124]

There is no such thing as beyond resuscitation. It is your duty as a human being to always make an attempt to resusitate a drowning victim. I can't believe anyone could think differently.

Personally, of course I would call 911 immediately. In reality, there have been cases where a parent(s) did not resusitate a dead child and instead hid the body. I posted a link a few pages back to a couple in Ohio who did just that. Though not the norm, it happens. Also GA (based on his background) would know what's beyond it.

 

[beccalecca1]

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.

IMO, it makes a big difference that Casey's DNA didn't match the unidentified DNA.

 

[beccalecca1]

For one, Tony L know 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.

I completely disagree that this jury lacks logic and common sense. You take 12 people of different walks of life, and you say they all just happen to lack logic and common sense? I doubt that very much.

 

[beccalecca1]

#1: There was no evidence or testimony that there weren't any child-proofing measures. This is speculation on your part.

#2: Could have, would have or should have...again no evidence was presented and again more speculation.

#3: 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.

#1: There was a lot of testimony from Cindy regarding what safety precautions they took with a new child in the house, up until the point where Caylee was no longer with us. Cindy testified that she didn't use any precautions on the doors in the back of the house. She used (IIRC) a child proof door handle thing for the front door, but nothing for the sliding door. Not even a wooden bar to place in the tract.

#2: If those could have, would have, should haves are reasonable, that creates reasonable doubt, which is what happened IMO.

#3: When this picture of Cindy and Caylee in the pool was introduced, JB asked her when it was taken. She testified it was about a year prior to her being gone. And just because you feel that Cindy was lying on the stand to help her daughter doesn't mean the jury did and had to feel the same way. They are allowed to discredit witnesses' testimony on their own, not because someone tells them to.

 

[beccalecca1]

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

IIRC, it was double-parked backwards into the parking lot. Like the front end wasn't all the way into the lane.

 

[beccalecca1]

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.

The part I was referring to specifically talks about expert testimonies. Expert testimonies aren't people who go on the stand to just LIE for whatever team they're on. They're experts in their field.

And, in your own definition posted it does say specifically if there is contradictory testimonies, you must find that the state didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt. (I don't recall the word for word, but it was in the definition provided).

 

[beccalecca1]

One would assume in cases of a apparently dead toddler after: electrocution, ingesting adult strength medicine, falling from a
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.
.................................................................................................
There is no such thing as beyond resuscitation. It is your duty as a human being to always make an attempt to resusitate a drowning victim. I can't believe anyone could think differently.

There is a such thing as beyond resuscitation. Granted, it is your duty as a civil servant (not as a human being because there are many people out there who don't know how to administer CPR) to perform CPR, but when there's no hope, there's no hope. When you die, your body does begin the decomposition process, you do go into rigor mortis, and you're beyond hope.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Ok, I'll clarify the evidence statement. There is 'supportive evidence' into the drowning.

If there was evidence of murder, then why was she acquitted? The evidence that is thought to point straight to murder was argued on the stand. There was a contradictory argument to a lot (if not all) of it.

Nope, no evidence at all of drowning.

Supportive or actual.

She was acquitted because the jury listened and put a lot of weight into JB's opening statement even though they were instructed not to.
They also considered the DP as too harsh of a punishment even though they were instructed not to.

 

[beccalecca1]

Nope, no evidence at all of drowning.

Supportive or actual.

She was acquitted because the jury listened and put a lot of weight into JB's opening statement even though they were instructed not to.
They also considered the DP as too harsh of a punishment even though they were instructed not to.

So, in your mind, there is no other logical conclusion to their decision except they lack common sense and the ability to understand logic?

Really?

It couldn't possibly be that they see something else, could it? That all 12 of them who sat through all the testimony and saw all the evidence in trial, saw something else? That whatever it was they saw gave them the ability to come back after 11 hours and say 'not guilty'. It has to be that they carry the ignorance, not anyone who is disagreeing with them.

Am I understanding that right?

IMO, if you have 12 people who agree on something, who didn't previously know each other, etc. Then it should be the right decision, whether or not you agree with it.

 

[jrb0124]

Nope, no evidence at all of drowning.

Supportive or actual.

Judge Perry would disagree with you.

Also, remember how the State let JB get away with asking witnesses, "were you present on June 16, 2008 when Caylee Anthony drowned in her family pool?"

 

[sacrablue]

IIRC, it was double-parked backwards into the parking lot. Like the front end wasn't all the way into the lane.

Thank you. I believe Catherine Sanchez also quoted that on June 27, 2008 Sunfire was backed into parking space next to dumpster as well.

I find it strange that if car was truly out of fuel and had to be pushed that it was left in this position. When pushing a vehicle one tends to push from back bumper while streering wheel is used to position vehicle into position. What would be the purpose of going to all the extra effort to back Sunfire into lot?
Any thoughts?

 

[Chablis]

So, in your mind, there is no other logical conclusion to their decision except they lack common sense and the ability to understand logic?

Really?

It couldn't possibly be that they see something else, could it? That all 12 of them who sat through all the testimony and saw all the evidence in trial, saw something else? That whatever it was they saw gave them the ability to come back after 11 hours and say 'not guilty'. It has to be that they carry the ignorance, not anyone who is disagreeing with them.

Am I understanding that right?

IMO, if you have 12 people who agree on something, who didn't previously know each other, etc. Then it should be the right decision, whether or not you agree with it.

Nancy Grace took an "emotional" stance towards this case from day one. Its sad when any child dies, but the reporting done has been emotional and these jurors were able to separate the emotion from logic and facts, and thats why we have the greatest legal system in the world

 

[cmsg2002]

Her "story" was worth more in the sense of the Media's mind. Who has the juiciest story?? KH does! But, wait, she sells out to NE for $4K, and that's it? She didn't continue to milk the story and make television appearances all over?

Nope. That sounds like someone who wasn't in it for the money. And, wasn't $4K about the amount of money she claimed to have loaned GA to begin with?

since you're big on possibilites....isn't it possible that KH really didn't have any proof of her affair, no proof of giving him $$...and overall lacked real credibility....therefore she only got $4k.

I would think if what she was saying was truthful...then the media would have been all over it. and in her deposition that she gave under oath...she denied the affair, etc. then a week later changes her story to sell to the enquirer? sure is alot of reasonable doubt to that IMO.

 

[beccalecca1]

Thank you. I believe Catherine Sanchez also quoted that on June 27, 2008 Sunfire was backed into parking space next to dumpster as well.

I find it strange that if car was truly out of fuel and had to be pushed that it was left in this position. When pushing a vehicle one tends to push from back bumper while streering wheel is used to position vehicle into position. What would be the purpose of going to all the extra effort to back Sunfire into lot?
Any thoughts?

It is strange. I do know that when GA picked the car up, it was out of fuel. Both SB and GA testified that the car didn't start at first, GA put fuel in it and it started.

I'd have to see a pic of the Amscot compared to the road to think of a logical explanation to why it was backed in.

 

[gngr~snap]

There is a such thing as beyond resuscitation. Granted, it is your duty as a civil servant (not as a human being because there are many people out there who don't know how to administer CPR) to perform CPR, but when there's no hope, there's no hope. When you die, your body does begin the decomposition process, you do go into rigor mortis, and you're beyond hope.

That happens much quicker with drowning victims too.
Because they fight so hard before death occurs.
I'm not sure she drowned but, it could explain no call to 911 base on the way Jose presented it in court.
IMO