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

[Kimberlyd125]

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.

You are assuming things that I DID NOT say!
Yes, there are other things that could have happened.

I have tried to let you know, that I disagree with you saying over and over again that there is evidence that she drowned.

If you are going to use that, then there is evidence that any number of things happend to her. Is there evidence of the millions of other things that could have happened?????

There is NO evidence at all that she drowned. Those things you listed are not evidence. Plain and simple.

As far as the jury is concerned... IMO they did not follow instructions. Several have spoken out. I know the openeing statement was used to come to their verdict. It should not have been. I know, they thought about the harshness of the DP, when they were told not to.
This info came straight from Juror's mouths.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

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?"

You are saying Judge Perry would say there was evidence that she drowned???

What evidence?

Where is it?

I watched every minute of the trial and I saw NONE.

 

[Just Jayla]

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.

I appreciate your thoughts. But I have no obligation to be fair to them. Nor do I think Nancy Grace has anything to do with anything, at least not for me or many of the posters here that have sorted through thousands of pages of discovery, hundreds of hours of audio & video (which do not include media shows), motions, hearings and trials, and have come to the conclusion that KC murdered Caylee. If anything is unfair, it is to assume that the brilliant people here that know KC is guilty only know that because of Nancy Grace. If the prosecution did not make their case, LE sure did.

Cindy did not say the kid is next, if you are referring to the 1st 911 call-She said:

Cindy: Because my next thing will be down to child (inaudible) and
we'll have a court order to get her. If that's what you want to play, then we'll do it, and you'll never...
Casey: Well, that's not the way I want to (inaudible)
Cindy: Well, then you have --...
Casey: Give me one more day.
Cindy: No, I'm not giving you another day. I've given you a month.


She did not say anything of the like in the 2nd call, and in the final call, Casey was the last one on the phone with dispatch until LE arrived.

 

[JBean]

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.

http://s138.photobucket.com/albums/...CASE/?action=view&current=july25photos030.jpg

 

[sacrablue]

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.

That is what bothers me about position of car in parking lot. Didn't Casey get picked up away from car in street by TL?

 

[Just Jayla]

You are saying Judge Perry would say there was evidence that she drowned???

What evidence?

Where is it?

I watched every minute of the trial and I saw NONE.

IIRC, HHJP made it very clear that JB was NOT to argue anything about the drowning because the defense had presented no evidence to back that up.

 

[Just Jayla]

That is what bothers me about position of car in parking lot. Didn't Casey get picked up away from car in street by TL?

KC was standing in the Amscot parking lot next to her car, which was parked diagonally facing a dumpster, taking up two parking spaces.

 

[jrb0124]

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).

correct,

PLEA OF NOT GUILTY; REASONABLE DOUBT; AND BURDEN OF PROOF

The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant as to each material allegation in the indictment through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt.

To overcome the defendant's presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the person who committed the crime.

The defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything.

Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following:

A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt.

Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.

It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.

A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence or the lack of evidence.

If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.​

Conflicts in the evidence and its interpretation are also pointed out by expert testimony:

*Manner of Death is homicide vs Manner of Death is undetermined.
*High levels of chloroform vs insinificant levels.
*Air samples indicative of decomposition vs air samples indicative of gasoline. *84 chloroform searches vs 84 myspace accesses.
*Duct tape over the nose and mouth pre-mortem vs impossible to know where and when the duct tape was placed.
*Insect indication of decomposition vs lacking insect indication of decomp.
*no DNA on duct tape unaccounted for vs DNA on duct tape unaccounted for
*skull was found as it was left vs skull was manipulated

All of this creates a conflict in the evidence or interpretation of it, any one of the elements could create reasonable doubt if not proven beyond it by the State - however most if not all created reasonable doubt. It's not even close really, which is why they only needed 11 hours.

 

[jrb0124]

IIRC, HHJP made it very clear that JB was NOT to argue anything about the drowning because the defense had presented no evidence to back that up.

No, you're thinking of the molestation accusations.

 

[sacrablue]

http://s138.photobucket.com/albums/...CASE/?action=view&current=july25photos030.jpg

Can not open this file. Could you please describe what this shows for me please?

 

[WillChgo]

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.

Even if you were to believe that there is a reasonable possibility that they would not call 911 under an accident scenario, is it reasonable to further believe that they would duct tape the body afterwards, put it in the trunk of Casey's car and finally dispose of her in a swamp without a proper burial?

I don't think so.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

No, you're thinking of the molestation accusations.

What was the evidence of the drowning?

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

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.

I am going to use a hypothetical situation:
The states attorney had a mountain of circumstantial evidence that a black 2009 Honda Civic was used to commit a crime. He called the top engineer in from the Honda corporation to testify as his expert. The SA had so much circumstantial evidence he felt this would be a slam dunk.

At trial the expert witness took the stand and the states attorney started his questioning by affirming the experts credentials, then went on to:

SA This key (exhibit A) was found in the pocket of the accused. We believe it was used to start the black 2009 model Honda. In your expert opinion is this possible?
EW It is absolutely possible, I personally used that key to start the black 2009 model honda.
SA In your expert opinion, is the color on the 2009 model black?
EW Yes
SA Was the model made in 2009?
EW Yes
SA (thinking to himself, this is too easy, absolute slam dunk), We have a gas can here (exhibit B) that contained unleaded gas that we believe was used to fuel the 2009 model. Is this possible?
EW Yes, unleaded gas is consistant with the accelerant normally used to fuel this model.
SA We believe this model was used on the interstate and a large number of bugs splattered on the windsheild. Could the windshield wiper commonly installed on this model have been used to clean these bugs off the bug splattered windshield?
EW Absolutely, when I used the key to start this model, I tested to see if the standard installed wiper was working properly and it was.
SA O.K. Almost done, the rest of these questions can be answered with a simple yes or no. Does this black 2009 Honda have tires?
EW Yes
SA A seat, brakes, taillights?
EW Yes, yes, yes.
SA A windshield, a muffler, a carburator?
EW Yes, yes, yes.
SA An automatic transmission?
EW Yes
SA In your expert opinion, a seat, brakes, tailpip, windshield, muffler, carburator and automatic transmission are all consistant with the items you would normally find standardly installed on a black Honda 2009 model.
EW Yes
SA So, based on alll the circumstantial evidence stated in your answers, we can say that a black Honda 2009 model was used in this crime.
EW Yes

Under cross examination
Defense lawyer Is it your expert testimony then, that your answers given to the SA were based on your examination of a black 2009 Honda Civic?
EW No.
Defense lawyer No, but the mountain of circumstantial evidence pointed out by the SA points to a black 2009 Honda Civic. What were you basing your answers on if not a black 2009 Honda Civic?
.EW I was basing my answers on a black 2009 Honda DN-01 motorcycle.

The totality of the evidence that the SA presented, a virtual mountain of evidence, absolutely makes it look like this motorcycle was a car. The media claimed this was a Honda Civic for 2 years in the news stories. There was no doubt based on the totality of the evidence that this was indeed the Honda Civic used in the crime, until the defense had its chance to cross examine the expert witness. Two questions from the defense dispelled two years of misreporting. Two questions from the defense and the totality of the evidence was worth zero evidentiary value.

In the trial we just watched, although it took the defense a lot more than 2 simple questions, nearly every piece of the states case failed to meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, after the defense cross examined and had their own experts testify. Yes, it was still possible that the state was correct and KC may be guilty, but the very simple plain fact is, the state did not meet their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, the jury made the only decision by law, that they could make.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[Just Jayla]

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

So you can help me understand, as the thread topic goes...which facts did the jury consider? I mean, which facts that were actually evidence and the comported with HHJP's instructions?
My take is that, if anything, they found a lack of facts. I disagree with the jury that there was a lack of a facts to back up a circumstantial case, but that is the only credit I could give them...which facts do you mean?

 

[jrb0124]

IIRC, HHJP made it very clear that JB was NOT to argue anything about the drowning because the defense had presented no evidence to back that up.

But Perry did say the defense could again present the drowning theory because there "is a reasonable inference that can be drawn" to suggest it.

[LINK]

 

[Just Jayla]

No, you're thinking of the molestation accusations.

Ah yes! I need to change IIRC to IIDon'tRC, 'cause I know you will correct my crazy brain...too much info over three years to process without Googling before I write!

 

[Just Jayla]

But Perry did say the defense could again present the drowning theory because there "is a reasonable inference that can be drawn" to suggest it.

[LINK]

Whoa, you fonted me!

 

[Kimberlyd125]

But Perry did say the defense could again present the drowning theory because there "is a reasonable inference that can be drawn" to suggest it.

[LINK]

But where is the evidence?

You said that Judge Perry would disagree with me that there was no evidence of a drowning.

Where is the evidence?

 

[cmsg2002]

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.

a possibility of another scenario is not reasonable doubt. If this was an accidental drowning...why did the DT fight tooth and nail to try and show that it could have been someone else that did this? that in and of itself does not conform to an accidental drowning.

and in the vein of seeing trying to see the forest through the trees....none of what KC and her DT put forward explains why KC would take the blame for GA, sit in jail for 3+ years, never say a word about a drowning, and put herself through a murder trial with a potential death penalty...if there was nothing suspicious or nothing to hide over an accidental drowning. KC would never, ever have done this....EVER!

 

[jrb0124]

Even if you were to believe that there is a reasonable possibility that they would not call 911 under an accident scenario, is it reasonable to further believe that they would duct tape the body afterwards, put it in the trunk of Casey's car and finally dispose of her in a swamp without a proper burial?

I don't think so.

Given the unreported/accidental death of a child, why would the specific location and wrapping of the body indicate the manner of death?

Once this jury conceded that homicide was not proven (could have been an accident) - no need to go beyond that.