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

[LinTX]

Wow. No wonder I was confused.I believe your talking about Dr. Statheropoulos. He's Greek.In fact he was referred to as the "Greek Guy" at times because his name was difficult to pronounce.
And only one chemical in the trunk was the same?I guess I'll have to look that up, but I thought it was more.

There were more. It's not that they only found 1 ( actually 4 if you follow the link below) out of 80+ in Dr.S's study, they ruled out the majority of chemicals found in the trunk that were also in Dr. S's findings because they were not "key decomposition indicators". So after the more common chemicals found in the trunk were ruled out (common ones were included in Dr. S's 80+), they were left with 5 "select compounds of interest" taken from the trunk (Furton said 1, but that was a misrepresentation). Four of those five were "key decomposition indicators" in Dr. S's report and the fifth item was chloroform.

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2011/04/04/caylee-anthony-case-the-decomposition-of-dr-furtons-testimony-part-2/

 

[goldenlover]

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.

There was likewise no evidene of a murder. It just as easily could have been an accident.. that is the problem with the evidence.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

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!

Because there was no drowning.
It was a fictional "story" made up by the DT to get an aquittal for ICA.

JB's gross opening statement is what got that aquittal. Even though the jury was INSTRUCTED that the opening statement was not evidence and should not be treated as such.

That's why he used such shock valued statements.

It worked. I guess being scum pays off for DTs and their clients.

 

[sacrablue]

There is one thing that really bothers me about drowning theory. If I lost my child in a temporary above the ground swimming pool, the first thing I would do is to remove it from the property.
How could you enjoy this pool anymore? How could you wake up every morning and look at something that killed your Granddaughter?

 

[Kimberlyd125]

There was likewise no evidene of a murder. It just as easily could have been an accident.. that is the problem with the evidence.

I understand that there was not much evidence of a murder. It washed away over the six months that Caylee lay rotting in the woods.

My point is, there are a few posts/posters that keep mentioning that there is evidence of a drowning. THERE IS NONE.

My point is... there is NO EVIDENCE of a drowning. So, why do many keep insisting that there is???

 

[Chablis]

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?

One computer search months prior and air samples from a cleaned out aired out trunk, is not enough for me to believe someone murdered their child and any reasonable non emotional jury would come to the same conclusion. That was not enough to kill someone in this country, thank god.

 

[Just Jayla]

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.

Respectfully snipped for space....If think the anger now lies in the fact that many do not believe the jury was as considerate of what they heard as you have postulated. Had they shown signs of reviewing the evidence thoughtfully and coming to the conclusion you have written above, it would be more acceptable in law, still never acceptable to those who believe she killed Caylee which is, of course, all together different.
Those who suspect that the jury was not considerate are being proven correct as these jurors continue to do interviews-The more they talk, the more they are making it seem as if they based their conclusions on non-evidence and things that HHJP ruled out via instruction.
Maybe they should have never talked and many may have accepted that they found her not guilty in the manner you have written about.

 

[cmsg2002]

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.

no, there had previously been an full formal hearing on this very issue and very expert. during that hearing the defense did not meet the legal standards necessary for this type of testimony and witness.

During trial, the Defense purposely asked this in an attempt to make get in info that had previously been disallowed....this was done knowingly and was a strategic tactic designed to get something before this jury that they otherwise shouldn't have heard. "ambush" was a term frequently used during this whole process.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

There is one thing that really bothers me about drowning theory. If I lost my child in a temperoary above the ground swimming pool, the first thing I would do is to remove it from the property.
How could you enjoy this pool anymore? How could you wake up every morning and look at something that killed your Granddaughter?

That pool would have been gone the next day IMO.

There is no way GA and CA could look at that pool every day if Caylee drowned in it.

She didn't drown in it.

It's all BS fiction made up by DT.

JMO

 

[jrb0124]

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?

If there is not one bit of evidence, where do you draw the reasonable inference JP acknowledged?

 

[Just Jayla]

One computer search months prior and air samples from a cleaned out aired out trunk, is not enough for me to believe someone murdered their child and any reasonable non emotional jury would come to the same conclusion. That was not enough to kill someone in this country, thank god.

So it is a lack of factual evidence, IYO, not necessarily exculpatory facts?

 

[Kimberlyd125]

One computer search months prior and air samples from a cleaned out aired out trunk, is not enough for me to believe someone murdered their child and any reasonable non emotional jury would come to the same conclusion. That was not enough to kill someone in this country, thank god.

There was MUCH more than that.

There was so much the jury did not get to see. That was more than that that the jury DID see, but they believed JB's fiction and didn't trust GA.

So, a murderer walks free in 2 days.

No justice.

 

[Chablis]

There is one thing that really bothers me about drowning theory. If I lost my child in a temporary above the ground swimming pool, the first thing I would do is to remove it from the property.
How could you enjoy this pool anymore? How could you wake up every morning and look at something that killed your Granddaughter?

Or you could maybe think instead of it being a bad thing, remember how much Caylee loved it and all the fun times they had in it. Why do people keep their dead childrens rooms intact for years, etc?

 

[Kimberlyd125]

If there is not one bit of evidence, where do you draw the reasonable inference JP acknowledged?

Because there was a pool in the yard.

That's it.

You said HHJP would disagree with me that there is no evidence of a drowning. Where is it???

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Or you could maybe think instead of it being a bad thing, remember how much Caylee loved it and all the fun times they had in it. Why do people keep their dead childrens rooms intact for years, etc?

The rooms did not cause the child's death though.
Totally different.

If Caylee would have drowned in that pool/water, it would no longer be in that backyard.

 

[cmsg2002]

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.

ok, then address the far-fetchedness that they obviously believed in.

 

[jrb0124]

Whoa, you fonted me!

I think you deserved it!

 

[Just Jayla]

One computer search months prior and air samples from a cleaned out aired out trunk, is not enough for me to believe someone murdered their child and any reasonable non emotional jury would come to the same conclusion. That was not enough to kill someone in this country, thank god.

Not that I am agreeing that these were the only pieces of evidence the state presented, BTW...and the jury was instructed not to consider what punishment their verdict would hold.
Just wanting to understand, from your POV, whether it was all about lack of evidence or whether there is anything exculpatory out there. It seems most think it's lack of evidence, I have not read anything that has suggested that the defense successfully demostrated outright that KC could not have murdered Caylee.

 

[Chablis]

The rooms did not cause the child's death though.
Totally different.

If Caylee would have drowned in that pool/water, it would no longer be in that backyard.

Is it logical to assume no child has ever died in their room and the parents kept it intact?

 

[Chablis]

Not that I am agreeing that these were the only pieces of evidence the state presented, BTW...and the jury was instructed not to consider what punishment their verdict would hold.
Just wanting to understand, from your POV, whether it was all about lack of evidence or whether there is anything exculpatory out there. It seems most think it's lack of evidence, I have not read anything that has suggested that the defense successfully demostrated outright that KC could not have murdered Caylee.

I understand that, but once again a logic human being in the highest profile case, knows that 1st degree murder was being considered, and usually they know it could result in death,not that this somehow has anything to do with the lack of evidence the State brought forward to try to kill her.