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

[logicalgirl]

The theory that the whole Anthony family knew Caylee drowned and kept the pool up so it wouldn't look suspicious is flat out crazy to me.

Why would CA find a friend of ICA's to bring her to ICA and insist on ICA bringing her to Caylee?
Why would she call 911 in a panic when ICA could not bring her to Caylee?

Makes no sense.

And to add - why would she say the car smells like a damn dead body had been in it? Particularly when it did?

 

[logicalgirl]

I could have bought the accident theory had it not been for this:
1. puter searches even dismissing the 84 chloroform searches there were enough other searches for killing type things like neck breaking that her intent was to kill maybe her parents and then after the fight it was little Caylee who was the victim

2. Caylee was 100% her responsibility and she couldnt handle that; way too immature

3. the theft of phone money from granny Pleasea and the fight between Cindy and Casey set her off and out of revenge anger and rage Caylee was killed

4. Casey obviously has impulse issues and this murder was clrealy an act of impulse

Nope folks she killed that kid for either the reasons stated or reasons we have yet to find out. How this jury got lost in the forest baffles me. it is a shame but this is our laws and nothing we can do now. im sorry for Caylee and for all of us as a nation we wanted justice and instead we got defeat failure and the devil won this one...

And if I may add, ICA's complete detachment from Caylee or concern for her "missing" child as evidenced by the jail house videos and her behavior for the last three years. And for the grief expert anyone is about to bring up? For that one expert, let me bring you ten that would testify to exactly the opposite, plus a dozen shrinks.

 

[Solace]

If everyone asked themselves if their child were the victim of drowning in their pool, what would they do. I think we would have a very different reaction.

Supposedly George finds the body and assumes she is dead and buries her in the woods. Then his daughter is arrested and he lets her sit there three years in solitary and then face the death penalty.

Then we have KC who goes along with all of this; even though she shows that she is able to speak up for herself in the August 14th interview. (where I would point out she looks at Cindy with utter disgust when Cindy first picks up the phone after George initializes the conversation).

And what is even more bizarre is the jury says it never considered sexual abuse, but yet they did not like George and found him suspect. Which is even more problematic when one considers their reasoning.

When the foreman said I don't know, I just felt he was combative (really? he was accused of raping his daughter for years and years by Baez and he is not supposed to have a reaction - Okay) An accusation the defense CANNOT PROVE and lets go. And then we have the gas can and the tape which makes ZERO SENSE and even the foreman said I don't know he just didn't answer the questions. Okay, so one takes George's behaviour on the stand into consideration, but the behaviour of the defendant who is FOUND GUILTY of four counts of lying is not taken into consideration.

I don't know Mr. Foreman, I am very mistrustful of you.


So when the jury opted to not go over the evidence in the jury room, I feel it is a gross miscarriage of their duty.

I always got a chuckle out of Baez when he went out of his way to smile at the jurors coming and going. Apparently, it worked.

 

[beccalecca1]

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.

The information has come straight from the mouths of the one's who spoke it, not all the jurors.

 

[beccalecca1]

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?

I don't know if she was in the street when she was picked up, but TL said she told him she had a couple of guys help her push the car there. The only thing I can think is if they were headed in one direction to put the car in a spot, realized maybe it'd be good if the put it out of the way of normal customers, changed direction and put it near the dumpster to be out of the way.

That's the only logical explanation I can think of. I'm in no way saying that's what happened though.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

The information has come straight from the mouths of the one's who spoke it, not all the jurors.

I did not say all the jurors.

 

[beccalecca1]

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.

I love this analogy!

 

[beccalecca1]

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?

Wow... the things I pointed out before created a reasonable inference. Those things were submitted into evidence. (not the home video, but the pictures and testimony of Cindy)

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Wow... the things I pointed out before created a reasonable inference. Those things were submitted into evidence. (not the home video, but the pictures and testimony of Cindy)

Wow...it's not evidence that she drowned.
It's evidence that she COULD HAVE drowned.

Big difference!

ETA: So saying OVER and OVER again that there WAS evidence that SHE DROWNED is not a correct statement.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

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.

I agree there was no evidence that showed the shorts didn't fit, but I think it's a safe assumption those shorts were on the corpse when it was dumped.

Another point brought out is that these shorts weren't kept in the house which would mean Casey kept them with her in a bag in her car.

 

[logicalgirl]

your original post that I was responding directly to, stated that the reason people didn't agree with the verdict is because they didn't understand reasonable doubt. And my response was that was simply not true for the majority of us that have closely followed this case from day one. I didn't say you were insulting, I said your reasoning was. you painted many here with a broad stroke and I was pointing out that inaccurate and incorrect assessment.

and in speaking only for myself....I did not believe with 110% certainty that she was guilty of murder prior to the trial. I too wanted to believe that someone couldn't or wouldn't do that to their own child; that perhaps it was some type of accident, that she panicked and it all somehow got away from her, even with the duct tape. But what convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt is when at trial, the DT came out with their ridiculous and bizarro theory.....that minute is when I was convinced she was guilty of purposely harming that child.

That makes four of you. You, George, Cindy and Lee. Well, George, Cindy and Lee got the news about six weeks before opening statements. But I think the moment they did hear these statements, all doubt about her guilt left their minds.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

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.

Um, some juries make wrong verdicts. It happens.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Um, some juries make wrong verdicts. It happens.

Esp when they take less than 11 hours to review 3 years of evidence.

 

[logicalgirl]

IMO, Casey learned denial from her Mom. Cindy removing the pool would force her to face Caylee's death. Despite wearing Caylee's ashes around her neck, Cindy still believed Caylee was alive. She did not stop looking for Zanny until 6 weeks before the trial.

Looking for Zanny only proved CA believed Zanny was responsible for Caylee's death, not ICA.

When CA, GA and LA were told by their lawyer what the OS statements were going to be, they knew exactly then that ICA was guilty and had killed Caylee.

Again, Cindy did not say she was looking for Caylee, she said she was looking for Zanny. A huge difference in statements.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey-anth...supports-caylees-law/story?id=14080086&page=2

The jury foreman, a 38-year-old high school football coach, told "Good Morning America" today that he felt an "overwhelming sense that we may have let people down."

The foreman also said that he could not look at Anthony when reading the verdict because he did not want to see her happiness. He calls reports that she is being offered huge sums of money to tell her story "mortifying."

When asked if he thinks Anthony is innocent, he said, "I think she played a hand in something. We just don't know what."

The foreman's final thought: "I don't want to ever see Casey Anthony again."

 

[logicalgirl]

Um, some juries make wrong verdicts. It happens.

Here Smelly Squirrel, let me and a retired Judge from the Federal Bench help you out...

The Reason for the Not Guilty Verdict in the Casey Anthony Case
Judge H. Lee Sarokin.

Retired in 1996 after 17 years on the federal bench
Posted: 7/15/11 10:12 AM ET
snip-
The jury in the Casey Anthony trial was not instructed that circumstantial evidence is entitled to the same weight and consideration as direct evidence. Indeed, the words "circumstantial evidence" do not appear anywhere in the court's charge to the jury. I do not know whether or not the prosecution requested such an instruction, but the court did not give it, and apparently Florida law does not provide or require it.
The fact that Casey Anthony was the last person to have custody of her daughter, failed to report her missing (or dead) for 31 days, consistently lied once confronted, and the child was found dead and hidden, and she failed to tell what actually happened despite repeated opportunities to do so to her family, friends or law enforcement, (even when faced with the death penalty) was sufficient to find her guilty -- not necessarily of premeditated murder, but certainly all lesser charges. The duct tape and other forensic evidence provided additional, but not necessary, evidence.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/casey-anthony-jury_b_898550.html

 

[beccalecca1]

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/

Thank you for posting this. I do stand corrected on the numbers according to this article. But, that still leaves 5/41 (12% probability) according to Vass' study and 4/86 (4.6% probability) according to Statheropoulos’ , which aren't great odds.

One thing I do find peculiar in this blog is this: They go into great depths to discredit Dr. Furton in regards to dimethyl sulfide. It's a chemical that, according to the author, is linked to anaerobic decomposition (meaning that since it was positive in Casey's trunk, it had to mean there was a dead body in there.). The reason they know is from the study of the garbage bins. The first study refers to 'garbage bins' (notice it's not mentioned how many bins) that were overfilled and left out in hot weather. These 'bins' tested positive more than 50% of the time for dimethyl sulfide.

GREAT... we have an answer to the reason for the chemical, a massive amount of decomposition (since the bins were over-filled and sat in the heat).

Oh.. but wait, they did another study that tested positive for that chemical, less than 50% of the garbage bins that were partially filled and sat in a controlled environment (50 F) tested positive. The author doesn't talk about this. What does this mean? Maybe those bags had some of the same items as the previous bags? Maybe that item might've been something in the trunk of Casey's car? :waitasec:

And, I'm not buying that the bag didn't have food products in it. I believe that it's entirely possible there was more food product in the bag that just dissipated into a liquid form while it was sitting in the FL heat for 2 + weeks. And then, of course, they dry out the items before there is a possibility to collect samples from the bag in it's original form.

 

[logicalgirl]

So I expect you would be screaming from the rooftops if they deliberated 11 hours and found her guilty?

If as we suspected, the jury spent four of those hours at lunch and breaks and one hour in discussions choosing a foreperson, asked no questions about expert testimony, chose to not look at any of the more than three hundred pieces of questions asked no questions at all from the judge, and came back with a guilty verdict despite feeling she may have been innocent, then definitely YES!

 

[jrb0124]

[/B]

BBM...but the problem was she was facing a murder trial that carried a death penalty. And while I am loathe to give much credit to Baez, even he would not have advised his client to roll the dice on a murder charge vs. taking a plea for manslaughter.....no attorney would, that would be gross malpractice.

and KC would have sung like a bird if there was someone else she could lay the blame on. She and she alone was responsible for the death of her child.

Who's to say JB didn't advise her to take the deal? Its Casey's call.

As to her singin like a bird, even if it was a covered up accident, the State had made clear (due to the duct tape) that manslaughter (10 years) was the offer, nothing less - regardless of her newest story.

Given that scenario, GA - I am sure - had made it clear to Casey that he would never admit involvement or knowledge of the truth after the snowball started rolling...so there goes her alibi for accidental death.

So why doesn't she just accuse him of complicity outright then and go public with the accident story?

This is probably where the discussions with JB came into play...once Casey decided not to accept a plea and fight the charges, was it more advantageous to sit in jail for forged checks and time served for lying to LE (she'd be in there anyhow)...then surprise the prosecution (who wouldn't offer a plea less than manslaughter) at trial? or go public and hope her newest story persuades the State to let her plea to a lesser offense, or that GA admits his role - and if they didn't...allow them to completely prepare for the drowning defense. Something tells me there is no way the State would have believed her anyhow or offered a lesser plea.

 

[beccalecca1]

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?

Or even, if they were truly covering up an accident, maybe they hadn't taken it down because they didn't want the whole nation (who was watching their every move) to become suspicious??