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

[cityslick]

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!

You understand why I brought that up? Wasn't there a thread that polled how long they thought the jury would find her guilty. Wasn't one of the top choices something like 4 - 8 hours?

 

[Kimberlyd125]

So, is that a yes? You would be mad if they only took 11 hours to review 3 yrs of evidence to find her guilty?

Again...
What I said was, they took less than 11 hours to review 3 years of evidence.
That's what I said.

Anything beyond that is pure speculation on your part.

 

[Solace]

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??

Or maybe they are in profound grief. I don't know how much more Cindy has to fall apart - I thought what she did on the stand was just about enough.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

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??

That would imply that they knew about this imaginary accident on day 1 right?

Cindy thought Caylee was with Casey those 31 days.
She was being lied to by the queen of all liars.

She did not have any idea until they picked up that car that something this serious could be wrong.

I'm not buying that GA and CA knew Caylee drowned.

I'm not buying that Caylee drowned at all.

 

[jrb0124]

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!

"we suspected"?

The had over 400 pieces of evidence in the jury room.

I wouldn't trust ANY of the talking heads or media snippets to inform me as to what this jury did after the BS about them leaving and never referencing their notebooks suddenly became "fact".

JP had them leave those notebooks initially because jury instructions didn't specifically cover them. They got them back after JP "sorted it out".

Be careful with what you suspect, and who you heard it from. There are folks in the media being very careless with the facts.

 

[Solace]

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

Great article Logical. Read it earlier today.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

"we suspected"?

The had over 400 pieces of evidence in the jury room.

I wouldn't trust ANY of the talking heads or media snippets to inform me as to what this jury did after the BS about them leaving and never referencing their notebooks suddenly became "fact".

JP had them leave those notebooks initially because jury instructions didn't specifically cover them. They got them back after JP "sorted it out".

Be careful with what you suspect, and who you heard it from. There are folks in the media being very careless with the facts.

And they were able to review all 400 pieces???
In that short of time???

NOpe, because they considered JB's BS opening statement as all the evidence they needed even though they were instructed that opening statements are not evidence AT ALL.

 

[nursebeeme]

remember we attack the post not the poster... thanks guys ;-)

 

[logicalgirl]

You understand why I brought that up? Wasn't there a thread that polled how long they thought the jury would find her guilty. Wasn't one of the top choices something like 4 - 8 hours?

No idea - was not involved in it - I've posted my own thoughts about a guilty verdict in 11 hours and stand by it. Plus there were three levels of "guilty" to consider. One would expect a thoughtful discussion and re-examination of the evidence the jury thought was especially convincing or not as the case may be before finally agreeing on a decision. I believe that was part of the oath the jury took or at least their obligation.

 

[logicalgirl]

That would imply that they knew about this imaginary accident on day 1 right?

Cindy thought Caylee was with Casey those 31 days.
She was being lied to by the queen of all liars.

She did not have any idea until they picked up that car that something this serious could be wrong.

I'm not buying that GA and CA knew Caylee drowned.

I'm not buying that Caylee drowned at all.

It all goes back to the 911 call - a claim of drowning makes no sense at all. Why call the police into it. How would CA and GA ever think that call would clear any of them if it was an accident. What nonsense!

 

[beccalecca1]

Here is what I think could have happened, ..but since its speculation don't hold me to factual reference

Assume the drowning story, then:

*Assume there is an element to the drowning which could point to culpable negligence
*GA does in fact tell Casey "you'll go to jail for the rest of your life for child neglect"
*Casey believes it (not hard to fathom).
*GA feels he too will be blamed for this Cindy/LE/media or that the death would prompt discovery of something else, for whatever reason GA decides that its in his best interest to cover-up and Casey is afraid to go to jail for the rest of her life.
*GA agrees to keep quiet, tells Casey its her responsibility to properly bury Caylee
*Casey buries Caylee in the back yard, tells GA when asked what she did
*GA becomes furious tells her to get Caylee's body off the property
*Casey removes Caylee tells GA she will go bury her somewhere else
*Casey gets cold feet - leaves body in trunk, escapes (mentally)
*Car starts to smell - Casey puts Caylee where she is found
*Casey tells GA that she buried Caylee in a cemetary and marked the spot
*GA goes there and cannot find the spot, starts to suspect Casey just dumped the body

fast forward to December 2008.

*By this point State had ALREADY (before body found) put the death penalty on the table, in an effort to get Casey to point them to the body
*Casey has told JB the story - he calculates she'll never get convicted of murder 1
*After body found w/duct tape, State will accept plea for manslaughter, nothing less (regardless of what story she tells)
*JB/Casey decide to roll the dice in court vs plea to manslaughter
*Casey sits in jail for another 2.5 years in an effort to get off with time served (checks, lying to LE which JB tells her will be 3 years anyhow) rather than accept 10 year sentence in a plea deal on top of that.

Just wanted to add that life in jail for Casey was probably a lot nicer than living at home with her parents. Could also add to her reasoning for sitting.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

It all goes back to the 911 call - a claim of drowning makes no sense at all. Why call the police into it. How would CA and GA ever think that call would clear any of them if it was an accident. What nonsense!

I agree.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

JP didn't have them leave the notebooks. Some did take them, some didn't.

 

[beccalecca1]

There is evidence that her mouth and nose was covered with duct tape from the Anthony home.

snipped


I disagree. That evidence was up to interpretation. The tape at that time was not across her nose/mouth. It was speculation where it originally lied.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Just wanted to add that life in jail for Casey was probably a lot nicer than living at home with her parents. Could also add to her reasoning for sitting.

She won't have to worry about sitting around her parents home anymore!


http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey-antho...ry?id=14080086

Casey Anthony's Father Says She's Not Welcome to Come Home

Casey Anthony's father has made it clear that she is not welcome to come home when she gets out of jail on Sunday following her acquittal for the death of her daughter Caylee, sources close to the case told ABC News.

In another shot at his daughter, George Anthony is also encouraging people to sign a petition for Caylee's Law, which would make it a crime for parents to not report that their children are missing.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

snipped


I disagree. That evidence was up to interpretation. The tape at that time was not across her nose/mouth. It was speculation where it originally lied.

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/19801867/detail.html

UCF Osteological Analysis
Page 3, third and fourth paragraphs...

On December 11 Dr. Utz and Dr. Schultz removed the skull from the brown paper collection bag by tearing the corners of the bag to expose the skull. A hair mat was noted on the base of the skull and grayish colored tape was noticed covering the mouth and nasal aperture areas. The tape remained in place because it was adhered to the hair of the skull. In addition, the mandible was still retained underneath the base of the cranium positioned slightly posterior. Dr. Utz removed the tape and the hair matt for analysis. At that time, Dr. Schultz provided a preliminary age based on the completed erupted primary dentition and the developing secondary detintion that was approximately 2.5 and 3 years of age based on the dental eruption and development chart by Ubelaker (1989).

Opinion:
Considering the dispersal of the skeletal remains, it would not be expected to find the mandible in this position unless something affixed the mandible in this position prior to decomposition and the hair matting forming. In skeletal cases involving surface depositions, the mandible and cranium are normally found disarticulated because there is nothing to hold the mandible in place after the soft tissues decomposes. Based on the position of the tape and mandible, it can be inferred that the mandible remained in this position because the tape held it in place prior to the hair forming into a matt on the base of the skull.

Okie Dokie

 

[jrb0124]

And they were able to review all 400 pieces???
In that short of time???

NOpe, because they considered JB's BS opening statement as all the evidence they needed even though they were instructed that opening statements are not evidence AT ALL.

They could have reviewed or examined anything they needed to. Do you seriously believe they, or any jurors for that matter, are obligated to examine and discuss each and every piece of evidence? If all 12 already have an agreed opinion on the significance of any evidence (they did hear all the evidence discussed during trial) why discuss it?

Where there is evidence that is not viewed in agreement, and significantly impacts the position of some jurors against others - then yes, it will be discussed.

Its all in the jury instructions - review of evidence/testimony.

 

[logicalgirl]

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.

There was initially a plea on the table early in the case. Once the remains were found, all hope of a plea was gone. And how or why would JB want her to take a plea when he'd just been paid =$200,000 by ABC and had his face on every media outlet possible. The guy knew a cash cow opportunity when he saw one.

 

[beccalecca1]

The jaw bone does not stay attached to the skull without being held there by something after it becomes skeletal.

The duct tape was there.

The duct tape came from the Anthony home.

If the duct tape (that was stuck in Caylee's hair) did not hold the jaw bone in place, what did?

I previously argued this exact thing with someone else, and never got a straight answer.

If the duct tape held the mandible to the skull, but the skull was found with the duct tape only (I repeat ONLY) attached to the hair mat, what was holding the mandible in place at that time? Especially since RK testified he, at the very least, tilted the skull up. How was the mandible still being held in place? If it wasn't the tape, then it could have been roots, which would then mean that the roots could've been holding the skull/mandible together all along, no need for the tape.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

There was initially a plea on the table early in the case. Once the remains were found, all hope of a plea was gone. And how or why would JB want her to take a plea when he'd just been paid =$200,000 by ABC and had his face on every media outlet possible. The guy knew a cash cow opportunity when he saw one.

He has such great moral character doesn't he?