If you agree or disagree with the verdict, let us know why

[Littleone48]

None of GA's testimony was impeached. GA used up the duct tape b/c he was out putting up signs looking for his granddaughter. If LE wanted a piece of that duct tape, they could have gone to any of the Kids Finders command center and gotten it. And why would GA use the Henkel duct tape at a command center IF HE HAD TAPED Caylee's mouth with the same kind ? Not very smart, considering he was a homicide detective.

GA was not evasive during JB's examination - it was just that JB didn't/doesn't know how to ask a precise question about a particular gas can ON A PARTICULAR DATE ? I didn't think the work combative was synonomous with asking for clarification. In fact, a multitude of JB's questions were objected to as leading or already asked and answered.

So, he bought new gas cans in August to mow his lawn in August. And did you ever think he purchased new gas cans b/c FCA had stolen his out of the shed ? Do you have the exact date he purchased new gas cans ? Maybe it was after LE confiscated the ones he had as evidence ?

You see this is where I disagree with you. I watched GA's testimony and I didn't believe anything that he said. The reason is because when JB was questioning him he did appear combative and arrogant. 2 minutes later when JA is questioning him, he is crying. It didn't make sense to me then and it still doesn't make sense to me now. I thought it was a very bad acting job.

 

[annalia]

I can't really answer that because I wasn't on the jury.

Ok, but you just said that in that case they had the who, what, when, where, or why didn't you, or did I misread what you posted?

 

[kgeaux]

No, because they broke the rules as well as ignored evidence. Have you listened to the interviews with Jennifer Ford and the Foreman?

What rules did they break? I am not aware of any.

Yes, but I don't know if the prosecution has to prove their own motive in presenting their case... this post was in reference to the motive behind the defense's case.

Lots of good posts, becca!

It's true prosecution did not have to prove motive, but they didn't prove anything, IMO. They made such a huge deal out of the 84 hits on chloroform and then had to backtrack, that really undermined their whole case. Every bit of evidence was challenged by defense, and lots of reasonable doubt was introduced.

 

[kelian36]

Let's not forget Caylee was Casey's child, not George & Cindy's!!!

When did it suddenly become the grandparents responsibility to care/protect/nuture and not the MOTHER's?

Amen onewick. :rocker:

 

[annalia]

You see this is where I disagree with you. I watched GA's testimony and I didn't believe anything that he said. The reason is because when JB was questioning him he did appear combative and arrogant. 2 minutes later when JA is questioning him, he is crying. It didn't make sense to me then and it still doesn't make sense to me now. I thought it was a very bad acting job.

Pretend you're on the stand being questioned by a defense attorney who accused you of putting your penis in your daughter's mouth and then sending her off to school, and knowing that the attorney questioning you is doing all that he can to put you on trial in order to set his client free.

You really can't understand?

 

[Leah0107]

I do not believe that there was evidence to support the duct tape on her mouth IMO

What is your opinion about it?

 

[beccalecca1]

Ok, but you just said that in that case they had the who, what, when, where, or why didn't you, or did I misread what you posted?

You must've misread me.

I was posting that you need at least one of the who, what, when, where, or how's answered in order to come to a conclusion. IMO, this case (Caylee's case) didn't answer any of those.

 

[Sustained]

I don't understand your point with the bolded part.

If I was out partying, I wouldn't be suspected to be a 2 year old.:waitasec:

I think I misunderstood what you were saying completely.

My fault, you had hypothesized about a friend disappearing after a night of partying and you being held accountable for the murder. My point was that you were not entrusted with the care of your friend as FCA was with Caylee.

 

[annalia]

You must've misread me.

I was posting that you need at least one of the who, what, when, where, or how's answered in order to come to a conclusion. IMO, this case (Caylee's case) didn't answer any of those.

My apologies then.

What was one of the who, what, when, where or how in Laci's death that proved Scott the murderer that was different than in Caylee's death?

 

[beccalecca1]

Pretend you're on the stand being questioned by a defense attorney who accused you of putting your penis in your daughter's mouth and then sending her off to school, and knowing that the attorney questioning you is doing all that he can to put you on trial in order to set his client free.

You really can't understand?

Ok, in that sense, pretend you're giving your deposition and you behave the same exact way when the prosecution (JA to be exact) asks you the same questions. I could understand if he only behaved that way to JB, but to also behave that way to JA while being asked the same questions has me suspect of the questions and the reasoning for being argumentative and evasive.

 

[pcrum12]

The answer to queston number 1 was given by the defense team in "their" opening statement when they placed their client at the crime scene. The problem was they could "never" prove George was there too. It doesn't matter because she acted alone.

George put himself there. Actually he never did pin down an exact time he left for work. Only that it was 10-15 minutes away and that his shift started at 3

 

[beccalecca1]

My fault, you had hypothesized about a friend disappearing after a night of partying and you being held accountable for the murder. My point was that you were not entrusted with the care of your friend as FCA was with Caylee.

If me and my friend were out partying, I would presume (me being a female and presuming my friend is a female) that our loved ones would entrust both of us in each other's care.

 

[beccalecca1]

My apologies then.

What was one of the who, what, when, where or how in Laci's death that proved Scott the murderer that was different than in Caylee's death?

Obviously the who was Scott Peterson.

ETA: IIRC, didn't they find DNA linking Laci to his screwdriver or something on his boat? I could be wrong though.

 

[kathyn2]

Yes, they lied. They lied to protect HER. All their lies and actions were to protect her so the one truth they most likely told before they were sure of what she did was that she left each day around 1 to go to her fake job. Cindy lied to protect HER. Cindy washed all the clothing and dolls and car seats to protect HER. If Cindy hadnt' done all this there may have been more evidence.

You mean her parents that have lied out of both sides of their mouths thru the whole process? So how do we know the timeline was truthful....the lies is what got her off.

 

[annalia]

Ok, in that sense, pretend you're giving your deposition and you behave the same exact way when the prosecution (JA to be exact) asks you the same questions. I could understand if he only behaved that way to JB, but to also behave that way to JA while being asked the same questions has me suspect of the questions and the reasoning for being argumentative and evasive.

I disagree though that he was acting the same way with JA. I believe that if someone dislikes George as a person, him being confused or hesitant about anything is perceived as being suspect.

JMHO

 

[cuppy199]

You see this is where I disagree with you. I watched GA's testimony and I didn't believe anything that he said. The reason is because when JB was questioning him he did appear combative and arrogant. 2 minutes later when JA is questioning him, he is crying. It didn't make sense to me then and it still doesn't make sense to me now. I thought it was a very bad acting job.

Kinda understandible being accused of having your private in your daughters mouth and trying to make a accident look like murder. GA clearly had no love for JB and I cant say I blame the guy if I were in his shoes.

 

[annalia]

Obviously the who was Scott Peterson.

ETA: IIRC, didn't they find DNA linking Laci to his screwdriver or something on his boat? I could be wrong though.

But the who was Scott Peterson in the same way that the who was Casey Anthony. But what was the direct evidence linking him to her murder that was different?

 

[beccalecca1]

Yes, they lied. They lied to protect HER. All their lies and actions were to protect her so the one truth they most likely told before they were sure of what she did was that she left each day around 1 to go to her fake job. Cindy lied to protect HER. Cindy washed all the clothing and dolls and car seats to protect HER. If Cindy hadnt' done all this there may have been more evidence.

So, these same grandparents that everyone are saying are loving all of a sudden are covering for their daughter knowing that their granddaughter is murdered???

 

[cuppy199]

But the who was Scott Peterson just as the who was Casey Anthony. But what was the direct evidence linking him to her murder?

Because he was a male IMO.

 

[blots]

I'm sorry, I didn't ask what a grief counselor was. I was curious if you were a grief counselor. ( you stated that you worked a lot with grief )

If that's asking a personal question, no need to answer. I understand.

I think it was me you were directing that question to but sacrablue answered on my behalf. I liked the answer sacrablue gave so I’m sticking with it and I thank him/her. Anyway, in answer to your question…I am not a grief counsellor. It is an extremely difficult job…if you take your work seriously… and not one I would aspire to. Now back to the topic.