The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #3

[logicalgirl]

I must not have worded my post very well so I will attempt to say this a different way. I too, believe in Dr. Vass's work and testimony but, I think his findings of chloroform came from Caylee's body in the trunk. Not the use of chloroform ON Caylee, thus the reason the levels were higher on one sample than the one the FBI received to test. I'm thinking suffocation was cause of death but, how? Now I'm beginning to sound like a juror, so I'll quit.

I know - all this arguing about the mountain of circumstantial evidence is mind bending - particularly when each piece if presented as being a "falsehood".

When the State rested, I was overwhelmed with the amount of evidence that spoke to FKC's guilt and not one iota of that has changed, including listening to Baez's silly fairy tales, which only brought a sense of disgust but not surprise, as by the time the trial arrived - "we knew him well".

I just see too many agendas here, although I don't know the purpose for them. And I see too much evidence of not reviewing or understanding the evidence in this trial - let alone the ability to actually analyze and come to a logical conclusion.

I'll just leave it as "there are none so blind as those who will not see" and in the words of Margaret Thatcher - "I understand you believe what you believe, but you are quite wrong you know."

That's it for me in this thread. I remember something from a women's group I used to attend years ago, which was a very wise Indian piece of wisdom. If you sit in a group, and the group tells an individual the truth three times, and it still isn't accepted - the group should get up and walk away. There are better ways to waste your time.

 

[IfIMay]

Ok, but what about the money she stole from her grandfather? Do you really think they could not get that and show that and then ask Cindy if she approached Casey, because they asked Cindy all sorts of stuff, even insinuating incest between her kids. The State could have presented this, the last few hours the child was alive, and things maybe could have been different.

jmo

Prior bad acts. Not allowed. Rules of law and all. Defense would have had to open the door to "character" for them to present it. State has to play by the rules... not so the unethical defense. Personally, I thought they opened the door, but I guess the State and Judge Perry thought it was borderline and chose not to go through it.

Ethics and all. And what the heck would Cindy say on the stand? Which version? She's already perjured herself once.

 

[GiantPickle]

In charge #3 the neglict had to be proven that it was Culpable.

AGGRAVATED MANSLAUGHTER OF A CHILD

§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.

2. Casey Marie Anthony’s act(s) caused the death of Caylee Marie Anthony.

Or

The death of Caylee Marie Anthony was caused by the culpable negligence of Casey Marie Anthony.

I will now define "culpable negligence" for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard of the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights. The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

IMO, sleeping or being on the computer and not watching your child close enough is NOT gross and flagrant. It's not culpable.

See, now I think it is. If you know you have a pool in your backyard and know how attracted to said pool Caylee is and you know that Caylee can open doors (which is all things the DT said - so in effect KC said), and you do not watch your child, you are completely and utterly disregarding her safety.

 

[pcrum12]

So now the State is in cahoots with NG ? And please provide an interview with any member of the State's team where expressed an overwhelming confidence in the conviction of FCA.

http://www.wesh.com/r/28460647/detail.html

JA interview with Matt Lauer

 

[Aedrys]

I must not have worded my post very well so I will attempt to say this a different way. I too, believe in Dr. Vass's work and testimony but, I think his findings of chloroform came from Caylee's body in the trunk. Not the use of chloroform ON Caylee, thus the reason the levels were higher on one sample than the one the FBI received to test. I'm thinking suffocation was cause of death but, how? Not an "accident" but deliberate suffocation. Drowning or was an agent used?

No, there wasn't a difference in the way this was clarified by the FBI agent, who even then didn't articulate it well enough. What was found in the air and carpet was similar in levels. The carpet results mirrored the air results as normal levels SHOULD NOT have been in the carpet at all since chlorofrom evaporates. Since the FBI found normal levels, that means A LOT MORE HAD TO BE THERE to leave behind ANYTING in the carpet, much less normal levels of chloroform.

Again, chloroform evaporates. Normal levels would have evaporated and been gone by the time the FBI tested the carpet. They STILL found normal levels. This means there was a LOT MORE than normal levels in that carpet originally, which evaporated and the FBI only found what was left. Ergo, their results, on what was left in the carpet, not the totality of what was in the carpet originally, were a lot less than Vass's because they can't test for what originally was there. But Vass found it in the air tests because that's where all that evaporated chloroform went to, the air.

So originally, there were NOT normal levels of chloroform in that car trunk. Period. I guess if some here can't get that, then maybe the jury couldn't either (and this isn't directed at just one person because a lot keep saying normal levels and differences in the carpet and air samples). I don't think the state made this clear to the jury, and I think they got stuck on "normal" levels and the carpet and air samples being widely different than each other than thinking about what it means that normal levels were still there in the carpet sample when chloroform is volatile and evaporates (and quickly evaporates, for that matter)! *sigh*

 

[GiantPickle]

Accidents happen, and people who have no culpability or who just fell pray to a moment's distraction call 911. I will never be convinced that this was an accidental drowning, but IF it was and if KC didn't call 911 to try to revive the child and to show proof at the time that it was an accident, how is that not child abuse or neglect? She didn't try to save the child! She didn't do everything in her power to make sure the child couldn't be saved. Then, the baby was thrown away in a swamp, her child for whom she bore responsibility. How on any planet would THAT not constitute child abuse or neglect!?

That's my whole horror with this event...if you were to believe her story (which I dont) she chose her own "safety" over any chance Caylee may have had of being revived. She decided she'd rather not ruffle her Dad's/Mom's feathers than get any medical care??

Thats why I believe Caylee had been in the pool a long time before Casey found her....that's why she had to go in to cover up mode. It wasn't an "innocent...baby slipped away while I was showering" type of event...it was gross neglect that was obvious given the condition of the body.

 

[Chablis]

Prior bad acts. Not allowed. Rules of law and all. Defense would have had to open the door to "character" for them to present it. State has to play by the rules... not so the unethical defense. Personally, I thought they opened the door, but I guess the State and Judge Perry thought it was borderline and chose not to go through it.

Ethics and all. And what the heck would Cindy say on the stand? Which version? She's already perjured herself once.

Well, I am pretty sure they talked about Caseys prior bad acts of sometimes smoking pot, so I think they could have have asked Cindy about it, how would it make sense she could be asked about her kids maybe having relations but they couldnt ask her about money and a fight? A fight that happened right before the child disappears, but then the State argues she killed to party?

 

[cityslick]

BBM

I'm repeating ,but looking at public perception ,ONE MILLION ,TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTY SEVEN THOUSAND,ONE HUNDRED + people have signed CAYLEE'S LAW because the jurors needed it spelled out for them.

Have you asked the 6-7 if they watched the entire trial?

Do you seriously believe that every single one of the people that signed for the law believe the prosecution succeeded in proving guilt? I strongly disagree with that. A good many probably signed it because they believe the existing law is vague and that more should be done to punish those who do not report their child missing. It has nothing to do with whether they think prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

No I didn't ask if they watched the whole trial, probably not. But they knew enough about the case from what was read and heard to form an opinion. Take that for what you will.

 

[Sustained]

Of course she lied. She admitted lying. However, it doesn't mean she did in fact lie about everything. Should we assume since GA and CA lied about some things they absolutely lied about everything?:

from GA depo

pg 146
Night of the 15th. Caylee was in bed for sure..doesn't recall Casey being there... up til 12:30 or 1 but doesn't recall Casey coming home.

page 150
Morning of the 16th. Normal day. Caylee up 7:30-8. She seen Cindy before she left (although Cindy says she did not, she just heard them breathing through the door). Casey got up LATER.

pg 158-159
the whole "I didn't put tape on there" crap.

pg 179
says Caylee was wearing black...but then changes it to pink

pg 184
Afternoon of the 16th. After Caylee and Casey left at 12:50, stated he had no contact by phone, message, in person, with them at least a few days or up to a week had a brief cell phone conversation. When in fact he called Casey at 3:03 on the 16th. Why did he call? Why didn't he just say he called?

pg 194
Afternoon of the 24th. States "by the time I got to the end of the car right where the passenger taillight is, she opened the trunk and says here's your f'in gas cans." You think he didn't look inside the trunk?

pg 196
the 24th. He states "Most definitely did not have duct tape on it. I'm positive" Which is it George?

I could go on and on but I'm sure you get the picture.

True, FCA didn't lie about everything. When she said "I'm such a great liar", she was telling the truth.

GA's deposition was taken in Aug '09, more than a year after the disappearance of Caylee. Do you remember what you or a loved one was wearing a year ago or what day you cut your your grass ? I'd be willing to bet if I asked you a simple fact about a date a year ago and then asked you again two years later, the answer might be different. Point is, what GA testified to in his depo might have varied slightly to what he testified to on the stand.

One more thing ... GA was not on trial and everything you mention up above is irrelevant to the evidence presented against FCA.

 

[Aedrys]

Well, I am pretty sure they talked about Caseys prior bad acts of sometimes smoking pot, so I think they could have have asked Cindy about it, how would it make sense she could be asked about her kids maybe having relations but they couldnt ask her about money and a fight? A fight that happened right before the child disappears, but then the State argues she killed to party?

I believe she was asked about this in a deposition, and she denied it and continues to deny the fight. She turned that night into a cuddle session between her, Casey, and Caylee, all of them watching the video of the visit with her father earlier that day - she said this in court when asked about that night. She lied, and left no way for the state to use the fight in court. Even the neighbors can't say for sure that they heard arguing on the night of the 15th. The state cannot verify anything in court with hearsay only.

 

[pcrum12]

Why NOT!? She was the child's mom. The child was in her care. Why the heck would she not know EXACTLY what happened!? If she were not grossly negligent, why would she make no effort to protect or save the child, and if she did not, wouldn't that EXACTLY constitute child abuse or neglect? Why would she lie to protect herself rather than getting to the bottom of what actually happened if she herself didn't cause it? It seems as if Finnell would like (if indeed she does believe what she says) for some sort of of diminished capacity to be sneaked in under the radar, even though KC was found legally sane to stand trial. Pretty much though, that's what happened. Seemingly, the jury didn't want to hold KC responsible for anything. They didn't seem to think she needed to report her child missing...if she was, or dead from an accident...if she was, or even that she had any obligation to try to save her child by calling 911. Of course Finnell's statement disagrees with Baez's opening statement in which he put forth what KC knows, but oh well... "justice" in America!

The point is that she states that even Casey doesn't know what happened after the drowning. She doesn't know how Caylee got in the woods, etc. Whether the reason she doesn't know is she wasn't there for the disposal or she blacked out or had some kind of mental break, we don't know. AF doesn't say.

 

[Chablis]

I believe she was asked about this in a deposition, and she denied it and continues to deny the fight. She turned that night into a cuddle session watching the video of the visit with her father earlier that day. So yes, Cindy refused to tell the truth about it, so why should the state bother asking her about in court? She would have only lied about it. With nothing but hearsay to verify this fight, there is no way the state could have brought it into court. Even the neighbors can't say for sure that they heard arguing on the night of the 15th.

So there was no way the State could have went to her grandparents and say, when did you alert Cindy to the fact Casey was steal money from you?

 

[Aedrys]

The point is that she states that even Casey doesn't know what happened after the drowning. She doesn't know how Caylee got in the woods, etc. Whether the reason she doesn't know is she wasn't there for the disposal or she blacked out or had some kind of mental break, we don't know. AF doesn't say.

Like Casey has ever told the entire truth to anyone? She lied, and continues to lie. She knows exactly what happened to her own child and it doesn't bother her one bit. She put on a show for her DT, and they all bought her koolaid.

 

[pcrum12]

(jumping off your post)
And what was the basis for believing GA lied?
Was it because the woman who goes by two competely different names (not a nickname like her dad called,but an ALIAS),who gave a sworn statement to LE that she did not have an affair with GA ,then changed that story whan she got paid by the National Enquirer, now claims she did have an affair with GA? Is that the witness we are to believe to impeach GA ? :banghead:

All you have to do is read GA's deposition and compare it to his trial testimony to see that you don't need the River Cruz affair to know he lies just like the rest of them.

 

[Aedrys]

So there was no way the State could have went to her grandparents and say, when did you alert Cindy to the fact Casey was steal money from you?

The grandparents are old and sickly in nursing homes. The grandparents in no way could verify that that fight happened when they weren't there to see it. That's just a piece of information, it doesn't prove that the fight actually happened. The only people who can verify this fight refuse to talk about it. There was no point in bringing in up in court, and believe me, I wanted in it court as much you do. But there was no way it could be brought into court.

 

[pcrum12]

Thanks for the links.

We really need to ask ourselves "why" would they claim that she does not know?

JB very clearly stated the events of the "accident". Surely she isn't saying that she can remember that part of Caylee's demise but then NOT remember anything else....

I understand where you're coming from. But, we just don't know. Maybe (pure speculation) she was traumatized after finding Caylee drowned and just doesn't know what happened next.

 

[gxm]

We are talking about using reasoning in evaluating evidence are we not?

You are taking it down to one apple in your hand. Isn't that a rather simpleminded view of the myriad of evidence in this case?

Just the same, lets use your holding an apple. Is this apple a Washington apple? Is this an Apple logo? Is this an Apple ipod? Is this an Apple Ipad? Perhaps its an Apple Ipod shuffle? Maybe its an apple Iphone? Maybe its even an Apple Mac Pro. Then again maybe its a crabapple, or an adam's apple, a green apple, a yellow apple or an australian apple?

I equate the apple you are holding to the substance like adipocere in the paper towells found in the contaminated white trash bag.

Dr.V says this apple like item has a core and a skin and that is consistant with an apple. JA asks Dr. V about this apple, and Dr. V continues to call it an apple. At this point, everyone is assuming this is an apple.

JB begins his cross examination of Dr. V. JB doesn't do a strong cross on Dr. V. and when he is finished with him, it still seems that this is an apple.

A defense witness takes the stand. JB asks this witness if there are any other items that could have a skin and a core. The defense witness says yes, many things, there are Apple Ipods, Apple notebooks, Apple phones, and so on, and each of these have skin and a core. JB asks is there any way to know for sure whether this item that has a skin and a core is an apple, or an apple phone or whatever? The defense witness says, there certainly is, further testing would prove whether this was an apple, or some other item. JA cross examines this witness, and tries very hard to confuse and impeach him. JA is unsuccessful in impeaching this witness, and the end result is that, the apple you are holding in your hand may be an apple, or it maybe be an apple Iphone, since both have a skin and a core, and the state failed to do the further testing to determine for a fact which it was.

http://www.alibaba.com/showroom/apple-shaped-cell-phone.html
picture of an apple phone.

You believe the apple you are holding in your hand is a fact, and is in fact an apple. Do you also believe the fatty like substance was adipocere?

My reasoning does not allow me to believe it is a fact that you are holding an apple in your hand, because the further testing necessary to prove it was indeed an apple was never completed.

I think a number of people are willing to accept the evidence the prosecution presented as an apple in hand. I think a few people, and the jurors were not willing to accept an apple in hand without the further testing needed to prove it BARD. If in your opinion this constitutes the use of inferior reasoning, again, I will have to disagree with your opinion.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

Amazing! I think you may have inadvertently illustrated the gaping (worm)holes in the pro-verdict reasoning: it's pure sophistry. There is, in actuality, no logic or "reasonable doubt" in effect here. Just smoke and mirrors. A shell game. (Which are exactly the analogies I used to describe JB's tactics throughout the trial.)

When one goes to the grocery store, and enters the produce department, it would be considered unreasonable to send the produce for further testing to make sure that one is, indeed, buying an apple. If inclined, one may "test" the produce for ripeness (as in, thump on a cantaloupe) or check for bruising, but to actually insist that the apples be sent off for verification that these apples are indeed apples! One could expect to be thrown out of the store for such a performance, if not arrested, because such a request exceeds the bounds of reason.

Really, the computer brand analogy is a bit much. They don't look like apples of the fruit kind, or taste like apples, or even smell like them. All one has to do is hold up the fruit next to the smartphone (or child's toy) and most folks can tell the difference without the assistance of an expert witness. If pro-verdict reasoning includes confusing a piece of fruit with a smartphone then, good grief, that sure explains a lot!

 

[pcrum12]

Could you please provide a link indicating that all evidence was in the jury room? Thanks.

Sure. http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/video?id=8232571

at around 6:34 you will see that all the exhibits and evidence is not in the courtroom. I have also posted here a page or two back links to news sources stating that 400 exhibits were sent to the jury room.

 

[margE]

I understand where you're coming from. But, we just don't know. Maybe (pure speculation) she was traumatized after finding Caylee drowned and just doesn't know what happened next.

Traumatized= partying, hot body contests, smoking pot, sleeping with your boo and lying your butt off.. Yeah thats how a person traumatized usually acts..Almost forgot..got a tattoo
I dont believe Ann F anymore than I believe Ms Anthony....

 

[Baznme]

All you have to do is read GA's deposition and compare it to his trial testimony to see that you don't need the River Cruz affair to know he lies just like the rest of them.

If LE thought that any lies GA told had anything to do with Caylee's demise, do you honestly think he would be walking around fancy free? I seriously doubt it. You cannot deflect from FCA's responsibility in this case. She's not the innocent princess her parents regarded her as. GA wasn't on trial. FCA was. Period.