The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?

[beccalecca1]

No, they may not have been able get an answer to that specific question, but they could have found out normal levels vs what was in the carpet. It's possible your question might have brought up some doubts in deliberation, but that's why so many of us are disgusted with this jury. There should have been discussions weighing evidence presented, but from what we've heard the jury was stuck on GA, and how much they liked JB.

Ok, I just linked Vass' report. I don't see anywhere where it states what was in the carpet. I just see "Unusually high". Well, unusually high in regards to what?

 

[sacrablue]

No, they may not have been able get an answer to that specific question, but they could have found out normal levels vs what was in the carpet. It's possible your question might have brought up some doubts in deliberation, but that's why so many of us are disgusted with this jury. There should have been discussions weighing evidence presented, but from what we've heard the jury was stuck on GA, and how much they liked JB.

My wife teaches school, third graders, and I am always asking her to make sure you give yours kids a base knowledge, a big picture before you get into details. Ashton needed to use more visual displays. He needed to show the jury in a graphic presentation what this chloroform was, where it is, and where you can find it. Also the general ppm or ppb found in every day items. Then show what was found in trunk. The impact would be there instead of confusion.
Ashton was ready with the odor. Had all his ducks in a row and Perry says jury can't smell it. Trials are getting rediculous. You can lie all day long if you are on the defense and hard evidence from the source....prosecution is told no. Makes no sense.

 

[coco puff]

I thinkit was because the experts on each side cancelled each other out.
CA impeached herself s did Lee.
It was George and Cindy's car that CA called in stolen...
It's their that they want returned to them.
It was THEIR car.
except for 11 days... it was Casey's car.
The car that her parents had keys to
EVEN GA put KC in her mother's car leabing hers with him.
WHY? he lied
That ran out of gas 3 times in 7 days.-
where was it driven? what caused it to run out of gas
like that? obviously KC was driving it but cell pings prove it was not far.TL said it sat in the parking lot at his Apts.
They drove his truck everywhere when together.
Gas gauge wasn't broken.
yet it ran out of gas the 20th the 23rd and the 27th.
GA even said it was empty when he picked it up.
CSI Caylee duct taped lying in it with her eyes closed,
that Google Earth just happened to snap while
GA opened the trun to get the cans.

people can't think for themselves anymore.
it's true.*see attached

She used gas cans to put gas in her car. They don't hold much. If you only put a small amount of gas in the car at any given time, you will run out of it quickly.

True, there are some that do not think for themselves. 12 people immediately come to mind.

 

[LinTX]

Here's a link to Vass' report since we're talking about it. I was looking for some sort of amount listed in regards to the chloroform, but the only thing I see is the words "unusually high amount".

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/20320944/detail.html

Your link is to his Preliminary report submitted in Aug 2008. The Final report (dated April 2009) contains the info I posted. http://www.wftv.com/download/2009/0623/19833565.pdf

 

[Baznme]

Ok, I just linked Vass' report. I don't see anywhere where it states what was in the carpet. I just see "Unusually high". Well, unusually high in regards to what?

Here ya go (compliments from one of our WS transcribers)

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6625445&postcount=14"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Dr. Arpad Voss testimony (Oakridge Laboratories)[/ame]

 

[BuzzieCat]

If she said it is an accident, shouldn't she be able to explain how Caylee got from the pool to the swamp with duct tape embedded in her hair and holding her mandible in place? Wouldn't she want to explain it? Where is the logic here? Why are there so many people that want to explain it for her while she sits back and says NOTHING. I guess that is why in closing statements, JB say that we will never know what happened to Caylee. FKC is not talking..... still.

Excellent post IMO. I know the jury was not allowed to count FCA's refusal to testify against her, but at the same time I would wonder if she were so innocent and had almost nothing to do with what happened to Caylee, why couldn't she talk? If what she was claiming really happened, it should have been easy for her to get on the stand and explain. Instead, we got Baez's story in the OS and nothing to back it up. Aaaaah! Even if they couldn't hold the lack of testimony against FCA, why wouldn't the jurors wonder why Baez had nothing to back up what HE stated? Wasn't his totally innocent client able to at least give him some information to back up the claim, something her lawyer could present as proof, even if she didn't testify on her own behalf? Hmmm...

Like I said, I understand Dr. G's reasoning, and I'm not discrediting her expertise. If I had to view the crime scene I would feel the same. But, I didn't view the crime scene. I don't have nearly as much emotion attached to the case as someone who was personally investigating the case. I'm gifted with the ability to be outside the box and look inside.

I think Dr. G must be pretty good at looking at things objectively or she would be lying in a heap on the floor. I'm sure Caylee is not the first child, and unfortunately won't be the last, that Dr. G has done an autopsy on.

While be happy then.:rocker:

Yes Dr. Vass was a bad witness.IMO Too much technical stuff and not near enough simple common explanations. Just like I did not like the woman(I forget her name) who claimed 100% of parents phone 911 when there child goes missing. What an amazing statement to make! There are many reason's why parents do not call 911. Including that you have killed your child. Which sadly happens everyday. The arrogance of the procession's expert witness was insufferable to me. And the jury.

Just wanted to echo what others said about Dr. G saying that 100% of people call 911 when a child dies in an accident. She was making the point that no one whose child dies in accident under innocent circumstances (i.e., not neglect, not intentional, caretaker not impaired by substance use) has ever tried to lie and hide it.

 

[LinTX]

Ok, I just linked Vass' report. I don't see anywhere where it states what was in the carpet. I just see "Unusually high". Well, unusually high in regards to what?

For some reason search is not working on the pdf you linked to, but if you're talking about his use of "unusually large" , he specifies the 'what' in the same sentence by saying "far greater than what is typically seen in human decomposition"

 

[beccalecca1]

Your link is to his Preliminary report submitted in Aug 2008. The Final report (dated April 2009) contains the info I posted. http://www.wftv.com/download/2009/0623/19833565.pdf

I couldn't see anything that showed numbers on that report either. Just in the lower PPM range.

 

[beccalecca1]

Just wanted to echo what others said about Dr. G saying that 100% of people call 911 when a child dies in an accident. She was making the point that no one whose child dies in accident under innocent circumstances (i.e., not neglect, not intentional, caretaker not impaired by substance use) has ever tried to lie and hide it.

There actually was a story posted on one of these threads (not sure if it was on this one, but it was definitely on the 2nd thread) of a couple in Ohio who hid their child's death due to a high fever. They buried him under their front porch (IIRC). I could find the link if you'd like to read it.

ETA:

“It is not simply that it is a toddler’s death,” said Franklin E. Zimring, a criminologist and law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. “It is that it’s a toddler’s unreported death. Whether it is accidental, intentional or something in between, when the death of somebody that young goes unreported to the authorities, the lack of reporting suggests that this is intimately linked to events involving the custodial parent. Sometimes it’s abuse. Sometimes it’s neglect. Sometimes it’s an accident.”
.
.
.
She recalled an Ohio case where a child died of a fever because the mother and stepfather did not take the child to a hospital. The mother agreed not to report the death, but wanted the body nearby, so they hid it in a crawlspace of the house.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/ny...-fit.html?_r=1

 

[beccalecca1]

For some reason search is not working on the pdf you linked to, but if you're talking about his use of "unusually large" , he specifies the 'what' in the same sentence by saying "far greater than what is typically seen in human decomposition"

BBM

That means to me that this wasn't from the process of decomposition, but was due to something else. What I'm getting at though, what are the numbers? And how much higher is it?

 

[LinTX]

My wife teaches school, third graders, and I am always asking her to make sure you give yours kids a base knowledge, a big picture before you get into details. Ashton needed to use more visual displays. He needed to show the jury in a graphic presentation what this chloroform was, where it is, and where you can find it. Also the general ppm or ppb found in every day items. Then show what was found in trunk. The impact would be there instead of confusion.
Ashton was ready with the odor. Had all his ducks in a row and Perry says jury can't smell it. Trials are getting rediculous. You can lie all day long if you are on the defense and hard evidence from the source....prosecution is told no. Makes no sense.

I agree that the presentation was over a lot of people's heads, but then that's why I'd have had to review the evidence if I'd been charged with deciding guilt or innocence. But yes, there should have been a way to make all that technical stuff make some kind of sense to the jury, or at least pique their curiosity enough to review it. Maybe JA had been dealing with scientific issues too long to remember what the average Joe needs to hear...

 

[HatesSociopaths]

I listened to Jennifer Ford again last night and one thing she said was that she could more easily get from A to B on the accident theory than anything else. :sick:


Let me play out an accident theory. First, a non-culpable one of Caylee drowning in the pool. FCA would have chirped like a canary had this happened. Being in jail, not able to talk to her Tony, stuck in a cell. Give me a break.

Let me play out a different accident theory. One more sinister. FCA administering chloroform to Caylee to knock her out, she dies, FCA freaks out. This is more plausible. She would have been afraid of calling 911 because the chloroform would be found in her system. She then tries to make it look like Caylee was kidnapped, puts on duct tape, etc.

That scenario would have kept FCA lying and covering up the truth to authorities. But guess what? That's still 1st Degree Murder.

 

[LinTX]

BBM

That means to me that this wasn't from the process of decomposition, but was due to something else. What I'm getting at though, what are the numbers? And how much higher is it?

Sorry, I guess I didn't quite understand your question as being the actual numerical results...I haven't searched for those. I only posted what I read in the report re: parts per million (in this test) vs. parts per trillion (in normal findings) because there was some confusion over numbers in that article and questions relating to what would make a person dizzy vs. what was found in the sample.

 

[Italy]

I listened to Jennifer Ford again last night and one thing she said was that she could more easily get from A to B on the accident theory than anything else. :sick:


Let me play out an accident theory. First, a non-culpable one of Caylee drowning in the pool. FCA would have chirped like a canary had this happened. Being in jail, not able to talk to her Tony, stuck in a cell. Give me a break.

Let me play out a different accident theory. One more sinister. FCA administering chloroform to Caylee to knock her out, she dies, FCA freaks out. This is more plausible. She would have been afraid of calling 911 because the chloroform would be found in her system. She then tries to make it look like Caylee was kidnapped, puts on duct tape, etc.

That scenario would have kept FCA lying and covering up the truth to authorities. But guess what? That's still 1st Degree Murder.

I think you are absolutely right. All of the circumstantial evidence points away from a simple accident -- clearly she used her very best effort to conceal, lie & obfuscate the truth. There was something incriminating to hide - and she did just that.

I doubt even Chicken Soup lady would think it acceptable to respond to the accidental death of your very own child by going off and helping with the Jello shots.

It really makes you shudder to think there are 12 people who think Casey Anthony's responses are somehow NOT indicative of culpability. Have to wonder how they would respond to an accident. Scary thought.

 

[gxm]

There actually was a story posted on one of these threads (not sure if it was on this one, but it was definitely on the 2nd thread) of a couple in Ohio who hid their child's death due to a high fever. They buried him under their front porch (IIRC). I could find the link if you'd like to read it.

ETA:

From the linked article (BBM):

"Often, mothers who kill their children dispose of the body close by, like in their backyard or even in their house, unlike in many cases involving fathers or stepfathers, who often discard the body far from home, Professor Meyer said. She recalled an Ohio case where a child died of a fever because the mother and stepfather did not take the child to a hospital. The mother agreed not to report the death, but wanted the body nearby, so they hid it in a crawlspace of the house."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/n...discarded-on-a-beach-one-that-doesnt-fit.html

Mothers who kill their children will bury the body close by. It doesn't say anything about an accidental death. The case cited is a child who died due to medical neglect. Medical neglect is not the same thing as an accident.

Also note that fathers usually discard the body far from home. As Caylee's body was found close to home, this lends yet more credence to GA's testimony that he was not involved.

 

[Trapshooter]

I just have to ask, but who are the jurors suppose to ask for clarification? They can't stop trial and ask the experts. They can't ask the judge, etc. They can only go off of the information provided to them.

The jury could have asked for clarification at any point during deliberation! The jurors could ask to review evidence, have transcript read back to them, etc. The point in this entire thing is THE JURY DID NOT ASK ONE QUESTION WHATSOEVER!!!!!! N.O.N.E.

 

[sacrablue]

I agree that the presentation was over a lot of people's heads, but then that's why I'd have had to review the evidence if I'd been charged with deciding guilt or innocence. But yes, there should have been a way to make all that technical stuff make some kind of sense to the jury, or at least pique their curiosity enough to review it. Maybe JA had been dealing with scientific issues too long to remember what the average Joe needs to hear...

I think Ashton was very good and technical. He is not a people person. He wasn't there to hold hands with the jury. Baez had brown nosed that jury to death. Some people like that. The jury almost felt obligated to his hard work and pathetic looking client. I have been in the same situation in court and its hard to overlook personalities and stick to the information.

 

[beccalecca1]

Excellent post IMO. I know the jury was not allowed to count FCA's refusal to testify against her, but at the same time I would wonder if she were so innocent and had almost nothing to do with what happened to Caylee, why couldn't she talk? If what she was claiming really happened, it should have been easy for her to get on the stand and explain. Instead, we got Baez's story in the OS and nothing to back it up. Aaaaah! Even if they couldn't hold the lack of testimony against FCA, why wouldn't the jurors wonder why Baez had nothing to back up what HE stated? Wasn't his totally innocent client able to at least give him some information to back up the claim, something her lawyer could present as proof, even if she didn't testify on her own behalf? Hmmm...


I think Dr. G must be pretty good at looking at things objectively or she would be lying in a heap on the floor. I'm sure Caylee is not the first child, and unfortunately won't be the last, that Dr. G has done an autopsy on.


Just wanted to echo what others said about Dr. G saying that 100% of people call 911 when a child dies in an accident. She was making the point that no one whose child dies in accident under innocent circumstances (i.e., not neglect, not intentional, caretaker not impaired by substance use) has ever tried to lie and hide it.

From the linked article (BBM):

"Often, mothers who kill their children dispose of the body close by, like in their backyard or even in their house, unlike in many cases involving fathers or stepfathers, who often discard the body far from home, Professor Meyer said. She recalled an Ohio case where a child died of a fever because the mother and stepfather did not take the child to a hospital. The mother agreed not to report the death, but wanted the body nearby, so they hid it in a crawlspace of the house."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/30/n...discarded-on-a-beach-one-that-doesnt-fit.html

Mothers who kill their children will bury the body close by. It doesn't say anything about an accidental death. The case cited is a child who died due to medical neglect. Medical neglect is not the same thing as an accident.

Also note that fathers usually discard the body far from home. As Caylee's body was found close to home, this lends yet more credence to GA's testimony that he was not involved.

IMO, not bringing your child to the hospital with a high fever could be considered an accident. Not understanding at what point you take care of a fever yourself or involve the emergency room. This article also said that mothers often dispose of their children's bodies in the home or in their backyard. Down the street, around the corner into a swamp isn't really in your backyard.

 

[beccalecca1]

The jury could have asked for clarification at any point during deliberation! The jurors could ask to review evidence, have transcript read back to them, etc. The point in this entire thing is THE JURY DID NOT ASK ONE QUESTION WHATSOEVER!!!!!! N.O.N.E.

I just want to make sure I understand, because I have a completely different idea then what is being said.

So, if the jury didn't understand what Dr. Vass was getting at in his testimony, hypothetically even if they didn't understand after reading the transcript.... they're allowed to get clarification from someone? I was under the impression that all they're allowed to use during deliberations is their opinions, testimony, and evidence. They couldn't consult people outside of that; unless they're asking the judge for clarifications on the laws. Am I wrong in that assumption?

 

[cityslick]

I just want to make sure I understand, because I have a completely different idea then what is being said.

So, if the jury didn't understand what Dr. Vass was getting at in his testimony, hypothetically even if they didn't understand after reading the transcript.... they're allowed to get clarification from someone? I was under the impression that all they're allowed to use during deliberations is their opinions, testimony, and evidence. They couldn't consult people outside of that; unless they're asking the judge for clarifications on the laws. Am I wrong in that assumption?

I'm curious about this too when some get angry that the jury didn't ask for 'clarification'. Outside of reading the transcripts (which if I'm not mistaken they already had access too), what else could they do to better understand Dr. Vass' testimony? You either understand it or you don't.