The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?

[Italy]

Originally Posted by beccalecca1
If there were no evidence of an accident (which is been said many times now), why would HHJP allow this discussion in closings? There was evidence presented of an accident.

Again something that we can (to a point) agree on.

While there was no evidence of an accident, it is correct that an accident could have been considered as cause of death by the jury. However, in the framework of an accident, using the mitigating circumstances presented in evidence and the behavior of Casey Anthony which clearly (reasonably, legally and all other criteria) speaks to consciousness of guilt, one must reasonably conclude it was not an innocent accident but instead homicide (which can include an accident with aggravating factors).

While "Consciousness of Guilt" cannot be solely used to convict (for instance: Casey lies and parties: Nobody has seen Tony the boyfriend in months. You cannot make the leap that Casey killed Tony without some other evidence ... dead body being the most persuasive).

Evidence of Consciousness of Guilt coupled with other evidence, is very strong proof of guilt and the jury - if they are properly doing their job - MUST consider it as evidence. They may not explain it away using speculation or theories not in evidence.

But your comments are interesting fodder for this discussion.

Like you, I cannot help but consider that the death may have been an accident. (As you know, it is not essential to know cause of death.)

However, it is impossible to conclude it was an innocent accident in the framework of the circumstances. If I am required to use the evidence, then I must consider the Consciousness of Guilt and must, therefore, reason that if there was an accident, it resulted from Culpable Negligence on the part of Casey Anthony.

 

[beccalecca1]

Nice try ... the car was left at the Amscot on 6/27 and towed on 6/30. You mean to tell me she couldn't get gas in 3 days ???? Gimme a break ...

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/calendar.php?do=getinfo&day=2008-6-27&c=4 June 27th calendar of events

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/calendar.php?do=getinfo&day=2008-6-28&c=4 June 28th calendar of events

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/calendar.php?do=getinfo&day=2008-6-29&c=4 June 29th calendar of events

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/calendar.php?do=getinfo&day=2008-6-30&c=4 June 30th calendar of events

On June 30th, Amy and Casey went to target to buy a gas can between 11-1pm. If they went to Amscot immediately afterwards, they would've noticed her car was already towed.

The whole period of time from the 27th to the 30th she was asking friends for gas cans.

 

[beccalecca1]

It's called "covering your butt" ... in my younger days, I ran out of gas a few times due to lack of funds. But I never left my car anywhere for more than a few hours KNOWING that a towing charge would be expensive. The car was left at the Amscot on 6/27 and towed on 6/30. You would leave your purse in the car for 3 days knowing the car could be broken into ? C'mon ....

Honestly, you're in an Amscot parking lot with camera's covering every bit of parking lot (presumably by seeing the security cameras on the sides of the building)... I wouldn't be concerned of my purse being stolen. Especially since Casey Anthony apparently didn't carry any cash with her, she just stole it from everyone else.

 

[Sustained]

The only search the SA made important was the chloroform search "84 times, 84 times, 84 times, etc". We found out that it was actually 1 time. As far as the other searches, since the lie from CA I can't understand who was actually searching these items. It was a time when GA was in the home too; maybe CA wasn't covering for Casey, but was covering for GA. Since he was in the home, I have to say he also had access to the computer.


Yes, she lied to the police with great detail. It almost sounded like a previously agreed to script, didn't it?


Not ever reporting your child missing actually. And, we now know that her child was dead all along, so no reason to report her missing. This would still coincide with a previous agreed to plan between her and GA.


I've argued that her behavior (although many disagree) could be a process of unhealthy grieving, and the fact that she knew Caylee was gone and there was no coming back.


IMO, the Bella Vita tattoo could be taken both ways, in honor of Caylee's beautiful life or in honor of Casey's new found beautiful life. And, if her daughter had drowned and her and GA were playing cover-up, she's already told many people Caylee was on vacation-rama with her nanny.. naturally she'd still pretend she is still alive.


I posted above that this could've been her "F you" to her parents. Also, she didn't have much contact with GA (maybe she was running from the truth of covering up the accident?) and she certainly wouldn't have called CA to say her car ran out of gas in Orlando after lying to her mom saying she was in Jacksonville (or wherever she was suppose to be... Tampa?).


One hair that is consistent with, but not conclusive with. How could you only get 1 hair off a dead child's head to land in your trunk? 1 hair. And, saying it's consistent with post-mortem decompositional banding is like saying a glass of coffee is consistent with a glass of cola... they look the same.


That was a lie, but it goes along with this pre-planned idea that Casey and GA could've made up.


I don't recall anything about their relationship being in evidence, so I'm not sure what this is referring to.



In order for the circumstantial evidence to hold weight, you have to look at each individual piece to see if it's credible evidence. You can't just look at it all and say, "well, it's circumstantial but it's all the truth."



I agree, because without that video and without the actual pictures of where the duct tape was at the time of them discovering the crime scene; it's hard for me to say this is all true evidence of a crime.

The circumstantial evidence against FCA is voluminous. Where is there any evidence (direct or circumstantial) that FCA had a plan with GA ? Or with anyone else ? And I ask you one more time ... what would GA gain by having Caylee dead and covering it up ? If what you say is true, you are giving GA credit for being the best actor in the world ...

 

[Well Done 99]

I don't recall reading it either way, but did GA have to put gas in it when they collected it ...... or did he simply hop in and drive it off?
The answer to that is the answer to whether KC was lying about it or not.
It was towed to the yard, not driven, so no argument can be made that the trip to yard ran it out of gas ... (the amount of gas in it when it got to the yard was the amount of gas in it when it was left at Amscott)
BTW - to assist with somebody else's question - an out-of-gas car will still "turn over" - it just won't start. A car with a flat battery or one of many other problems will not turn over at all.

 

[beccalecca1]

Originally Posted by beccalecca1
If there were no evidence of an accident (which is been said many times now), why would HHJP allow this discussion in closings? There was evidence presented of an accident.

Again something that we can (to a point) agree on.

While there was no evidence of an accident, it is correct that an accident could have been considered as cause of death by the jury. However, in the framework of an accident, using the mitigating circumstances presented in evidence and the behavior of Casey Anthony which clearly (reasonably, legally and all other criteria) speaks to consciousness of guilt, one must reasonably conclude it was not an innocent accident but instead homicide (which can include an accident with aggravating factors).

While "Consciousness of Guilt" cannot be solely used to convict (for instance: Casey lies and parties: Nobody has seen Tony the boyfriend in months. You cannot make the leap that Casey killed Tony without some other evidence ... dead body being the most persuasive).

Evidence of Consciousness of Guilt coupled with other evidence, is very strong proof of guilt and the jury - if they are properly doing their job - MUST consider it as evidence. They may not explain it away using speculation or theories not in evidence.

But your comments are interesting fodder for this discussion.

Like you, I cannot help but consider that the death may have been an accident. (As you know, it is not essential to know cause of death.)

However, it is impossible to conclude it was an innocent accident in the framework of the circumstances. If I am required to use the evidence, then I must consider the Consciousness of Guilt and must, therefore, reason that if there was an accident, it resulted from Culpable Negligence on the part of Casey Anthony.

BBM

IMO, the presence of the grief expert debunked the behaviors of Casey only happening because she was guilty. Perhaps the jurors also have seen death take a nasty toll on themselves or other loved ones. Grief can be ugly, and with the expert on the stand (although a lot of people discredit her), it was evidence to weigh in this trial.

 

[beccalecca1]

The circumstantial evidence against FCA is voluminous. Where is there any evidence (direct or circumstantial) that FCA had a plan with GA ? Or with anyone else ? And I ask you one more time ... what would GA gain by having Caylee dead and covering it up ? If what you say is true, you are giving GA credit for being the best actor in the world ...

BBM

Yes, I am giving him credit for being a great actor (not the best actor in the world, but a good actor).

There has been many theories on why GA would cover up the accident, but they are theories. Just as much as there has been many theories on why Casey would kill her child, and since she was found NG, I would have to say those are theories also.

 

[Sustained]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/calendar.php?do=getinfo&day=2008-6-27&c=4 June 27th calendar of events

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/calendar.php?do=getinfo&day=2008-6-28&c=4 June 28th calendar of events

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/calendar.php?do=getinfo&day=2008-6-29&c=4 June 29th calendar of events

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/calendar.php?do=getinfo&day=2008-6-30&c=4 June 30th calendar of events

On June 30th, Amy and Casey went to target to buy a gas can between 11-1pm. If they went to Amscot immediately afterwards, they would've noticed her car was already towed.

The whole period of time from the 27th to the 30th she was asking friends for gas cans.

Once again, it's called "covering your butt" ... why didn't she just go to Target, KMart on the 27th and get a gas can ? When she called TL to come and get her, why didn't she tell him to stop, get a gas can and some gas, and come to the Amscot. And why didn't she go to Johnson's tow yard after the car was towed and try and retrieve it ? And why didn't she call GA/CA/LA or even MP to come and help her ? And why did park directly next to the dumpster which much have smelly pretty ripe in the Florida heat.

Answer - she didn't want the car anymore b/c of the decomp smell beginning to form in the trunk. Are you going to tell me that was part of the master plan she had with GA ?

 

[Sustained]

BBM

Yes, I am giving him credit for being a great actor (not the best actor in the world, but a good actor).

There has been many theories on why GA would cover up the accident, but they are theories. Just as much as there has been many theories on why Casey would kill her child, and since she was found NG, I would have to say those are theories also.

Theories only in the minds of 12 bumbling jurors who could not add 2+2. I really hope some of these "jurors" come forward and admit that they got it wrong. But I suspect that shame will always overshadow courage and we'll never hear the truth, just as we never did with FCA.

 

[KarmaGet'em]

The only search the SA made important was the chloroform search "84 times, 84 times, 84 times, etc". We found out that it was actually 1 time. As far as the other searches, since the lie from CA I can't understand who was actually searching these items. It was a time when GA was in the home too; maybe CA wasn't covering for Casey, but was covering for GA. Since he was in the home, I have to say he also had access to the computer.

I have said this time and again, the 84 number was for number of VISITS and not SEARCHES. There is a huge difference. So there is absolutely no dispute that the number of times chloroform was SEARCHED - the number is greater than ZERO. That is enough to show intent. As far as CA's lie - why does that confuse you? SA proved that to be a lie and proved that CA was at work. As far as GA, he was at work on that day in March as well. What is there to be confused about?

Yes, she lied to the police with great detail. It almost sounded like a previously agreed to script, didn't it?

The only "script" I can see was authored by FCA and read by FCA. There is absolutely no evidence that anyone else "wrote" that script. In fact, I would contend that, by their actions after finding Caylee was missing, the other family members were obviously not aware of "the script".

Not ever reporting your child missing actually. And, we now know that her child was dead all along, so no reason to report her missing. This would still coincide with a previous agreed to plan between her and GA.

How do you put those two together with a straight face?

I've argued that her behavior (although many disagree) could be a process of unhealthy grieving, and the fact that she knew Caylee was gone and there was no coming back.

Even the grief lady was unable to argue that point very well, and she is an "expert".

IMO, the Bella Vita tattoo could be taken both ways, in honor of Caylee's beautiful life or in honor of Casey's new found beautiful life. And, if her daughter had drowned and her and GA were playing cover-up, she's already told many people Caylee was on vacation-rama with her nanny.. naturally she'd still pretend she is still alive.

The tattoo by itself could be taken both ways. It's when it is combined with all of the other circumstantial evidence that one interpretation makes more sense than the other.


I posted above that this could've been her "F you" to her parents. Also, she didn't have much contact with GA (maybe she was running from the truth of covering up the accident?) and she certainly wouldn't have called CA to say her car ran out of gas in Orlando after lying to her mom saying she was in Jacksonville (or wherever she was suppose to be... Tampa?).

So now it sounds like you are saying there was no script? That GA and CA were unaware of FCA's activities? If FCA and GA were in cahoots with a script, wouldn't they be keeping constant contact to be sure that they are keeping their story straight?

One hair that is consistent with, but not conclusive with. How could you only get 1 hair off a dead child's head to land in your trunk? 1 hair. And, saying it's consistent with post-mortem decompositional banding is like saying a glass of coffee is consistent with a glass of cola... they look the same.

When that child is triple bagged and most of her hair is attached to duct-tape, 1 hair is significant. Besides, FCA had plenty of time to take the car to the nearest gas station/car wash and vacuum out the trunk. Doesn't mean Caylee was not in there.

That was a lie, but it goes along with this pre-planned idea that Casey and GA could've made up.

That is a pretty elaborate script to have been made up in a couple of hours before GA went to work and FCA went to Blockbuster...

I don't recall anything about their relationship being in evidence, so I'm not sure what this is referring to.

Unfortunately, the SA was unable to bring before the jury the fight CA and FCA had on June 15. Due to CA's preponderance to LIE.


In order for the circumstantial evidence to hold weight, you have to look at each individual piece to see if it's credible evidence. You can't just look at it all and say, "well, it's circumstantial but it's all the truth."

IMO, each circumstantial evidence held its weight just fine. And by putting them all together it became one solid set of evidence.

I agree, because without that video and without the actual pictures of where the duct tape was at the time of them discovering the crime scene; it's hard for me to say this is all true evidence of a crime.

My comments in blue. Becca, with all due respect, it is beyond frustrating to hear you "reason away" hard evidence to fit a predetermined verdict/result. It seems to me that you have "thrown away" evidence not because it could not be true but because it did not fit your already decided verdict. All evidence should be considered, not just what fits your (unproven) story.
IMO.

 

[Italy]

BBM

IMO, the presence of the grief expert debunked the behaviors of Casey only happening because she was guilty. Perhaps the jurors also have seen death take a nasty toll on themselves or other loved ones. Grief can be ugly, and with the expert on the stand (although a lot of people discredit her), it was evidence to weigh in this trial.

You are probably right.

Truly a new low standard for juries was set if this was the case. If this sets the new norm, forever more, some "Anything-Can-Be-Anything" comments can convince a jury that the time-honored legal principle of Consciousness of Guilt is not valid of consideration.

Really, what is death, after all? We have a legal definition but maybe anything-can-be-anything should be applied and there is no worthy parameter to define death.

I never thought I could have a lower opinion of the jury - but you just gave me one. Sad.

 

[KarmaGet'em]

I don't recall reading it either way, but did GA have to put gas in it when they collected it ...... or did he simply hop in and drive it off?
The answer to that is the answer to whether KC was lying about it or not.
It was towed to the yard, not driven, so no argument can be made that the trip to yard ran it out of gas ... (the amount of gas in it when it got to the yard was the amount of gas in it when it was left at Amscott)
BTW - to assist with somebody else's question - an out-of-gas car will still "turn over" - it just won't start. A car with a flat battery or one of many other problems will not turn over at all.

IIRC, GA put gas in it at the tow yard. But I don't remember if he tried to start it first with no luck. It is very possible that the car ran out of gas, but I think that it ran out of gas AFTER FCA parked in at the Amscot. I believe that she planned to park it there and let the car run until it ran out of gas. For one thing, the car was backed into its spot. (no one pushes a car backwards into a spot when it is disabled). Secondly, no one has come forward to say they were the ones to help FCA push the car out of the road. So my conclusion is that FCA parked next to the (smelly) dumpster when it was really low on gas and then let it run out. Then she called Tony. Part of her plan. (IMO).

 

[beccalecca1]

My comments in blue. Becca, with all due respect, it is beyond frustrating to hear you "reason away" hard evidence to fit a predetermined verdict/result. It seems to me that you have "thrown away" evidence not because it could not be true but because it did not fit your already decided verdict. All evidence should be considered, not just what fits your (unproven) story.
IMO.

I haven't responded to the quoted responses in my post, but I wanted to respond to the assumption that I had a predetermined verdict in my head and just molded the story to fit that way.

When trial began, I believed she was guilty. 100% wholeheartedly guilty. When JB stated his OS, I thought for a moment "Oh yeah... sure." But, then decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and see if he could at least show some proof to what he stated. I sat through every day of Prosecution's presentation. Every day I became more and more concerned of their case. I didn't see anything that could be argued to be consistent with other non-criminal means. When Prosecution rested, I was very concerned because I didn't see anything... not a single thing.. that was conclusive to tie Casey to the crime.

Now it was the Defense's turn. Granted, I walked into their presentation thinking she was innocent. I was concerned after a few days JB did nothing to present evidence of his OS, but then he began to show the pictures, reiterate that Caylee could have gotten out of the house in the backyard without an adult present. GA's behavior towards anything incriminating against him concerned me. JA's reaction to cross-examination of any of the experts concerned me. LDB sitting at the Prosecution table arms folded and a pouty look concerned me. The numerous attempt and amounts of side-bars concerned me. Before closing arguments, I was sure in my head she wasn't guilty of a crime.

So, I reiterate again; I did not come into this trial molding the evidence to fit my needs. The evidence presented itself to me and this how I understood it.

 

[Italy]

Theories only in the minds of 12 bumbling jurors who could not add 2+2. I really hope some of these "jurors" come forward and admit that they got it wrong. But I suspect that shame will always overshadow courage and we'll never hear the truth, just as we never did with FCA.

I bet not. I bet someone will come forward with a mea culpa, write a book, go on TV and that juror will make a pile of money.

I am certain there was peer pressure to reach the NG verdict. I am equally certain that there are some questioning their verdict.

 

[Well Done 99]

IIRC, GA put gas in it at the tow yard. But I don't remember if he tried to start it first with no luck. It is very possible that the car ran out of gas, but I think that it ran out of gas AFTER FCA parked in at the Amscot. I believe that she planned to park it there and let the car run until it ran out of gas. For one thing, the car was backed into its spot. (no one pushes a car backwards into a spot when it is disabled). Secondly, no one has come forward to say they were the ones to help FCA push the car out of the road. So my conclusion is that FCA parked next to the (smelly) dumpster when it was really low on gas and then let it run out. Then she called Tony. Part of her plan. (IMO).

Thanks very much Karma. I had overlooked the possibility that he may have instantly put gas in it, thinking it was out of gas when it wasn't.

 

[beccalecca1]

You are probably right.

Truly a new low standard for juries was set if this was the case. If this sets the new norm, forever more, some "Anything-Can-Be-Anything" comments can convince a jury that the time-honored legal principle of Consciousness of Guilt is not valid of consideration.

Really, what is death, after all? We have a legal definition but maybe anything-can-be-anything should be applied and there is no worthy parameter to define death.

I never thought I could have a lower opinion of the jury - but you just gave me one. Sad.

Grief, to my understanding, isn't just experienced with death. It's experienced with any type of loss. Loss of a job you enjoyed, loss of a toy as a child, loss of a friend (by means of a fight or move, etc).

And death is when your heart no longer beats, IMO. I don't think this jury re-defined death.

 

[pcrum12]

Nice try ... the car was left at the Amscot on 6/27 and towed on 6/30. You mean to tell me she couldn't get gas in 3 days ???? Gimme a break ...

http://www.acandyrose.com/casey_anthony_31days.htm

Looks like she was trying to retrieve the car not abandon it. IMO

June 27, 2008 (Fri)
12:00pm (est)
Anthony Lazarro:
09/08/08 Interview Text
Anthony Lazarro admitted that he was a little irriated that he had to pick Casey up this day because he had to drop a project paper off at school. Casey had some bags of food that looked like she got from her parents freezer.

June 27, 2008 (Fri)
2:00pm (est)
Anthony Lazarro:
09/08/08 Interview Text
Anthony Lazarro said he drove back to his apartment because he had to print some papers for his school project then he had to take the project papers to school and drop them off.

June 28, 2008 (Sat)
01:24pm
Jesse Grund:
07/23/08 Interview
Casey called Jesse at 1:25pm, she told him about running out of gas the day before and wanted to borrow a gas can from him but he was on the opposite side of town and wasn't able to help her.

June 29, 2008 (Sun)
10:25am
Casey Anthony Calls:
06/29/2008 Phone Log
Casey texted Amy:
@ 954-328-9214
06/28 10:25am 0min
"Can I borrow you and your gas can today?"

June 29, 2008 (Sun)
10:49am
Casey Anthony Calls:
06/29/2008 Phone Log
Amy texted Casey:
From 954-328-9214
06/28 10:29am 0min
"Storage hun. I was supposed to have my stuff out by now."

June 30, 2008 (Mon)
09:00am (est)
Anthony Lazarro:
09/08/08 Interview Text
Anthony Lazarro said his roommate Cameron Campana's flight was around 10am and Tony's flight to New York was later but they both went to the airport at the same time. Casey drove them to airport in Lazarro's jeep.

June 30, 2008 (Mon)
09:06am
Gary Ridgeway:
07/24/08 Interview
Gary Ridgeway, tow truck driver for Johnson's Wrecker, 7777 Narcoossee Rd, dispatched 8:50am to 7501 East Colonial Dr to tow white Pontiac. He arrived at 9:06am, said car front parked towards the curb.

June 30, 2008 (Mon)
09:38am
Amy Huizenga:
07/23/08 Interview Text
Casey called Amy at 9:38am telling her to open Ricardo's apt door. Casey standing outside the door. Casey kept asking if Amy had a gas can but Amy's stuff was in storage so Amy suggested they go buy one at Target.

June 30, 2008 (Mon)
01:00pm - 01:30pm
Amy Huizenga:
07/23/08 Interview Text
Amy and Casey went to Target to get a gas can "between eleven and one-ish." They went in Tony Lazarro's Jeep. Amy said Casey always insisted on driving Tony's Jeep even when Amy offered.

 

[pcrum12]

It's called "covering your butt" ... in my younger days, I ran out of gas a few times due to lack of funds. But I never left my car anywhere for more than a few hours KNOWING that a towing charge would be expensive. The car was left at the Amscot on 6/27 and towed on 6/30. You would leave your purse in the car for 3 days knowing the car could be broken into ? C'mon ....

She left a "work" satchel not her purse with her important stuff in it.

 

[KarmaGet'em]

I haven't responded to the quoted responses in my post, but I wanted to respond to the assumption that I had a predetermined verdict in my head and just molded the story to fit that way.

When trial began, I believed she was guilty. 100% wholeheartedly guilty. When JB stated his OS, I thought for a moment "Oh yeah... sure." But, then decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and see if he could at least show some proof to what he stated. I sat through every day of Prosecution's presentation. Every day I became more and more concerned of their case. I didn't see anything that could be argued to be consistent with other non-criminal means. When Prosecution rested, I was very concerned because I didn't see anything... not a single thing.. that was conclusive to tie Casey to the crime.

Now it was the Defense's turn. Granted, I walked into their presentation thinking she was innocent. I was concerned after a few days JB did nothing to present evidence of his OS, but then he began to show the pictures, reiterate that Caylee could have gotten out of the house in the backyard without an adult present. GA's behavior towards anything incriminating against him concerned me. JA's reaction to cross-examination of any of the experts concerned me. LDB sitting at the Prosecution table arms folded and a pouty look concerned me. The numerous attempt and amounts of side-bars concerned me. Before closing arguments, I was sure in my head she wasn't guilty of a crime.

So, I reiterate again; I did not come into this trial molding the evidence to fit my needs. The evidence presented itself to me and this how I understood it.

BBM - the fact that you gave these items a heavy weight in the NG verdict concerns me. The jury was instructed NOT to form an opinion based on their opinion of counsel. And what seems to be missing in your response is the Rebuttal phase. Sure JB presented some theories in his CIC, but JA and LDB did a very good job of rebutting his theory. Considering you are not convinced of who did the chloroform searches, for example, makes me think you checked out during the rebuttal. IMO.

 

[Baznme]

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/calendar.php?do=getinfo&day=2008-6-27&c=4 June 27th calendar of events

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/calendar.php?do=getinfo&day=2008-6-28&c=4 June 28th calendar of events

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/calendar.php?do=getinfo&day=2008-6-29&c=4 June 29th calendar of events

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/calendar.php?do=getinfo&day=2008-6-30&c=4 June 30th calendar of events

On June 30th, Amy and Casey went to target to buy a gas can between 11-1pm. If they went to Amscot immediately afterwards, they would've noticed her car was already towed.

The whole period of time from the 27th to the 30th she was asking friends for gas cans.

If she had this elaborate pact/plan with her father, why didn't she just call him and ask him to bring her some gas?