The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?

[rollinginit]

I was thinking about the car last night. The "car" being left has always stood out to me.

My daughter has a friend (named Jennifer) who's parents passed down a car to her. Jennifer's mom is a bit of a control freak even though Jenn is 19. Jenn's mom always threatens to take the car away if Jenn doesn't do ______? Sometimes in IMO, it's a little much.

What if Cindy was like that with the car? Used it to pull the strings tighter and control.

You have to know when you abandon your car, it's gonna get towed. Tow yards are expensive!! Could explain part of the reason she just left it. Like a final f you to her parents.

If the car was in CA and GA's name...they were responsible for the tow bill. If they didn't pay it, the tow yard would own the car at that point. When CA forked out the 400....I bet she was mad as heck. I know I would be. That's a good chunk of money. Could explain later why she tried to make charges for GTA.....but within an hour or so realized something ALOT worse was happening.

I always thought the car story was the most damaging. Especially damaging to Casey's character. It makes Casey's character seem cruel. I guess what I mean.......what kid breaks down and doesn't call their parents to come get the car? Why let the possibility happen that your parents are going to have a huge tow bill? You would only do that for two combined reasons.....a final f you and wiping your hands "it's over" with them.

I have never believed GA and CA just ignored the tow notice. Who in the heck would just let the money amount accumulate like that?

 

[Sustained]

BBM

I may have this information wrong, but hasn't there been at least one million dollar offer (with a lie detector test) for an interview? And now a 1/2 million dollar offer from Hustler? There probably is more, but IMO, the media wants to interview her. There's not a doubt in my mind MANY would watch that interview.

What one million dollar offer ? Because some media wannabe said so ? And last time I looked, Hustler is not in the MSM ...

 

[beccalecca1]

Dr. Drew is on HLN. :waitasec: Apparently you only consider HLN to be a credible source when they happen to agree with your theories?

No, I just stated I found it interesting but followed it up with my own research...which I posted afterwards.

 

[beccalecca1]

What one million dollar offer ? Because some media wannabe said so ? And last time I looked, Hustler is not in the MSM ...

There was a million dollar offer from some producer. This, again, could all just be media rumors though.

 

[Sustained]

I heard something interesting a few days after trial on Dr. Drew. He said if you google chlorophyll, on the very first page of the search you will see "how to make chloroform".

Now, I just tried it myself and didn't see the same results, but at the bottom of the page with related searches I do see chloroform. But, that doesn't mean that wasn't how it was back in 2008.

It was not a related search ... FCA typed in "How to make chloroform" into the Google search engine. And also "Household weapons" & "Neck breaking" ... I have a 7-year-old daughter, use Google a ton, and have never searched for any of those. If those searches are not incriminating, why would CA feel the need to lie about them ?

 

[beccalecca1]

It was not a related search ... FCA typed in "How to make chloroform" into the Google search engine. And also "Household weapons" & "Neck breaking" ... I have a 7-year-old daughter, use Google a ton, and have never searched for any of those. If those searches are not incriminating, why would CA feel the need to lie about them ?

CA could've just took in upon herself to lie about them because she thought they were incriminating.

Well, actually, in a murder case I have to say they are incriminating. When I first heard the searches though, I honestly believed RM was over at the house looking that stuff up. They just sounded to me like something a guy would search (minus the medical terminology searches). I believed that he probably added that pic to his myspace from the A's house after searching it. But, I was wrong I guess.

 

[Sustained]

My :twocents: on the jury deliberation:

If the first vote for Murder 1 came back 10-2 for not guilty, perhaps those 2 had the same question that held their guilty conviction. So, they deliberated on that question and it flipped the 2 to not guilty. When the first vote for Manslaughter came back 6-6, perhaps the original 2 who flipped on Murder 1 also flipped at that time on Manslaughter, making it 8-4. Maybe there was another couple questions they deliberated about for the rest of the day. Perhaps before they left it was agreed the nay-sayers would sleep on it (however many were left to flip) and make their mind up the next day. Perhaps they knew there would be a decision which is why they were dressed up like they were, and the final jurors holding out thought about it on their own through the night and flipped their original verdict.

The only way they would have decided to wear dress clothes on 7/5 would be if they had made their mind up the night before. So 3+ hours of deliberation after 6+ weeks of detailed trial testimony with no readbacks of trial testimony or looks at the 400+ pieces of evidence. I have also heard from a reliable source that one of the jurors talked about a cruise they had planned for the 7th of July and he/she did not want to miss it.

IMO, the only reason why it would be quick deliberations is if the SA didn't present good enough evidence to make a guilty verdict. IMO, they obviously didn't.

IMO, it was a cataclysmic failure of this jury not to convict FCA of at least felony murder by aggravated child abuse. This jury went on emotion only and did not use common sense or make inferences as to who, at the exclusion of all others, had access to all of the circumstantial evidence presented in this case.

And, IMO, there is nothing wrong with the timing the jury used to come back with their verdict. They all were in trial every day listening to testimony and viewing each piece of evidence during trial (or most of it at least), so what if they didn't review it all over again. Maybe they didn't feel the need to because they already came up with their own personal decision during trial how much credit they were going to give that piece of evidence.

So the jury had photographic minds huh ? All 12 of them ? They could recall what every LE officer testified to about the car, and every important detail that the experts from both sides stated ? Or what TL and all of FCA's supposed friends said ? IMO, all they remembered was JB's fallacious opening statement, RC's testimony, JA's snickering, & JB's phony "good mornings". Everything of importance was not relevant to them. And to think they considered the penalty in making their decision ... what a crock.

If the jury would've came back and found her guilty on all counts, although I would've disagreed, I wouldn't have argued they were wrong. It was their decision to make.

All of them should hang their heads in shame. They obviously were not proud of their decision as they chose not to stand up and explain how they arrived at that decision the day of the verdict. They all ran home like scared little mice and hid ... until the promises of free Disney trips and interviews with GVS came along.

My disgust with this jury will never end. If this is what a jury of your peers means, I'd rather see bench trials forever.

 

[pcrum12]

Wasn't the hair with the death band also tested by the FBI?

Yes it was. However, even after Karen Lowe requested additional hairs after the original submission - and receiving multiple additional hairs, there were no additional hairs found associated with the car with signs of decomp. Only Q-12. Relative to this one hair she could not absolutely say death is the reason for the characteristics. Also, post mortem root banding should be in the root portion of the hair. In this hair, the banding was slightly above the root.

Regardless of the air samples and root band hair, I do believe that Caylee was transported in the trunk for a very short ride. I do not agree with the 2-3 days. JMOO

 

[Sustained]

Yes it was. However, even after Karen Lowe requested additional hairs after the original submission - and receiving multiple additional hairs, there were no additional hairs found associated with the car with signs of decomp. Only Q-12. Relative to this one hair she could not absolutely say death is the reason for the characteristics. Also, post mortem root banding should be in the root portion of the hair. In this hair, the banding was slightly above the root.

Regardless of the air samples and root band hair, I do believe that Caylee was transported in the trunk for a very short ride. I do not agree with the 2-3 days. JMOO

If that is the case, where did the smell of decomposition come from that still existed in the car two years later ? And if Caylee had only been in the trunk for a short time, why would FCA feel the need to dump the Sunfire at the Amscot and not tell her parents where the car was ? Certainly, it could not have been the fact it was out of gas, as many times before she had either stolen gas or borrowed gas cans to get the Sunfire moving again.

 

[beccalecca1]

My disgust with this jury will never end. If this is what a jury of your peers means, I'd rather see bench trials forever.

IMO, it was a cataclysmic failure of this jury not to convict FCA of at least felony murder by aggravated child abuse. This jury went on emotion only and did not use common sense or make inferences as to who, at the exclusion of all others, had access to all of the circumstantial evidence presented in this case.

snipped for emphasis:


The major circumstantial evidence in this case was not only connected with Casey Anthony, IMO.

The duct tape: Everyone in the A household had access to.

The garbage bags: Everyone in the A household had access to.

The laundry bag: Everyone in the A household had access to, and more so the person who stored it in the garage would have knowledge to where it was.

Caylee's clothing: The shirt is one that CA testified to never seeing, but that doesn't mean it wasn't in the house. The shorts were ones Caylee no longer worn, but a lot of Caylee's older clothing was stored in bins in the A's house, so it's very possible everyone in the A household had access to it.

The car: Casey and GA had access to it (GA testified to having his own set of keys, and depending on where he kept them CA may have also had access to the car).

The chloroform: There was never a determination where this even came from. So, I don't know who had access to it and who did not.

I think this is all of the circumstantial evidence that has "connection" value. I may have missed something, but I think this covers it.

 

[beccalecca1]

If that is the case, where did the smell of decomposition come from that still existed in the car two years later ? And if Caylee had only been in the trunk for a short time, why would FCA feel the need to dump the Sunfire at the Amscot and not tell her parents where the car was ? Certainly, it could not have been the fact it was out of gas, as many times before she had either stolen gas or borrowed gas cans to get the Sunfire moving again.

BBM

SB testified that the car did not turn over without GA putting gas in it, since he's an outsider witness I have to agree that it was out of gas. I'm not sure why this is being disputed.

I saw another post out there somewhere that perhaps Casey left the car in a known spot for towing as a final "F you" to her parents. I kinda lean towards that. I also believe that she wasn't concerned of the car being towed (since she exhibits a lack of responsibility in many senses) and thought she'd just come back to get it when she was able to get money for gas (by stealing it maybe?). Her leaving her purse there means to me that she had intentions of coming back for the car. Her texting her friends for gas cans means to me she meant to go back. If she was just dumping her car, why wouldn't she NOT text her friends for gas cans? Wouldn't that be implicating herself of having possession of this death smelling car?

 

[pcrum12]

If that is the case, where did the smell of decomposition come from that still existed in the car two years later ? And if Caylee had only been in the trunk for a short time, why would FCA feel the need to dump the Sunfire at the Amscot and not tell her parents where the car was ? Certainly, it could not have been the fact it was out of gas, as many times before she had either stolen gas or borrowed gas cans to get the Sunfire moving again.

didn't she ask Amy for gas cans and by the time they got cans and gas the car had been towed? IIRC.

 

[Sustained]

snipped for emphasis:


The major circumstantial evidence in this case was not only connected with Casey Anthony, IMO.

The duct tape: Everyone in the A household had access to.

The garbage bags: Everyone in the A household had access to.

The laundry bag: Everyone in the A household had access to, and more so the person who stored it in the garage would have knowledge to where it was.

Caylee's clothing: The shirt is one that CA testified to never seeing, but that doesn't mean it wasn't in the house. The shorts were ones Caylee no longer worn, but a lot of Caylee's older clothing was stored in bins in the A's house, so it's very possible everyone in the A household had access to it.

The car: Casey and GA had access to it (GA testified to having his own set of keys, and depending on where he kept them CA may have also had access to the car).

The chloroform: There was never a determination where this even came from. So, I don't know who had access to it and who did not.

I think this is all of the circumstantial evidence that has "connection" value. I may have missed something, but I think this covers it.

Yep, I'm afraid you did ....

1) The computer searches
2) Lying to police in great detail
3) Not reporting your child missing for 31 days
4) FCA behavior during those 31 days
5) Bella Vita tattoo and FCA telling tattoo shop guys Caylee would be with her next time
6) FCA dropping car at Amscot next to dumpster and not calling parents to pick it up
7) Hair with death band in trunk
8) FCA claiming to have spoken with Caylee 7/15
9) Relationship between CA and FCA
10) FCA telling Lee "maybe I'm a spiteful b*tch"

If you look at the totality of all of the circumstantial evidence and don't nitpick at each piece individually, FCA is the only one who could have committed the crime. And it definitely was a crime, as any "good mother" would have called 911 in the case of an accident.

I would love to see the video tape where FCA is told that a body has been found off Suburban Drive, but she's not told it is Caylee.

 

[Sustained]

didn't she ask Amy for gas cans and by the time they got cans and gas the car had been towed? IIRC.

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 ...

 

[M.James]

I'm thinking America's newest catch-phrase, t-shirts, and songs are going to say -

What part of body stuffed in bags, tossed into a swamp don't you understand?

 

[Sustained]

BBM

SB testified that the car did not turn over without GA putting gas in it, since he's an outsider witness I have to agree that it was out of gas. I'm not sure why this is being disputed.

I saw another post out there somewhere that perhaps Casey left the car in a known spot for towing as a final "F you" to her parents. I kinda lean towards that. I also believe that she wasn't concerned of the car being towed (since she exhibits a lack of responsibility in many senses) and thought she'd just come back to get it when she was able to get money for gas (by stealing it maybe?). Her leaving her purse there means to me that she had intentions of coming back for the car. Her texting her friends for gas cans means to me she meant to go back. If she was just dumping her car, why wouldn't she NOT text her friends for gas cans? Wouldn't that be implicating herself of having possession of this death smelling car?

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 ....

 

[rollinginit]

I can't remember....but wasn't there a gas station right across from the Amcot? Seems like I heard that somewhere.

 

[Well Done 99]

I have never believed GA and CA just ignored the tow notice. Who in the heck would just let the money amount accumulate like that?

+respectfully snipped+

I agree totally. In our old house, we always used the garage and the internal door from it as our means of entry and exit. We'd have been lucky to use the front door once a week .... and would never have noticed if a letter had been attached to it.
From memory, it was said somewhere that the A's were in the same habit.
I, like you, have never believed there was anything odd about the note story at all.

 

[beccalecca1]

Yep, I'm afraid you did ....

1) The computer searches

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.

2) Lying to police in great detail

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

3) Not reporting your child missing for 31 days

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.

4) FCA behavior during those 31 days

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.

5) Bella Vita tattoo and FCA telling tattoo shop guys Caylee would with her next time

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.

6) FCA dropping car at Amscot next to dumpster and not calling parents to pick it up

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?).

7) Hair with death band in trunk

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.

8) FCA claiming to have spoken with Caylee 7/15

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

9) Relationship between CA and FCA

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

If you look at the totality of all of the circumstantial evidence and don't nitpick at each piece individually, FCA is the only one who could have committed the crime. And it definitely was a crime, as any "good mother" would have called 911 in the case of an accident.

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 would love to see the video tape where FCA is told that a body has been found off Suburban Drive, but she's not told it is Caylee.

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.

 

[cityslick]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The verdict became that much easier for the jury because they didn't trust anything that GA (or probably any other Anthony) said or did. Scott Peterson didn't live with a family of liars, to the point where their testimony was so unreliable you couldn't tell where the truth was.

If CA was willing to perjure herself in front of millions of people, who's to say what GA would say to protect his daughter. That had to be the ultimate question that the jury asked themselves in that room.

I've always thought that if you have items (such as duct tape, a car, laundry bags, etc) that can be potentially accessed by more than just the defendant, you have to exclude all others to show that only the defendant could of used those items. By not pinpointing Casey's exact whereabouts on the 15/16th, it was not clear to the jury who was where.