Through a Juror's Eyes/What do those who haven't followed the case believe? (Merged)

[TorisMom003]

For those that unsure as to if Caylee was murdered or not, can you (if you don't mind) answer some questions please.

1. Why would someone put duct tape across Caylee's mouth and nose?
2. Why would Casey sit in jail for almost 3 years if Caylee drowned accidentaly instead of fessing up to it?
3. How did Roy Kronk get Caylee from "wherever" George placed her to hide her in the woods?
4. Would a child that had been sexuallu abused by her father/brother leave her own daughter in the care of that father/brother without supervision?

I appreciate those that are not sure what to think yet. I wish that I could understand it, however, after reading all that I have and seeing all of the videos that I have I can't pretend that I think she is innocent. Thanks for making this interesting thread for us to see what others are thinking as well.

 

[Emma Peel]

You'd only want my opinion if you wanted the opinion of a very tainted juror. LOL.
Call me TJ-one-three.

This thread is a great idea. Wanted to say thanks for starting it.

There are so very many key characters yet for the jury to meet & hear from ...

I will say that if George has something to hide, it's the way he struggled so hard to stay on Cindy's page and keep believing in Zenaida Gonzalez and his alive baby granddaughter. (And to believe his daughter.) He is after all, only human.

It's interesting that his fatherly instinct to protect his daughter and keep the hope of Caylee alive has - in the past - has made George look like he could be part of a cover-up. IMO, when George has looked like he's part of some cover-up, I gotta say, Cindy's right there looking like the mastermind of said cover-up.

So...even then ... George is off-the-hook. In my book. FWIW. :crazy:

 

[chicklet]

For those that unsure as to if Caylee was murdered or not, can you (if you don't mind) answer some questions please.

1. Why would someone put duct tape across Caylee's mouth and nose?
2. Why would Casey sit in jail for almost 3 years if Caylee drowned accidentaly instead of fessing up to it?
3. How did Roy Kronk get Caylee from "wherever" George placed her to hide her in the woods?
4. Would a child that had been sexuallu abused by her father/brother leave her own daughter in the care of that father/brother without supervision?

I appreciate those that are not sure what to think yet. I wish that I could understand it, however, after reading all that I have and seeing all of the videos that I have I can't pretend that I think she is innocent. Thanks for making this interesting thread for us to see what others are thinking as well.

1. Staging scene to make it look more like a kidnapping.
2. Maybe she found that she preferred living in jail to living at home with a mother rumored to be overbearing and controlling and a father she has accused of molesting her. Perhaps she feels so guilty that she thinks she deserves to be in jail. There are numerous explanations for this. Even vindictiveness towards family...punishing them by not telling them what happened.
3. Did the defense claim that he moved Caylee or that he simply waited to report finding her? The guy DOES come across like a bit of an opportunist, but this is more filler than anything, IMO. I don't think it's as relevant as the other things on this list.
4. Some would, yes. I met a woman about 13 years ago whose father began molesting her when she was very young. The abuse went on for many years and when her mother died when she was a teenager she actually willingly began a romantic relationship with her own father, replacing the mother. The father, to maintain appearances, would occasionally date women and have girlfriends. When this man's daughter was 23 or 24 years old one of these girlfriends found a sex tape of the father and daughter that showed the daughter actually initiating. Very sick stuff. The girlfriend took the tape to police and the father went to prison for about 10 years. When he got out his daughter moved right in with him again for awhile but then moved into a nearby apartment. She allowed her 8 year old daughter and 10 year old son to have unsupervised sleep overs with her father. She believed that her father wasn't really a pedophile, that he was "in-love" with her and that she was his "soul mate." So yes, in some cases victims of incest do let their abusers around their kids. The boundaries become so enmeshed in some cases that you would really be shocked at some behavior.

 

[Quiche]

Thank You Quiche. I believe that the car smelled like a "dead body." I have experience with that smell and you will never forget it or mistake it for something else, IMO. But, playing devil's advocate - what can that prove? That a dead body was in the car? That chloroform was in the car? That KC told lie after lie...I'm starting to wonder how the DA ever thought they could win this case.??
Respectfully asked...

Yep, corpse in the car. How often do you run into that when you have a "missing" child taken by a person who doesn't exist? There is plenty of proof that Caylee wasn't with KC, alive, from the 16th on... and, the death band on Caylee's hair in the trunk will be in evidence also, the jury hasn't heard that yet.

There's a shocking stack of incriminating evidence against KC, and when the jury gets a load of all of it, well, bless their tormented hearts. mo

 

[Tuffy]

1. Staging scene to make it look more like a kidnapping.
2. Maybe she found that she preferred living in jail to living at home with a mother rumored to be overbearing and controlling and a father she has accused of molesting her. Perhaps she feels so guilty that she thinks she deserves to be in jail. There are numerous explanations for this. Even vindictiveness towards family...punishing them by not telling them what happened.
3. Did the defense claim that he moved Caylee or that he simply waited to report finding her? The guy DOES come across like a bit of an opportunist, but this is more filler than anything, IMO. I don't think it's as relevant as the other things on this list.
4. Some would, yes. I met a woman about 13 years ago whose father began molesting her when she was very young. The abuse went on for many years and when her mother died when she was a teenager she actually willingly began a romantic relationship with her own father, replacing the mother. The father, to maintain appearances, would occasionally date women and have girlfriends. When this man's daughter was 23 or 24 years old one of these girlfriends found a sex tape of the father and daughter that showed the daughter actually initiating. Very sick stuff. The girlfriend took the tape to police and the father went to prison for about 10 years. When he got out his daughter moved right in with him again for awhile but then moved into a nearby apartment. She allowed her 8 year old daughter and 10 year old son to have unsupervised sleep overs with her father. She believed that her father wasn't really a pedophile, that he was "in-love" with her and that she was his "soul mate." So yes, in some cases victims of incest do let their abusers around their kids. The boundaries become so enmeshed in some cases that you would really be shocked at some behavior.

Nope, not buying it at all. Kidnappers might put tape over their victim's mouth to quiet them. Caylee had so much tape on her head that it had to be cut out of her hair. That tape was never meant to come off! Also, the tape was not just over her mouth. It covered her mouth and nose.

The tape was never coming off, and Caylee could not breathe. That doesn't look like a kidnapping. It looks like a murder. IMO

 

[seekingjustice**]

Yep, corpse in the car. How often do you run into that when you have a "missing" child taken by a person who doesn't exist? There is plenty of proof that Caylee wasn't with KC, alive, from the 16th on... and, the death band on Caylee's hair in the trunk will be in evidence also, the jury hasn't heard that yet.

There's a shocking stack of incriminating evidence against KC, and when the jury gets a load of all of it, well, bless their tormented hearts. mo

ITA with you Quiche.

Casey was the last person to be seen with Caylee. Casey was also the last person to drive the car. The car that happened to have a stench of decomp, and also a hair from Caylee's head in the trunk, with a deathband on it.

I've tried to do the accident theory, where she thinks, opps a daisy, I better make this look like a kidnapping so I don't get into trouble from Mom.. but, I just can not wrap my brain around anyone that is not sociopathic, being able to cold heartedly tape their baby's face up with duct tape and then dump their baby like a piece of trash on the side of the road.

 

[gypsyblue]

1. Staging scene to make it look more like a kidnapping.2. Maybe she found that she preferred living in jail to living at home with a mother rumored to be overbearing and controlling and a father she has accused of molesting her. Perhaps she feels so guilty that she thinks she deserves to be in jail. There are numerous explanations for this. Even vindictiveness towards family...punishing them by not telling them what happened.
3. Did the defense claim that he moved Caylee or that he simply waited to report finding her? The guy DOES come across like a bit of an opportunist, but this is more filler than anything, IMO. I don't think it's as relevant as the other things on this list.
4. Some would, yes. I met a woman about 13 years ago whose father began molesting her when she was very young. The abuse went on for many years and when her mother died when she was a teenager she actually willingly began a romantic relationship with her own father, replacing the mother. The father, to maintain appearances, would occasionally date women and have girlfriends. When this man's daughter was 23 or 24 years old one of these girlfriends found a sex tape of the father and daughter that showed the daughter actually initiating. Very sick stuff. The girlfriend took the tape to police and the father went to prison for about 10 years. When he got out his daughter moved right in with him again for awhile but then moved into a nearby apartment. She allowed her 8 year old daughter and 10 year old son to have unsupervised sleep overs with her father. She believed that her father wasn't really a pedophile, that he was "in-love" with her and that she was his "soul mate." So yes, in some cases victims of incest do let their abusers around their kids. The boundaries become so enmeshed in some cases that you would really be shocked at some behavior.

BBM
if ICA was thinking so far ahead as to place duct tape on Caylee to stage a kidnapping,....she would have then had to report her child as kidnapped.... not claim kidnap to be the case 30 days later when the truth caught up to her.... imo there is nothing that would back that up....jmooc

 

[justbeachy]

I bumped into an old co-worker and the trial came up. She has been loosely following the case since the beginning (we live in Orlando...it's hard to avoid it), but has been watching the trial. She knows I'm obsessed with it (who, me??) so she wanted to share her thoughts with me (and point out that she's been watching to see if I'm in the audience. Lol!)

She told me the following:

1. She strongly believes that GA was involved. Not sure to what extent, but definitely involved.

2. In her opinion, ICA was sexually abused by GA and possibly LA.

3. In her opinion, and also the professional opinion of her friend who is a psychologist, ICA's behavior for those 31 days was "classic" behavior of someone who was sexually abused/traumatized as a child and that her complete and total "blocking" of what happened to Caylee was absolutely appropriate behavior/response from someone with that history.


This scared the crud out of me....it only takes ONE person on the jury to see things the same way.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

I bumped into an old co-worker and the trial came up. She has been loosely following the case since the beginning (we live in Orlando...it's hard to avoid it), but has been watching the trial. She knows I'm obsessed with it (who, me??) so she wanted to share her thoughts with me (and point out that she's been watching to see if I'm in the audience. Lol!)

She told me the following:

1. She strongly believes that GA was involved. Not sure to what extent, but definitely involved.

2. In her opinion, ICA was sexually abused by GA and possibly LA.

3. In her opinion, and also the professional opinion of her friend who is a psychologist, ICA's behavior for those 31 days was "classic" behavior of someone who was sexually abused/traumatized as a child and that her complete and total "blocking" of what happened to Caylee was absolutely appropriate behavior/response from someone with that history.


This scared the crud out of me....it only takes ONE person on the jury to see things the same way.

Relax...the jury isn't going to be "loosely following" this case. They are going to become experts in the field of Casey Anthony before this is all said and done.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I think we tend to let our own experiences factor into our opinions about the rest of the country. I always see posts here that say either, "I don't see how anyone can say they haven't followed the case. Everyone at my office talks about it. The whole country is watching!" or it will say, "I asked around the office about the case. No one knew what I was talking about! WS posters are the only ones following it." We tend to believe that opinions of the people around us represent the opinions of the rest of the country. There's a reason why Gallup interviews 1000 adults when it conducts a poll, because a sample group of less than 20 people isn't accurate.

With that said, I do think it is possible that there are many people who haven't followed the case at all. I also think there are many people who don't post online about the case but watch developments about it and are following it. There are also probably many people who didn't follow the case until the trial began.

I watched NG about the case starting in August 2008. I don't remember when I stopped watching NG, but I know it was before Caylee's body was found. From Fall 2008 to March 2011, I did not follow the case at all. I read "Mommy's Little Girl" in April 2011, and I hadn't heard about many of the people or developments mentioned in the book. I didn't know about a lot of Casey's friends or about how Casey's uncle thought she was guilty. I still don't know what the Fry Hearing was about! I saw the topics when I clicked "Get New Posts" on WS but I mostly just skimmed to the forums that I was interested in.

I started paying daily attention to the news around Summer/Fall 2009, and the only place I got my news from (and still do) is CNN.com. With the trial going on right now, there's a headline about the case everyday. But before the trial began, I barely saw headlines about the case. If they were there, I did a very good job ignoring them or just not clicking them.

 

[Tuffy]

I bumped into an old co-worker and the trial came up. She has been loosely following the case since the beginning (we live in Orlando...it's hard to avoid it), but has been watching the trial. She knows I'm obsessed with it (who, me??) so she wanted to share her thoughts with me (and point out that she's been watching to see if I'm in the audience. Lol!)

She told me the following:

1. She strongly believes that GA was involved. Not sure to what extent, but definitely involved.

2. In her opinion, ICA was sexually abused by GA and possibly LA.

3. In her opinion, and also the professional opinion of her friend who is a psychologist, ICA's behavior for those 31 days was "classic" behavior of someone who was sexually abused/traumatized as a child and that her complete and total "blocking" of what happened to Caylee was absolutely appropriate behavior/response from someone with that history.


This scared the crud out of me....it only takes ONE person on the jury to see things the same way.

Your co-worker hasn't heard what the jury is going to hear, though. Don't get too scared yet, there is a LOT more to hear from the state.

 

[Soulmagent]

For those that unsure as to if Caylee was murdered or not, can you (if you don't mind) answer some questions please.

1. Why would someone put duct tape across Caylee's mouth and nose?
2. Why would Casey sit in jail for almost 3 years if Caylee drowned accidentaly instead of fessing up to it?
3. How did Roy Kronk get Caylee from "wherever" George placed her to hide her in the woods?
4. Would a child that had been sexuallu abused by her father/brother leave her own daughter in the care of that father/brother without supervision?

I appreciate those that are not sure what to think yet. I wish that I could understand it, however, after reading all that I have and seeing all of the videos that I have I can't pretend that I think she is innocent. Thanks for making this interesting thread for us to see what others are thinking as well.

1 to keep fluids from leaking out and some person who may be super neat and like to keep fumes and or fluids in ,may not of been able to stand the thought of fly entering or may know something about Fly life cycles.

2. If Caylee was also sexually abused by Lee or george ,then of course hidng her body after and accidental drowning would be something someone was motivated to do .

3. Roy kronks g/f worked in the jail Casey was held in , Casey was said to write in codes ,there is a chance though reading the letters of caseys or her papers from her cell ,Kronk was able to get enough info to piece together to get the location.

4. Alot of people who are molested at a young age know its wrong in some ways but dont in others. They make excuses that justify the abuse.
Like maybe if I was ugly it wouldnt happen or I must have done something to make them do it. Or if I let it happen to me it wont happen to someone else.

They also justify things in there mind like , he didnt start abusing me until ths age so he wont touch that person . Or he loves me so he would abuse someone else ,(like the person wouldnt "cheat on them") then they are made to feel special sometimes.

Some childhood sexual victims dont realize they are victims, but they are.
They learn to connect emotionally only in sexual ways .

There are many many reactions victims of sexual abuse have and many many levels of it, one Person may go on to have wonderful a life and not ever let it effect the person they were meant to be ,others deny there is a problem with it , and others remember every single day the horrors they endured.


Not saying I agree with any of the listed things but I was offering answers that we could hear in court.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

Thank You MountainKat for bringing some sense of reality to this subject. I'm sorry to hear you survived that as well. Certainly, having been through that childhood "hell", you would know where I'm coming from. I'm not giving KC a free pass - just that my mind is open as to other possibilities - the lawyers have to prove their case. I think people should try to be more openminded . Just because you post your opinion, doesn't make it right. Ask yourself, why you've formed certain opinions and beliefs. Not everyone had the same life experience that you had...Not tryin' to preach - but I'm getting old and that may be my perogative!

What kills me is the ultra pc attitude alot of people have that it's taboo to EVER question any claim of sexual abuse or sexual violence. People do lie about these things, and sometimes they even innocently misinterpret things, and aren't the innocent people who are falsely accused of such a heinous crime victims too? Let's take GA for instance...all someone has to do is simply suggest that he may have molested his daughter, and some people here are already convinced GA is a sexual predator. Based on what? If this man is innocent, that is going to follow him around for the rest of his life. Is it a pc no no for me to dare to suggest that before you run around plastering life long labels on someone, especially a label this despicable, that you ought to have more to go on than "he's creepy" or "she said so" or "did you see the way he looked at her....EWWW!"

And I think THAT is what really p*sses me off about ICA and her DT. If they can prove their claims, then by all means prove it. Have him arrested and let him be tried for it in a court of law where HE is the defendant. If they have no proof, and just want to use this horrific accusation as a way to make GA the scapegoat and keep ICA from being held accountable for HER actions, then they should both rot in hell for that, because stuff like this is NOT a game.


All just MOO, of course.

 

[chicklet]

Nope, not buying it at all. Kidnappers might put tape over their victim's mouth to quiet them. Caylee had so much tape on her head that it had to be cut out of her hair. That tape was never meant to come off! Also, the tape was not just over her mouth. It covered her mouth and nose.

The tape was never coming off, and Caylee could not breathe. That doesn't look like a kidnapping. It looks like a murder. IMO

If there were proof that the duct tape was placed while Caylee was alive there would have been a cause and manner of death in this case, and there isn't. It still leaves a country mile for reasonable doubt. It is the state that has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that ICA is guilty of murder. To anyone not emotionally invested in the case, at this point there is a considerable amount of reasonable doubt. I know that those who have followed this from the beginning hate hearing that, but that's the reality. All it takes is one juror to think it might have been an accident and ICA walks.

 

[chicklet]

1 to keep fluids from leaking out and some person who may be super neat and like to keep fumes and or fluids in ,may not of been able to stand the thought of fly entering or may know something about Fly life cycles.

2. If Caylee was also sexually abused by Lee or george ,then of course hidng her body after and accidental drowning would be something someone was motivated to do .

3. Roy kronks g/f worked in the jail Casey was held in , Casey was said to write in codes ,there is a chance though reading the letters of caseys or her papers from her cell ,Kronk was able to get enough info to piece together to get the location.

4. Alot of people who are molested at a young age know its wrong in some ways but dont in others. They make excuses that justify the abuse.
Like maybe if I was ugly it wouldnt happen or I must have done something to make them do it. Or if I let it happen to me it wont happen to someone else.

They also justify things in there mind like , he didnt start abusing me until ths age so he wont touch that person . Or he loves me so he would abuse someone else ,(like the person wouldnt "cheat on them") then they are made to feel special sometimes.

Some childhood sexual victims dont realize they are victims, but they are.
They learn to connect emotionally only in sexual ways .

There are many many reactions victims of sexual abuse have and many many levels of it, one Person may go on to have wonderful a life and not ever let it effect the person they were meant to be ,others deny there is a problem with it , and others remember every single day the horrors they endured.


Not saying I agree with any of the listed things but I was offering answers that we could hear in court.

You make good points about the tape, and someone who used to be a homicide investigator would be thinking about those things. You just gave me more reasonable doubt that the DT is right about GA finding Caylee and being involved in a cover up.

 

[countzero]

The jurors after the trial will have the opportunity to view ALL the released evidence on the internet on their own thanks to the Florida Sunshine Act. We know they will have the option of talking or not talking to the media.

I'm just wondering given what we know about each individual juror I believe some of them will find the evidence not presented in the trial even more powerful than what was actually presented. I believe there are some really intelligent jurors who will want to know about the evidence that was barely discussed and then denied after many sidebar discussions. If ICA's guilty fraud case is not presented, they will now be able to view it. All the party photos of ICA not permitted can be viewed. Complete text messages can be viewed.

Websleuths will be one of the first sites that will come up in any search engine, Val's Hinky Meter will also be there as well. Once a juror reads any or all of the information contained in our respective forums what do you believe they will think of our opinions and discussions we all have engaged in?

 

[Broderick]

The jurors after the trial will have the opportunity to view ALL the released evidence on the internet on their own thanks to the Florida Sunshine Act. We know they will have the option of talking or not talking to the media.

I'm just wondering given what we know about each individual juror I believe some of them will find the evidence not presented in the trial even more powerful than what was actually presented. I believe there are some really intelligent jurors who will want to know about the evidence that was barely discussed and then denied after many sidebar discussions. If ICA's guilty fraud case is not presented, they will now be able to view it. All the party photos of ICA not permitted can be viewed. Complete text messages can be viewed.

Websleuths will be one of the first sites that will come up in any search engine, Val's Hinky Meter will also be there as well. Once a juror reads any or all of the information contained in our respective forums what do you believe they will think of our opinions and discussions we all have engaged in?

They might think some of us, me included, are obsessed.

 

[beach]

If there were proof that the duct tape was placed while Caylee was alive there would have been a cause and manner of death in this case, and there isn't. It still leaves a country mile for reasonable doubt. It is the state that has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that ICA is guilty of murder. To anyone not emotionally invested in the case, at this point there is a considerable amount of reasonable doubt. I know that those who have followed this from the beginning hate hearing that, but that's the reality. All it takes is one juror to think it might have been an accident and ICA walks.

BBM

Bold #1: Dr. G DID express in her findings a "cause of death" - She ruled it to be a homicide by undetermined means.. .

I would not expect to be able her to be able to rule on a "manner of death" as the remains layed in the hot, humid swampy environment for 6 months and there was only scattered skeletal remains recovered. No soft tissue remains at all. I would question her report if she WAS able to rule on the manner of death since there was very little left to examine that would enable her to reach such a conclusion. I feel confident that Dr. G and other professionals will explain this eloquently and in simple layman's terms so that the jury will understand. Science certainly is not my strong suit and I can easily understand it. Just plain old common sense. It is my opinion that when jurors begin to deliberate and are removed from the smoke and mirrors environment of the courtroom and are given the opportunity to sift through the evidence and testimony for themselves, they are very good at separating the propaganda from the truth. They like things that appeal to their common sense and they usually weed through the BS and are able to find it.

fwiw, Laci Peterson never had a finding of "cause of death", either. Scott Peterson remains on death row right now after he was convicted of her murder.

Bold #2: Just want to clarify that I hope you misspoke and meant to say that is YOUR reality and YOUR opinion, which you are certainly entitled! However, to imply that the members here who have spent 3 years following this case and and devoted hundreds (if not thousands!) of hours dissecting the pings, duct tape, fiber evidence, stain in the trunk of the car, and (so, so much more!) and read thousands upon thousands of pages of documents with an open mind may have reached a different conclusion as yours - I ask that you please acknowledge that their opinions are just as valid as yours and should be respected as such.

Re. your ascertation: "All it takes is one juror to think it might have been an accident and ICA walks" - this is not correct. Casey would not necessarily "walk". In fact, probably would not "walk" at all. It would result in a either a hung jury or she would be convicted of one of the 7 lesser included offenses - most likely being aggravated manslaughter of a child.

 

[Ada]

You make good points about the tape, and someone who used to be a homicide investigator would be thinking about those things. You just gave me more reasonable doubt that the DT is right about GA finding Caylee and being involved in a cover up.

IMO, a homicide detective would realize that the mouth and nose are not the only avenues for release of fluids.

 

[chicklet]

Where is the information for manner of death? I have always seen it reported that there was no cause or manner of death known. Homicide doesn't mean murder. If you shove someone away from you and they fall and hit their head on something and die that is considered homicide as well. An accidental death is also often ruled a homicide simply because it's caused by something someone else did.

Yes, everyone's opinions are valid, obviously. That being said, if we are looking at the perspective of the jury we can only consider what has taken place in the court room and only that evidence/testimony. At this point the DT has done a very good job showing reasonable doubt. I honestly can't imagine that the jury doesn't have some doubts at this point.