Casey Anthony trial...

[AmeliaG]

Amelia, I'm not offended -- didn't take your comment personally. You could have a point about Nancy G. but I have seen media people on opinion programs scoff at her. I think she's viewed as the tv version of tabloid newspapers & her influence is maybe similar. Whatever, huh?!

However, I stand by what I wrote earlier. I don't know what degrees have to do with anything either

Yes, I agree. Your comment on the tabloids is very astute.

Now I have two degrees but on the one jury I was on, I would have had to have asked for clarification on the lower charges. They were customized for the circumstance of the trial I was on and they were legalese at their worst. I would hope that someone without a degree wouldn't feel too intimidated to ask a question if there was something about a charge they didn't understand. If you're not in the legal profession, some of the stuff that jurors get during a trial can be confusing no matter how intelligent you are or how many degrees you have.

 

[AmeliaG]

I'll admit that I watched In Session and HLN for most the trial coverage--I like Vinnie Pollitan. And, yes, I caught snips of Nancy Grace--did I watch her every night? No. Did she make me view Casey as guilty? No. But, all the things I heard over the past three years about case together with things I did heard Nancy Grace say, encouraged me to research the case more on my own. I drew my conclusion. No one is responsible for my opinion outside of myself.

As far as Nancy Grace's reputation proceeding her? The suicide and all of that...I can't comment because I don't know enough about that. Like I said, not a huge follower. But, I do believe that NO ONE can make you kill yourself from a single interview...even if the interview is hard or uncomfortable or cruel. It's very, very sad that Melissa Duckett felt killing herself was the answer, and it's also heartbreaking that the little boy was never found. So, someone could look at the suicide as a manifestation of guilt or the effect of being railroaded...we'll never have answers.

I think the Susan Smith case was similar in so much as she killed her children for a particular lifestyle. But, the world was different then. We didn't have the 24/7 news access, like we do now. There was no twitter, no facebook, so barrage of information at your finger tips. If the same thing happened now, I have a feeling that the outrage would duplicate this. People have very little tolerance for child killers...even other felons in jails.

Hi Italia, you make a very good point about 24/7 news access. We thought we had it in the 90s but not like it is now. This may be why I think the influence of an individual media person can become stronger; they get more exposure because there IS more media.

And I also totally agree with you that an individual is responsible for his own opinions and actions. I'm looking at it from more of a macro level. Throughout history, pivotal people have been credited or blamed for having a huge influence on other people's actions (depending on whether those people's actions were good or bad). That's more what I am referring to. Everybody wants to influence others; some people are in the position to have more influence and depending on how they use their influence, I think it can be good or bad.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

But I have to hand it to CourtTV, they did awesome coverage of that trial which is why I may be disappointed in the current state of trial coverage. They had a call-in show where some callers were really mouthing off some ridiculous stuff and the CourtTV correspondents treated all the callers with respect, empathized with their disappointment, but they didn't feed the most outrageous reactions. I don't think that would happen today.

CourtTV...now TruTv...isn't the same as Nancy Grace, this is the same station that aired InSession with Vinnie Pollitan, who filled in to cover this trial. There were callers who said that they agreed with the acquittal, and though they were asked to explain why they felt how that did--same with those who felt she was guilty--everyone was treated with respect. I can't say how people were treated if they called Nancy Grave or JVM...but from what I saw, they were given the floor to speak no matter what they had to say.

 

[monarch64]

I can't help it that many people who've been involved in this thread sit in front of their televisions 24/7. My personal opinions about the case have been formed from different forms of media...and I'm sorry for insulting anyone. Truth be told, I have a happy life and it is very, very rare for me to resort to t.v. or any other form of media for entertainment...so when I saw that this was a hot topic, I did some research and jumped on in. I'd no idea my comments would incite drama, really.

Italia, Dragonfly, etc. so sorry if I offended you personally. My previous comments were not directed at anyone in this thread; they were actually directed towards the masses, if you can believe that. I do realize I made some imflammatory statements...but I will not take anything back. I'm just sorry that I came across less than classy.

I will be doing my part to help humanity by actively searching for a missing 20 y/o woman, by recycling, by volunteering at my local battered women's shelter. What will YOU BE DOING??? (Yes, that's a challenge!)

 

[JewelFreak]

Monarch, I love your beagle! The pic in your avatar makes me want to hug him (her).

My previous comments were not directed at anyone in this thread; they were actually directed towards the masses, if you can believe that.

That seems to happen, unfortunately, a lot on the net. I don't think anybody took personal affront. Email doesn't convey a tone of voice so we often get impassioned about something (I do it a lot) & write something in one tone of voice that others read in another tone.

However, I won't take up your challenge. Dislike talking about whatever things I do for others -- my mother always said, "do things because they need to be done & don't yak about them." The AA suggestions are the same -- help others and don't tell anyone. Somehow, can't explain why, that's better for my self-respect, though I congratulate you on your own reaching out; it's great.

I suppose you all have seen that CA has reportedly been offered a million bucks for a tv interview -- by whom still unknown. She will go through whatever she makes (after taxes, legal bills to come & any judgements against her) and be broke again, I have no doubt at all. Then back to the old behavior. I don't think she'll kill again but like OJ, she'll be in trouble for something, inevitably.

--- Laurie

 

[Italiahaircolor]

The million dollar interview MAY be just a rumor. Jerry Springer was the one people were reporting made that offer. But, he came out yesterday and said he would NEVER interview her, even if they paid him a million dollars. But, I'm still sure she's going to pop up somewhere with her bucket of lies and magic tissues. And I WILL NOT WATCH (how's that for shutting the media down?).

And Monarch I do understand, to some degree, what you're saying. As someone who did not follow the case, who did their own research, you drew your own conclusions. That's the best anyone could hope for. But it's not okay to assume we're less informed, or even worse, brainwashed by the media simply because we followed what was on the television versus reading what was printed. Both are forms of media, both are relevant and one is not greater than the other. Many of us who have followed the case from the beginning have leaned on both. And yes, it is offensive when names are called, because there is no point to it...none of this is "personal"...and it shouldn't stoop to a personal level. You don't have to "take it back"...no one asked you to do that...but it's not helping anything and that was my only point.

Also, I'm happy you have a happy life. Congratulations. It's wonderful you do great things for your community and don't watch television. I would hope the same could be said for everyone on this board (minus the television part, I like TV). I know, myself, I'm very happy in my life...but caring about things that don't directly effect me doesn't change my level of happiness in the slightest, well, actually, maybe it makes me a happier person--because I want to live in a world that's bigger than my own backyard. I have enough energy and enough time to invest in all the people I love and the causes I champion.

Same goes to MrHand who has seemingly enjoyed being the outspoke one...we get it, we hear you.

 

[lbbaber]

I can't help it that many people who've been involved in this thread sit in front of their televisions 24/7. My personal opinions about the case have been formed from different forms of media...and I'm sorry for insulting anyone. Truth be told, I have a happy life and it is very, very rare for me to resort to t.v. or any other form of media for entertainment...so when I saw that this was a hot topic, I did some research and jumped on in. I'd no idea my comments would incite drama, really.

Italia, Dragonfly, etc. so sorry if I offended you personally. My previous comments were not directed at anyone in this thread; they were actually directed towards the masses, if you can believe that. I do realize I made some imflammatory statements...but I will not take anything back. I'm just sorry that I came across less than classy.

I will be doing my part to help humanity by actively searching for a missing 20 y/o woman, by recycling, by volunteering at my local battered women's shelter. What will YOU BE DOING??? (Yes, that's a challenge!)

The 1st paragraph is nothing more than a thinly veiled insult made again at the expense of the frequent posters "in this thread". It is followed by an apology (with a disclaimer that you wouldnt take it back) and that your previous comments were "directed towards the masses"? Really? But this one isnt? Why bother?

And what does watching tv have to do woth one's personal happiness? I was able to "sit in front of my television 24/7" because my baby boy recently had surgery AND I CANT take him outside yet. While normally I prefer to read, during this trial I DID watch--HOWEVER---I do not believe that people who watch "t.v. or any other form of media for entertainment" are somehow unhappy. That seems like a bold assumption to make.

And as far as the challenge...while I agree that those who are in a position to help others should do whatever they can, I sometimes wonder about people's motives when they feel the need to brag to the world about their good deeds. (And by "people" I mean "the masses" and not anyone in this thread )

 

[mary poppins]

Casey'sreleasedate. Hasbeenchanged. ToJuly17. Findoutwhy. Afterthismessage!

=========

Commentator, canyoutelluswhy. Totmom. Willbespending. Several. More. Days. Injail?

I kind of feel you're attacking the messenger, and ultimately doing exactly what you're accusing others in the process. Isn't your problem with people attaching to much emotion to this? Sensationalizing this? Well...

If you hate Nancy Grace, that's fine--I can't imagine anyone really cares, but that's not who this thread is about, and that's not what any of this is about. So, when you go out of your way to bring something like this up--something that is relevant--but do it in jest, the message gets lost. And isn't that, really, what you've spoken out against? The fact that people have turned this whole case into a side show?

Casey Anthony is doing time for what she was found guilty of...lying. It's probably the only justice we'll see in this whole thing (and when I say "we"...I mean the people who consider her to be guilty of the bigger charges). I want her to be in jail for as long as possible. I want her to suffer the consequences of ALL her actions. I personally cannot believe that she is getting out in a mere week or so. I figured that since she was in jail for a separate crime of which she pled guilty too, that this, the lying, would be a new batch of time. I now understand that that is not the case. I feel JP was fair, and he was reasonable. I wanted to throw up watching Casey make flirty eyes at Baez. This remains a joke to her.

So, I guess the question is...

What's next?

I believe the first two paragraphs of your response are made in light of my pre-verdict posts on pages 10 and 11 of this thread. If so, you misunderstood or mischaracterized my posts. I had observed a lot of posts indicating that emotions were the basis of the convict Casey chorus. As the lone naysayer, and being cautionary, the gist of my posts was to reinforce that the jury was to consider only the elements of each charge, the facts presented at trial, and the law as would be provided in jury instructions. I referred to statutes so people could look at and consider the actual elements in light of the facts presented at trial. I said that emotions regarding the defendant, defense counsel and outrage over the circumstances regarding the death should not play a part in deciding guilt. I specifically said, "Information obtained by tabloid television, Nancy Grace and the book Mommy's Little Girl is not relevant, but is frequently cited in this thread in response to people's questions about the trial." Information from those sources, as well as their biased and inflammatory presentation, impacts public opinion. Jurors should either not have knowledge of it, or not be influenced by it. I was called a purist. Indeed, that's what is required of a juror to execute his or her civil duties.

Juror #3's interview with Greta Van Susteren indicates the jurors took their civil duties seriously, considered each element as set forth in the instructions, and made a decision based on the facts presented to them. Juror #3 addressed the role emotions had during deliberation. Here are links to the interview (including transcript), the instructions, and a summary pulling it all together very simply.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/juror-no-3-casey-anthony039s-bad-behavior-039doesn039t-show-murder-was-committed039?page=2

http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/04/jury-instructions-in-the-casey-anthony-trial/

http://srmlegal.blogspot.com/2011/07/standards-of-proof-what-casey-anthony.html

Some have expressed outrage, disgust, or concern that the jury, having deliberated for 10-11 hours, didn't take enough time or interest to review the evidence or ask any questions. Many guilty verdicts have been rendered in much less time. Here, the cause of death had not been determined and no evidence available to the jury could provide the answer. Without knowing the cause of death, they could not tell if there was a crime or an accident and cover up (as suggested by River Cruz testimony and supported by family dysfunction). And no, a witness or other "smoking gun" wasn't required. Just a little something more showing the cause, and Casey's role in it. There was nothing telling in a bag of bare bones.

Some have expressed a belief that attorneys prefer jurors who are stupid and lack common sense. Patently false, as that would be potentially detrimental to either side. Attorneys seek jurors who are unbiased and intelligent enough to understand what is being presented.

In the post above, I provided an update regarding Casey's release date. Based on the responses to it, I don't think the message was lost at all. Though, in true Nancy Grace style, I suppose I should have ended it by saying "Only. Four. Additional. Days." rather than "Several. More. Days."

 

[JewelFreak]

Information obtained by tabloid television, Nancy Grace and the book Mommy's Little Girl is not relevant, but is frequently cited in this thread in response to people's questions about the trial.

I don't recall this book mentioned at all, but you might have a better memory than I do. In fact, I've never heard of it. Presume it's about the Anthonys. Nancy G. has been cited mostly as an example of what not to watch, if you go back & look.

But I get your point. As far as facts presented at trial and family dysfunction, there was not any evidence of that that would have excused murder -- or even explained it. Baez rattled on about abuse in his opening statement, which, as you know, is not evidence & which the judge admonished the jury should not be considered. Baez presented not a word of proof for his disgusting charge, but he obviously got the jury's attention, which was his goal. He asked George, who denied it, and asked no doctors, no friends, not Cindy or Casey certainly, no one to back it up. Then accuses George of having an affair -- no 3rd party testimony, only "he said, she said" accounts. If everybody whose father had an affair were excused for murdering their kids, a whole lotta dangerous people would be walking the streets. Ditto abused children.

So we have a bunch of unproven tabloid accusations for a defense. How Caylee died? It doesn't matter the precise cause: she's dead! Her skeleton is in a swamp with duct tape attached to its jaw. There is chloroform in the trunk of a car ONLY Casey drove, & it reeks of human decay. Caylee's mother looked up how to make chloroform, neck breaking, household weapons 3 months before the death. Her mother partied & got tattoos for over a month after the last sighting of the baby, and lied & lied & lied about where she was. Did not come clean about her disappearance until Cindy forced the issue. That goes to consciousness of guilt, something they could and should consider.

Say they'd found the skull with tape in its original position across the nose & mouth, showing definitely she was suffocated. What would that have changed? There was no video of Casey doing the deed, so God forbid we should make a judgement; after all, some bum off the street might've killed her, or an alien from Mars, or, oh yes, George, who fully intended to die to be with the little kid, but forgot he knocked her off first. Sheesh.

 

[FrekeChild]

I'm not surprised that they were deliberating for 11 hours, and I don't really understand the outrage at this. Why didn't it take longer? Because they didn't need to go over the evidence again.

I'm sure that (and this is mimicked in what I've read that the jurors have said) people made up their minds before entering the deliberation room. I highly doubt that it had anything to do with being tired (until probably hours 9 and 10 of deliberation and then it was probably being exhausted of arguing!) or wanting to go home to their families. What's another couple days when you've been stuck there for over a month? I'd bet (and again, this seems to be backed up by accounts by jurors--especially Jennifer Ford, juror #3) that jurors walked into that deliberation room thinking "not guilty--not enough evidence" So if everyone walked in to that room, shared their opinions in the first hour, that left another 10 hours to "talk it out" and share WHY they held the opinions they did, where people were having sticking points and anything they were having issues with. And arguing. If they didn't consider a piece of evidence important or even pertinent to whether or not she was guilty, they didn't have to go over it again.

And this is the information backing up my thoughts from above, thanks to Jennifer Ford:
-Only two jurors walked in there thinking 1st degree and that was on an emotional basis, and admitted there was not evidence to back it up.
-Half thought manslaughter and half said not guilty.

I don't know that people who haven't served on a jury could understand exactly what happens in a deliberations room and how it could have only been 11 hours. And it could have very easily gone the other way because of the half and half split, with her being charged of manslaughter. Its very telling that people ended up on not guilty, and that the 2 people who emotionally felt that she did it and wanted to charge her with 1st degree ended up changing their minds--presumably due to not having enough evidence.


JewelFreak, my BP is just fine (actually bordering on too low) but thanks for asking.

 

[mary poppins]

I don't need to go back and look at the prior posts. I know the book and Nancy Grace were cited as sources of information. That, and other statements of the type I mentioned are on every page up until my post on page 10, that's why I originally posted. You can go back and look.

I can't tell if the rest of your post is directed at me or a rant in general about the outcome of this case.

So, speaking about going back to look, Juror #3 in the Greta Van Susteren interview (which I accidentally linked as starting on page two instead of page one, so here it is correctly http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/juror-no-3-casey-anthony039s-bad-behavior-039doesn039t-show-murder-was-committed039?page=1) said they did not consider molestation or abuse by George. They also discarded the chloroform theory. Juror #3 explained what they thought of her behavior.

The testimony of George's affair is not relevant to show dysfunction (after all, it happened after Caylee died). It is relevant because the purported mistress said George said the death was a horrible accident that snowballed out of control, which the jury appeared to think was plausible (= reasonable doubt). Even without molestation or an affair, it is pretty clear from testimony of many that this family has a long-standing history of extreme dysfunction. The dysfunction does not excuse murder (there are only certain circumstances to excuse murder, as set forth in law and the jury instructions). It was used, among other reasons, to show that the family has behaved and would behave bizarrely, including possibly covering up for each other in the aftermath of an accident.

How Casey died matters to a jury that is uncertain whether there was a crime or an accident and cover up. It would also matter to a jury that is trying to figure out what crime to hold Casey accountable for.

Like it or not, that's the way the system works.

 

[Imdanny]

If it was just an accident (and I'm not talking about the case, the law, etc., so forget that) why didn't they call the authorities? They have a special exemption from acting like normal human beings vis a vis the death of a loved one because they are "dysfunctional"? Really?

 

[Amber St. Clare]

[quote="kenny|I heard about Nancy Grace several months ago.
I was curious so I found a U-Tube video of her.
I watched for a moment, vomited and turned her off.

[]She seems deft at getting certain people all worked up and foaming at the mouth - people with extremely low IQ.

Kenny--would it be in extremely bad taste to post a laughing emoticon on a thread this sad and sensitive?

 

[lulu]

There are several people posting who seem to agree with the acquittal. As I asked in my previous post, will you please explain your take on the duct tape over the baby's nose and mouth. Who put it there and why? I'm seeking a reasonable theory .

 

[JewelFreak]

It was used, among other reasons, to show that the family has behaved and would behave bizarrely, including possibly covering up for each other in the aftermath of an accident.

WHY? Can anyone give a reason as to why a family who obviously adored their child would go to all that trouble to make an accident look like murder? Not call 911 in nanoseconds? Especially when one member is an ex-cop -- adulterous or not? That is not dysfunction in the real world, it's cuckoo-ness. It is not believable.

If it was just an accident (and I'm not talking about the case, the law, etc., so forget that) why didn't they call the authorities? They have a special exemption from acting like normal human beings vis a vis the death of a loved one because they are "dysfunctional"? Really?

Me too, Danny. Exactly right!


I'm interested in any answers to Lulu's question too. How about it?

--- Laurie

P.S. Mary Poppins, I was not directing any frustration at you. It was a general rant because I truly cannot get my head around the jury's reasoning, hard as I try. I'm honestly bewildered.

 

[dragonfly411]

I can't help it that many people who've been involved in this thread sit in front of their televisions 24/7. My personal opinions about the case have been formed from different forms of media...and I'm sorry for insulting anyone. Truth be told, I have a happy life and it is very, very rare for me to resort to t.v. or any other form of media for entertainment...so when I saw that this was a hot topic, I did some research and jumped on in. I'd no idea my comments would incite drama, really.

Italia, Dragonfly, etc. so sorry if I offended you personally. My previous comments were not directed at anyone in this thread; they were actually directed towards the masses, if you can believe that. I do realize I made some imflammatory statements...but I will not take anything back. I'm just sorry that I came across less than classy.

I will be doing my part to help humanity by actively searching for a missing 20 y/o woman, by recycling, by volunteering at my local battered women's shelter. What will YOU BE DOING??? (Yes, that's a challenge!)

The 1st paragraph is nothing more than a thinly veiled insult made again at the expense of the frequent posters "in this thread". It is followed by an apology (with a disclaimer that you wouldnt take it back) and that your previous comments were "directed towards the masses"? Really? But this one isnt? Why bother?

And what does watching tv have to do woth one's personal happiness? I was able to "sit in front of my television 24/7" because my baby boy recently had surgery AND I CANT take him outside yet. While normally I prefer to read, during this trial I DID watch--HOWEVER---I do not believe that people who watch "t.v. or any other form of media for entertainment" are somehow unhappy. That seems like a bold assumption to make.

And as far as the challenge...while I agree that those who are in a position to help others should do whatever they can, I sometimes wonder about people's motives when they feel the need to brag to the world about their good deeds. (And by "people" I mean "the masses" and not anyone in this thread )

This entirely.

To note though. I watched via live stream. I don't watch TV (I actually really never have a chance, my grandfather goes to sleep at 8 and I don't normally get off of both jobs until 10...so computer is my source of all information). I'm a happy, balanced individual who reads, works out for at least 40 mins a day, cooks, goes out riding on four wheelers, fishes, hunts. I think we've covered this. Monarch I actually didn't take as much offense to YOUR post to start with, I simply wanted to straighten up what was going on with the song which was written for Caylee. But I do take serious offense to your second post, and it's passive insults.

 

[dragonfly411]

If it was just an accident (and I'm not talking about the case, the law, etc., so forget that) why didn't they call the authorities? They have a special exemption from acting like normal human beings vis a vis the death of a loved one because they are "dysfunctional"? Really?

I agree with this as well. I also still don't understand why, if it was an accident, she felt the need to lie about where the child was.

It's sad that we will never have all of the answers for this poor little girl's death.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

We don't have to speculate about the accident part because as someone mentioned earlier, why would you put duct tape with a heart on it across the face of a dead child? I will never buy the accident theory.

 

[mrhand]

For all of you that are outraged or confused over the verdict, have you actually gone through and read the jury instructions???? Those who have not and still judge this jurries decision got a lot of chutzpah.

The instructions explain in exquisite detail how the jury is supposed to return a verdict for each indictment. The is no horse trading between indictments allowed. Each indictment must have specific conditions met for a guilty verdict to be returned.

The simple fact that the prosecution couldnt even establish a cause of death and call it a homicide is why this was a losing case for the prosecution from the beginning.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

Mary Poppins, I read the links you provided and thought about what was said by this juror who has come forward...

I felt like what she was saying was very canned, very PC. The whole bit about wanting to serve the judge, honoring him...and yet, I remember they never asked for evidence recall or readings or took notes...it seems to me, if they wanted to do it right, they would have at least entertained the mounds of evidence presented to some degree. The chloroform, I got the sense, was above their head--so they discounted it all together, rather than try to at least look at it, to better understand it. This juror did say that they didn't consider the sexual abuse when making their decisions, as well they shouldn't have--hard to hear, but just more lies and not in evidence. However, at the same time, other Jurors have mentioned that the dysfunction of the family did weigh heavily on them.

I would hope that this woman was being salt of the earth honest when she sat down with GvS...I would hope that she was recounting things the way they happened, and not packaging them neatly up now that the trial is over and she can see/hear/read the uprising over her verdict.

At the end of the day, this case is done. The jurors can say what they want now and people can rebuke them all they want, but it will change nothing.

I am also interested in knowing how people who agree with the acquittal explain away the duct tape? I guess I can't think of a way to wrap my mind around making an "accident" look like a murder? Where is the sense in that? Please, someone explain...

 

[Italiahaircolor]

For all of you that are outraged or confused over the verdict, have you actually gone through and read the jury instructions???? Those who have not and still judge this jurries decision got a lot of chutzpah.

The instructions explain in exquisite detail how the jury is supposed to return a verdict for each indictment. The is no horse trading between indictments allowed. Each indictment must have specific conditions met for a guilty verdict to be returned.

The simple fact that the prosecution couldnt even establish a cause of death and call it a homicide is why this was a losing case for the prosecution from the beginning.

Of course we've read the jury instructions. And those of us who are outraged figured out the cause of death...which wasn't all that hard...

 

[Laila619]

If it was just an accident (and I'm not talking about the case, the law, etc., so forget that) why didn't they call the authorities? They have a special exemption from acting like normal human beings vis a vis the death of a loved one because they are "dysfunctional"?

Yes, they do.

 

[Laila619]

For all of you that are outraged or confused over the verdict, have you actually gone through and read the jury instructions???? Those who have not and still judge this jurries decision got a lot of chutzpah.

The instructions explain in exquisite detail how the jury is supposed to return a verdict for each indictment. The is no horse trading between indictments allowed. Each indictment must have specific conditions met for a guilty verdict to be returned.

The simple fact that the prosecution couldnt even establish a cause of death and call it a homicide is why this was a losing case for the prosecution from the beginning.

Mrhand, it's kind of hard to take anyone seriously who crudely uses a word like "tw#t" when referring to a woman (Nancy Grace).

 

[mrhand]

For all of you that are outraged or confused over the verdict, have you actually gone through and read the jury instructions???? Those who have not and still judge this jurries decision got a lot of chutzpah.

The instructions explain in exquisite detail how the jury is supposed to return a verdict for each indictment. The is no horse trading between indictments allowed. Each indictment must have specific conditions met for a guilty verdict to be returned.

The simple fact that the prosecution couldnt even establish a cause of death and call it a homicide is why this was a losing case for the prosecution from the beginning.

Of course we've read the jury instructions. And those of us who are outraged figured out the cause of death...which wasn't all that hard...

So what was the cause of death? The Medical Examiner couldn't find one.

 

[mrs jam]

What a moron.

 

[FrekeChild]

I don't know why there was duct tape.

But I cannot say for sure that it was Casey who put it there.

 

[lucyandroger]

For all of you that are outraged or confused over the verdict, have you actually gone through and read the jury instructions???? Those who have not and still judge this jurries decision got a lot of chutzpah.

The instructions explain in exquisite detail how the jury is supposed to return a verdict for each indictment. The is no horse trading between indictments allowed. Each indictment must have specific conditions met for a guilty verdict to be returned.

The simple fact that the prosecution couldnt even establish a cause of death and call it a homicide is why this was a losing case for the prosecution from the beginning.

Of course we've read the jury instructions. And those of us who are outraged figured out the cause of death...which wasn't all that hard...

So what was the cause of death? The Medical Examiner couldn't find one.

For first degree murder the jury would have had to determine that "the death was caused by the criminal act of Casey Marie Anthony." They did not have to determine exactly how Caylee died, just that however she died was caused by Casey's criminal act.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

Oh, MrHand...I can tell someone didn't do there homework, tsk tsk.

Dr. Jan Garavaglia, the medical examiner, gave 3 reasons Caylee's death was murder in her professional opinion, which is begotten by the fact that she's been in her line of work for umpteen years. But, to directly answer your question, Dr. G pinned it on primarily the 3 pieces of duct tape which covered Caylee's mouth and nose--suffocating her to death.

There was no proof, NONE AT ALL (and remember that) that Caylee drown. However, when the skull of Caylee Anthony was found, the mandible was still attached. This is not common in skeleton remains, unless it's held in place by something...like, oh, I don't know...duct tape perhaps? And that, of course, leads us back to the common sense thing...why, if it was nothing more than an innocent accident, was duct tape ever, ever, ever used? Well...that's what we're all wondering...

So, if you have that the answer to that...please, fill us in...inquiring minds want to know. If duct tape did not kill this little girl, was not used to silence her, why was it there?

Your ball...

 

[Italiahaircolor]

I don't know why there was duct tape.

But I cannot say for sure that it was Casey who put it there.

But Casey was the only one with Caylee on the day she went missing...the last one to see her alive...

-Cindy was at work
-George was at work

So, who did it? Who had the means, the opportunity and the access to the home where the bags and duct tape came from?

ETA:

I would also like to point out that at one point a lake near Casey's home was searched. Skeletal remains were found, and Casey was pulled from her cell while they awaited confirmation the remains belonged to Caylee--they did not. Casey, as documented, was relaxed. Casey was not stressed, up set, worried...it was even said that she was smiling as she returned to her cell.

This behavior is in direct contrast to when Caylee was found. Casey, who was in jail at the time, had a full blown break down prior to confirmation that the remains located on Suburban drive were those of Caylee.

The day the remains were found, prior to confirmation, Baez already had an expert en route to FL to examine the remains and the grounds in which they were found.

 

[mrhand]

If the ME gave 3 opinions on the cause of death, that certainly leaves doubt. It's no surprise the prosecution couldnt prove this. The prosecutors admitted this in closing, and after the trial.