A continuation of SII
Really interesting interview. Highlights for me:Every outside conversation the jurors had was monitored by deputies who would stand within hearing distance. 2 people wanted to convict at the beginning of deliberations, but they admitted there was no evidence they could use to support a conviction. From there, it was half and half opinion split between manslaughter and not guilty.They proceeded by going methodically through each of the charges against Anthony one at a time, seeing whether there was evidence to support each charge. (Contrast this with the way the Peterson jury took an 'overall' sort of view, as described in 'We, the Jury', writing down various issues on the white board for discussion. No procedure for selecting those issues was described in the Peterson jury book)Interesting comments by Ford:"They didn't prove cause of death...you can't punish someone for a crime (without that)""(Anthony's) behavior was hard to understand..appalling...but that doesn't show a murder was committed.""The chloroform evidence had no value or weight..was easy to disqualify it..the prosecutors really tried to make a good argument..but all they had..was the computer searches"
More:In response to GVS's question about whether Anthony not taking the witness stand affected their thoughts about the case, Ford said it "didn't come up...Judge Perry made the laws very clear..he was very upstanding and we followed his instructions/lead"Regarding the abuse allegations:"They had no bearing. No way to prove them. We needed facts. It's shocking, hard to hear--but you have to prove things before we can use them as evidence"Regarding demeanor of Anthony in court: "Seemed like she was trying not to show a lot of emotion, like we were on the jury...knew all eyes were on her."GVS: do you have an impression of her personality, did you like her..not like her..what was your response to her personally...Ford responded, "I really don't know. It is hard to tell. But what really mattered was the facts.. you have to prove it."Those were the notes I made.Thanks for sharing this video.
Here's another link (sorry for mulitple posts) where you can hear Nancy Grace get steamed at an interviewer's suggestion that by maligning the jury, she's attacking "the best court system in the world". Her nostrils don't flare as per usual, but she's pretty mad all the same. I mean wanna-kill-you-with-death-rays mad. But she also--- very sternly--- talks about what a truth-teller she is and how if someone doesn't like what she says "that's their problem." uH?Yo Nancy! What about that GBH thing you said about Scott Peterson? What about that smell of bleach thing? Yo, yo, yo---Nancy! The vomit on the mop? The "experts" testifying in your court of opinion on TV about things they didn't even see go down in the courtroom? (Check out the Peterson support page on Facebook for that) What about the utter, shameless, complete and criminal lack of retractions in a LIFE AND DEATH CASE in which You, Nancy--Yo! Broadcast *l*i*e*s* about a defendant in a criminal case who is now on death row. No retractions=LIES.That's *lies.*Which influenced a trial, countless lives, and oh yeah, distracted American citizens from a war by directing attention to a criminal case that made great profits for Nancy's bosses in the TV biz. Lies, not truth. You wonder--I wonder---if Nancy goes straight home from the studio and feeds her brain with moonshine straight from the still. Or something.So it's not that she "says what she thinks and that's why people are mad." It's that she's a liar.And Ol' Dan just sits there and grins.
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/nancy-grace-versus-casey-anthony-juror-number-3-14016873That's the link.
I can accept a Not Guilty verdict in this case, but I am troubled by the reasoning of the jury members who have spoken. From the Piers Morgan transcript for last night's show:ASHTON: Well, I think if this jury, you know, came to the verdict they did based upon the belief in something that wasn't in evidence. In other words, if they came to this decision based upon the belief that George Anthony had something to do with this, then they didn't do the right thing. Because there was no evidence that George was involved in this. And they were instructed that their decision, reasonable doubts had to come from the evidence. So if, in fact, that was the factor, then they didn't do their jobs. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. I'm assuming that they simply did it based upon, you know, not being convinced about cause of death, and that's fine. If they did not see in the photographs of how Caylee was found what we saw, and what other people see, well, that's fine. You know, we shall agree to disagree. But if they did it based upon the allegation that George is involved, that is a more serious breach of their duty as a juror.***********I agree with Ashton. The jurors can only use evidence presented at trial or agreed to by stipulation to reach their verdict.
TO: Juror #3, Ms. FordYour are what our system of justice system is supposed to be about. Sober, calm, thoughtful people making difficult discissions...as a citizen of the United States, I thank you, and tip my hat to you tonight for doing what we asked you to do...***Sorry about the six weeks, in my opinion, you should get the life time pass...
Burkey posted:Interesting comments by Ford:"They didn't prove cause of death...you can't punish someone for a crime (without that)">>>>>>>>>>>>"The chloroform evidence had no value or weight..was easy to disqualify it..the prosecutors really tried to make a good argument..but all they had..was the computer searches"**********In many cases where a body is completely decomposed it is impossible to prove cause of death. IMO that was an unreasonable expectation on the part of the jury.How could the chloroform evidence be dismissed so easily? There certainly was more evidence than just computer searches.What about the duct tape? Didn't the jury consider that at all? There was no evidence whatsoever that anyone other than Casey Anthony was present at the time of her daughter's death. Why did she find it necessary to accuse her father of horrible things to excuse her actions if what happened to her daughter was truly an accident?
It was interesting in the Bee today how they did a "of course both of them were guilty....but...." piece today making the comparison between these two cases.The West Memphis Three - Perhaps many think that their fates will be tainted if we dare draw them in for any speculation through comparison.As though they were apples and oranges. Is that how we deny the constitutional rights of others based on our prevailing winds of social expectation?Thank God SOMEONE is thinking about it.Stanford
Jane, there was no chloroform found on caylees hair when drug testing was done, so I can see how they'd dismiss the chloroform. What I think ms ford meant was without knowing actual cause of death then how do they know it's a crime that occurred? I think the jury did right. By voting not guilty...
Christine, just because no chloroform was found when the testing was done, does not mean it was never there. From the toxicology report: "These results do not rule-out the decedent'sprior use and/or exposure to volatiles and/or drugs."Many times it is not possible to determine cause of death when a body is completely decomposed. Circumstantial evidence can be used to make the determination. The child was dead. There is no evidence that she was in the care of anyone but her mother at the time she died. There was duct tape found attached to the child's skull. The manner of disposal of the body indicates that a crime was committed.Of course, the jury has the right to make the determination of guilt or innocence. IMO the prosecutor made a mistake by charging this as a death penalty case. However, it's hard for me to see how the jury completely excused Casey Anthony from responsibility for her child's death.
Jane, there is also no evidence that she was in the care of her mother when she died. There is no evidence that the duct tape was ever attached to Caylee's face or caused her death. The manner of disposal can also be explained with the alternate explanation. In the absence of evidence, IMO it's best to assume there never was any to begin with. I just can't go with, the tests didn't produce evidence of a substance, but that's not evidence it was never there. That's a pandora's box that I'm not willing to open. If you allow that, then you can never rule anyone out.There was not any evidence of any sign of abuse on Casey's part by any of the witnesses - Indeed, the evidence showed she was a loving mother.Her bizzare behavior after the child's death can as easily be explained by severe shock and mourning brought on by the child's accidental death and the lack of closure which usually results from a funeral. And her lies can be explained as part of the cover-up conceived by her father.If there was evidence that George and Cindy were kicking Casey out of their house, and Casey would suddenly be totally responsible for Caylee and didn't want to be, and there was evidence that Casey was short-tempered with Caylee or in any way abusive -- then the circumstantial evidence may have had some persuasive power with the jurors. But none of that evidence was presented, to my knowledge.
Marlene, I can accept the verdict if jurors honestly did not believe the case presented by the prosecution. But what I cannot accept is that George Anthony had any part in what happened to his grandaughter at the time she died and after her death.There is evidence that Caylee was in the care of her mother at the time she died. There is evidence that the duct tape was attached to her skull and covered the lower portion of her face. The jurors, according to jury instructions, cannot consider speculative or imaginary doubts in reaching their verdict.Florida Jury Instructions, Rules of Deliberation:2. This case must be decided only upon the evidence that you have heard from the testimony of the witnesses and have seen in the form of the exhibits in evidence and these instructions.3. This case must not be decided for or against anyone because you feel sorry for anyone, or are angry at anyone.4. Remember, the lawyers are not on trial. Your feelings about them should not influence your decision in this case.
I don't think they believed the prosecution's case. I certainly didn't. I do know that George was not at all convincing to me when he denied to the prosecutors that he had ever molested Casey. He just wasn't convincing. Now, the jurors are allowed to take that into consideration because the question was asked by the State -- the non-believability of his denial is evidence, if that is how they read his body language when he answered. The jurors don't have to just take his word for it, they can determine for themselves whether they believe him or not. Like I said, he wasn't credible to me.And I was quite taken aback when I heard GA say that he didn't attend his son's wedding, and that he didn't "know" Casey was pregnant until he was told when she was about 7 months along, even though she lived in his home. That wasn't at all believable -- that he had to be told his daughter was pregnant -- I saw that part of his testimony also -- he was not at all credible to me. Regarding the duct tape, the defense expert testified that there was no DNA on the duct tape. That convinced me that the duct tape had never been attached to Caylee's face. And there goes the murder instrument. Extreme decomposition works both ways -- yes, it prevents the State from proving murder, but it also prevents the Defense from proving an accidental drowning.
Marlene, I didn't follow this case before the trial and had no opinion about it.But I am sure that George Anthony had no part in this. People who are accused of unthinkable crimes are often uncomfortable on the stand, and their reactions may be misinterpreted.If you go to this site, on the right hand side of the page, select Searchable Discovery. Then type in names or topics to see the discovery material for that item.http://www.thehinkymeter.com/
why on earth would someone cover up an innocent accident, and make it look like a murder?
Because the accidental drowning of a 2-year old in a family swimming pool is not exactly innocent -- adults are expected to take precautions to prevent such a drowning -- such as not leaving the ladder accessible while the pool is not being supervised.Or because sometimes people do stupid things in times of stress. But to throw the ball in your court, why would Casey kill Caylee to get freedom when she could already come and go as she pleased and all she had to do was leave Caylee with the grandparents and ride off into the sunset?
Hello all! Interesting discussion.Here are my thoughts.....The prosecution presented their evidence the duct tape, based mainly upon it being on the skull when the body was found. As we know, Mr. Kronk had admitted to moving the skull (he actually told two different stories but both indeed involved his movement of the skull). There is no way anyone can put all the evidenciary weight on the prosecution's duct tape theory when the defendant is presumed innocent, especially considering those circumstances. Also, Marlene is partially correct...although there actually WAS DNA on the duct tape. The DNA found was proven to NOT belong to Casey or Caylee. The DNA belonged to one of the forensic examiners. How did that happen? Also, there was very clear evidence by several FBI forensic examiners that if that duct tape was ever placed on that child's face, they would have , in most probability, found her DNA on it, although it would have been much more difficult to find, due to the condition of the tape.Someone asked why the defense would "make up" this story about George Anthony abusing his daughter and moving the body if this actually was an accidental death. I have tossed this in my mind over and over and there is only one scenario that would fit. It really wasn't necessary for Baez to state those things at all to win his case...the information of abuse did not factor into the death if it actually was an accident UNLESS George Anthony actually did abuse his daughter. It is widely held that when any type of molestation occurs within a family, the abuser does not usually stop the abuse until they are caught or confronted. They most often continue the abuse down the line, and in many instances, with numerous family members. Now, I am not saying this molestation happened in the first place but, this is one scenario where it could fit as to why GA could have had a reason to help remove that body. IF it were true that GA molested his daughter, then I believe it is HIGHLY likely that he could also have begun to do the same to his granddaughter. Many times there is soft tissue evidence of such acts happening to small children. Of course, I highly doubt he would have confessed such an act to Casey but it could be possible he would have felt compelled to take care of the body, in his own way, in an effort to make sure that no one ever found out what he might have been doing to his granddaughter. The whole body searching scenario, in that particular wooded area, where the body was finally found, is highly suspect to begin with. Again, let me make it clear that I have NO idea what happened in that house and I am not accusing GA of doing anything. I am just trying to answer the question as to why someone might lie about where the body was if this tragic death was an accident. It could even be possible that Casey did NOT know where the body was placed, if GA stepped in and told her he would take care of it, for his own selfish reasons.I am with Marlene on GA's testimony. I did not believe him or find him credible. When a person says too much to answer a simple yes or no question, or they shake their head at the same time they are saying no or yes, that makes me VERY suspect and they aren't convincing me of anything as much as I believe they are trying to convince themselves.The instructions to the jury were very clear, and I believe the jury followed them to a tee considering the presumption of innocence. All too often people let their heart take precedence over what facts are presented or not presented. I think this was a complicated case and I don't know if Casey was guilty or not...but I will presume her innocent because the prosecution just did not offer any real proof to the contrary.
The duct tape was over the nose and mouth of the child:From the forensic examiner's report:A hair mat was notedon the base of the skull and grayish colored tape was noted covering the mouth and nasalaperture areas. The tape remained in place because it was adhered to the hair of the skull.In addition, the mandible was still retained underneath the base ofthe cranium positionedslightly posterior.The jury foreman On Greta last night confirmed this in his description the body photos. He said the tape was attached to the hair and covered the nose and mouth. (His interview was at least 20 minutes long--and only 5 minutes of that has been posted on the Greta site).The body had been in the swamp for 6 months at the time it was recovered, several months under water. The DNA which might have been there initially would have disintegrated. There was no cotton fabric remaining on the pieces of duct tape.
http://www.thehinkymeter.com/casey-anthony-murder-trial/forensic-evidence/Q59.3 – hair mass removed from Q59 – no alprazolam or clonazepam detected – no flunitrazepam, diazepam, midazolam, oxazepam, nordiazepam, triazolam, temazepam, lorazepam, or ketamine detected – not tested for chloroform
Concerning the duct tape at found at the scene:Kronk testified that he moved the skull BEFORE the police arrived at the scene. First he said he picked up a bag and it then fell out and rolled on the ground. And then in a later report he stated that he lifted it with his water-meter stick. The second version is also what he testified to during the trial.At any rate, the initial pictures taken at the scene never showed the duct tape over the nose and mouth. There was duct tape towards the side of the head. Here is the transcript of where the juror discusses this with Greta...it is very clear, it was never on the side of the skull. There is no way anyone can be sure where that tape was originally placed, if even on the skull at all, because the evidence had been moved. http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/exclusive-casey-anthony-jury-foreman-forensic-evidence-and-suspicions-george-anthony?page=1When Dr. Spitz testified, he stated that the pictures taken in the lab were obviously "re-arranged" by the examiner and he knows this because the initial picture at the original scene did not show any duct tape on the mouth or nose area or on the skull at all. It was where the juror says it was....on the side of the head stuck to a couple of pieces of hair.If I were a juror and I read in a forensic report that the tape was on the mouth and nose, but I had seen with my own eyes, or in a State submitted photograph at trial, that the tape was not on the mouth or nose, but rather on a few pieces of hair laying, but not attached to, the side of the skull, I think I would have to call that very reasonable doubt.
Autopsy Report...use your own caution :(http://blogs.discovery.com/files/caylee_anthony_autopsy01.pdfp. 11 Attached to the hair and "overlying" the "posterior" mandible and maxilla are several pieces of overlapping gray tape. The tape has open weave fabric backing and is delaminating.p. 14 Based on the position of tape and mandible, "IT CAN BE INFERRED" that the mandible remained in this position because the tape held it in place proor to the hair forming into a matt on the base of the skull.
One of the Peterson jurors is on Nancy Grace tonight. Sigh. As usual, Nancy is getting all the facts wrong in both cases she is discussing. I am wondering why I even turned this channel on.With that I will leave here for tonight....thanks for all the great articles....sorry for all the posts. :)
Sorry, I forgot this part of the toxicology report. This portion of the report begins on p35:http://blogs.discovery.com/files/caylee_anthony_autopsy01.pdfVolatiles were not detected in aliquots of bone, bone marrow, hair, and soil......This includes, but is not limited to chloroform, ethanol, acetone, isopropanol, methanol and toluene. Products of decomposition were not detected.In summary, volatiles and drugs were not detected in the specimens obtained from the remains......It is my belief that drugs and volatiles will not leave the hair or skeletel system at any point in time, or under any circumstance. The state of decomposition or the weather has no impact on what is held in the bones or in the hair of the deceased. This is why many 20-30 year old murders have been solved by exhuming the remains of suspected murder victims with the recent progression of better and more precise toxicological testing methods that might not have been available at the original time of death.
VAN SUSTEREN: Was the duct tape on the skull or was it adjacent to the skull?UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It was -- as far as on the skull, there was one area where it was connected, and that dealt with more the hair. It was not on actually a part of the bone. But it was right there in the vicinity of the nasal cavity and where the mouth would be.VAN SUSTEREN: So one interpretation would be that it -- that the duct tape was over the mouth and nose.UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/exclusive-casey-anthony-jury-foreman-forensic-evidence-and-suspicions-george-anthony#ixzz1RzEHMU2q
OK, you guys have got me going now, when I get a few spare minutes, I'm going to have to check out George, see if I can find some video or something. I'm curious to see if I find him believable...
Post a Comment