Perry allowing Casey to 'testify' via facial expressions.
Perry rushing through jury selections, taking jurors who had unbreakable plans and promising them that the trial would be over in time. (I sincerely believe that the person on the jury who had non-refundable cruise tickets, which was to depart the same week they were deliberating, had some influence on the rest of the panel. If they would have found her guilty, they would have had to deliberate the penalty phase and that person would have missed their cruise.)
Perry empanelling a non-death penalty qualified jury (the woman who said she couldn't judge people should never have been allowed on the jury, Batson challenge or not).
You said exactly how I feel. Other than the above, I don't think the prosecution did their best job of putting the case together for the jury. There were too many holes left. There was SO MUCH more information that we had available that should have been presented to the jury. Maybe they felt rushed? I feel that they were rushed.
I'm going to ad the Sunshine Laws which led to the media frenzy which made it impossible to select a jury pool who hadn't already made their own conclusions, so they felt they needed to find jury members who had been living under a rock or otherwise not interested in current events, don't watch news, don't read newspapers, don't blog etc etc ...
I'm going to ad Nancy Grace et al here too.
I don't think the media and Sunshine Laws was necessarily a bad thing - except seeing Casey, Baez and Mason's faces on tv.
uke:
I have followed the case since the beginning, read most of the evidence, and I could have sat on the jury and been impartial. With that said, based on the evidence (or lack thereof) that was presented, I'm not sure I could have convicted her either. :what: There was just so much wiggle room left by the prosecution. I will give it to LDB - the opening statement was excellent!
(NOTE: As much as I believe in OJs guilt, I wouldn't have convicted him either based on the evidence presented at trial. And, I followed it closely while in college taking Criminal Investigations.)
I always thought there were several factors..1st off that vehicle should have been taken into custody from day 1. From what I understand it reeked of death, so should have been a big clue. Yes Roy cronk not getting the LE attention needed also was a big factor.
But I said it in the beginning to my hubby and will say it again. The Prosecution did not connect the dots for the jury and did not tie it all up in a big pretty bow. They gave them too much credit, assumed they would be smart and figure things out. They should have also let Tony and the ex Forgot his name speak...because Casey didn't want a bf that loved caylee which is why she broke up with the first dude...and tony didn't want girls... Also it needed to be brought out that she hated Cindy more than she loved Caylee. This all needed to be brought to light, cause you have to assume the jury knows nothing.
BBM: Well said!! And, they could have brought up the fact that Casey said she was a "spiteful b*tch".
Jesse Grund is her ex-bf who loved Caylee.
Why not the Panhandle? There are a lot of people who didn't follow this case in my area of FL. When they mentioned Liberty County (Bristol) as a place to bring the trial to, I was praying for it to happen. I'm not from there, but know people that live there.
After hearing Baez making wild non substantiated claims about George molesting Casey and George doing this and that..I told my husband..You know, this Girl is gonna walk. It should not be allowed to make up something like that ..to accuse others without fact, or without proof. I mean seriously I would have sued had someone done that to me. I think it should be not allowed, it tainted the jury...Baez should have been stopped, reprimanded on it etc. A new jury should have been selected at that point JMO.
I so agree!! I told my husband at the end of jury selection that she'd walk. You don't let people on a DP jury that doesn't believe in the DP (or can't judge a person). If a person can't judge someone, based on the evidence presented, then they should NEVER be allowed on a jury.
Baez's behavior and lies (he slandered George all in the name of getting his client off) and it was allowed? That should never be allowed. JMHO
There were so many errors in this case, but I think all the above is a good starting point at where this case went wrong. Didn't one of the jurors admit that there were 2 that had to be "convinced" to change their vote so they could leave? They could have hung the jury and yes, it would have all started over, but at least we would have had a better chance at getting a conviction.
Judge Perry also should have stressed to the jury that a motive is not a requirement for the prosecution. But, they all wanted to know the motive. Ohhhh..... :furious: