The state is not required to show motive
No but it is relevant. Why do you think prosecutor's try and prove motive when they think they are able to?
If three pieces of duct-tape don't show cause of death then....
Well if it did then the medical examiner would have testified to cause of death not just manner of death. Although, she felt more than capable of opining the death was homicide referring, in part, to the tape she was not able to state any cause of death.
The State provided the jurors with the most accurate, factual evidence possible. You can speculate and guess with what the motive may have been but you cannot do that with the evidence the state provided. Decomp odor! Duct-tape around the nose and mouth! etc...
To the contrary, the jury are allowed to, indeed should, look for any reasonable explanation or inference consistent with evidence and non-guilt. Call it what you want "speculation" or otherwise. But the prosecution bear the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and if the evidence they present can reasonably be explained in a manner consistent with innocence they have not met their burden.
These jurors make no sense and their own motives are so clear. The state didn't need to do anything else! They provided more than enough evidence. The end for me.
Don't know what you have been watching but it makes perfect sense to may. Might not agree entirely but their logic makes sense. More than enough evidence? Well the juror's certainly disagree and I the evidence as to murder 1 was far from strong.
I watched juror #3's interview, and imo, she would have been the bully. She was full-steam ahead with all her points and didn't need any prompting from the interviewer. Excited utterances all the way. Vehemently.
Not at all. Firstly, the jurors initial vote was 10-2 to acquit of Murder 1 down to 6-6 split on the Agg Manslaughter charge. Not much scope for bullying. It would seem that 10 of the jurors initially and independently came to the view that state had not made out a Murder 1 case.
Obviously, they bought into Baez' theory that Caylee was
already dead. That tells me they got into a mind set of which side they were going to go with and never deliberated another view. :banghead:
It may take time, but I believe someday they are going to think about that "other view."
Sorry, what do you mean? The Defense stated that Caylee died on the 16th but the State's believe was she died on the 16th also and that's what the seemed to go with after opening statements. So I don't know what "mind set" this is meant to show other than they didn't seek to disturb the facts agreed to by the State and Defense. This case, during its 6 week trial, had enough issues of controversy in it without the jury seeking out more.
Maybe, maybe not
Perhaps they too will breed and regard the products of their loins to be mere 'pets' -- to be discarded when the novelty wears off and it all becomes too real and inconvenient
I pray they don't breed, considering they were prepared to devote only ten hours to delivering a verdict, followed by 24 hours deliberation to formulate their excuses in order they could get the public on-side enough to warrant networks paying them tens of thousands of dollars
OK, I don't understand? Are you suggseting that KC and Baez are going to get together and "breed"?
I think there was present with this jury a total lack of critical thinking and Jose Baez was entertaining for them, not to mention KC and her winking and her (ahem) clothing adjustments.
This verdict is the modern day snap judgment based on shallow morals and values, and a blase' attitude about the value of life.
Geez... the jury-haters, after criticizing the jury for seeking to find reasonable doubt, which they conveniently term "speculation", they now, themselves, engage in speculation - quite baseless speculation at that - of this jury's thought process and motives to criticize their verdict.
