2011.07.08 - Dateline NBC

[Salem]

so they wanted the two things (motive and cause of death) that did not have to be proven.

too bad they didn't take a little more time to read over the instructions and evaluate all the circumstantial evidence..

ten hours of deliberations after six weeks of evidence... how sad

((sorry for the rant.. I am still upset and sick over the verdict and to hear their reasoning makes me even more sick))

You know what really bothers me.... all these jurors that are talking, including the alternates are saying the EXACT same thing, in almost the EXACT same words. Why is that? Do none of them have the ability to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions? I find it perplexing that not a one of them has anything different to say?

Weird, just weird,

Salem

 

[JennaB]

I did not read through the entire 23 pages, but I wanted to ask.....the jurors are saying they did not believe there was any sexual abuse. If they believe that, would that not raise a red flag, that she is basically throwing her dad and brother under the bus? And if she is accusing them and it is not true, you have to ask yourself, "What for?" That she looks so guilty she has to make something up to save her own life? To explain the partying?
So even if they hadnt brought sexual abuse in, she still would have been found not guilty?

I also find that frustrating, that the jurors are saying that they don't believe the sexual abuse claims. I guess these jurors might think it was ok for Casey to have possibly falsely accused her father and brother of molestation.

 

[katydid23]

FGS, my husband and I have 3 kids between us. When we were dating he and his kids would spend the night occassionally and ALL FIVE of us would sleep on one big bed lol. It was enduring. We loved it that we would all climb in. It's one of my favorite memories of when they were all little. We ALL had our pj's on and we didn't have sex with them there! RM even testified that they had clothes on and CASEY slept in the middle and they didn't have sex! Everyone is totally blowing that out of proportion. That does not equate to child abuse or child neglict no matter how you look at it. JMO

Different scenario. You and your BF both had kids and you all slept together.

Ricardo was a new BF of Casey's. She knew him for a month or so. And according to Casey the child was in the middle of the bed.

If you were lying about working for 2 and a half years, and just stealing from friends and family daily to make it, and HIDING out to pretend to be at work, and dragging your child with you every day---waiting till your folks left and then sneaking back to hide out until they were going to come back.
As a MOTHER, are you telling me that is a healthy, positive way to raise your toddler? You see no issues with that daily routine?

Because I sure do. How stressful can you get?

 

[LancelotLink]

I also find that frustrating, that the jurors are saying that they don't believe the sexual abuse claims. I guess these jurors might think it was ok for Casey to have possibly falsely accused her father and brother of molestation.

And sat in jail for three years for an accident. Good grief!!

 

[katydid23]

I'll jump in here. All of course, is JMOO. First, the tape was not on the skull it was stuck in the hair. Second, the tape could have just been trash. After all the PT spent alot of time explaining just that. Third, it could have just been taped to the canvas bag to close it.

No, it was not just 'trash' because it was Henkel from the Anthony's roll at home.

And it was not on the face because HER FACE WAS GONE. That is why it was not on her face anymore.

And it was not taped to close the canvas bag either. There was no evidence in was ever on the canvas bag. IT WAS PLACED ON CAYLEE'S FACE. Otherwise her mandible would have detached.

 

[Never4GetCaylee]

Of course he did. I don't blame him for saying that. Casey said otherwise though. But common sense also says that you cannot put a 2 yr old to sleep on the edge of an adult bed with 2 adults on the other side. That is also dangerous, as she could easily roll off onto her head. So something tells me she was put in the middle. Either way, it is skanky of Casey to do that. This guy was not her long time boyfriend or anything.

I didn't understand this at all. Did RM not have a couch or somewhere else Caylee could sleep besides in the bed with them? I remember when he was asked if they were ever intimate when Caylee was in bed with them and he said "Not that I recall." Not. that. I. recall. ???? Wouldn't you say "Of course not." or "No. never." or "Absolutely not." but Not that I recall??????? Ew.

 

[JennaB]

I didn't understand this at all. Did RM not have a couch or somewhere else Caylee could sleep besides in the bed with them? I remember when he was asked if they were ever intimate when Caylee was in bed with them and he said "Not that I recall." Not. that. I. recall. ???? Wouldn't you say "Of course not." or "No. never." or "Absolutely not." but Not that I recall??????? Ew.

RM was living with his friend JP Chatt at the time. JP and Casey didn't like each other. I think RM probably didn't have Caylee sleeping on a couch or somewhere else because he didn't want to fight or have issues with JP.

I thought the "Not that I recall" answer sounded off in court.

 

[Infojunkie]

You know what really bothers me.... all these jurors that are talking, including the alternates are saying the EXACT same thing, in almost the EXACT same words. Why is that? Do none of them have the ability to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions? I find it perplexing that not a one of them has anything different to say?

Weird, just weird,

Salem

It just reiterates the belief that they disobeyed the court order to NOT discuss the case. They talked about it, and it's starting to look like they did since the opening statements...why else would the accident crap persist. No proof given of an accident, but they all think it was an accident. Forget all the evidence, Jose said so, so it must be true because she's young and took a few photos with her kid. GMAFB:banghead:

 

[katydid23]

Do you have any links to these comments because I watched a couple of the interviews and I may have missed the parts where any of them said they "liked Baez a lot" and thought the SA was not nice enough...
Jennifer Ford was actually very complimentary of the SA in one interview.

Dean Eckardt [sp?] the 22 yr old alternate juror said this on DateLine.

I was watching it on tv and posting here and transcribed it myself that he said
He "liked Baez's style..that he did not seem what you expect an attorney to be like."

He also said he watched Casey's body language and thought she was sincere, although she might have been acting.

And he said that he had a hard time ignoring the story of the sexual abuse because once it has ben said it is in thde back of your mind. [paraphrased that part.]

There is a link to the Dateline upthread and I will try and find it for you. But I do know it is on their website too.

 

[katydid23]

You know what really bothers me.... all these jurors that are talking, including the alternates are saying the EXACT same thing, in almost the EXACT same words. Why is that? Do none of them have the ability to think for themselves and come to their own conclusions? I find it perplexing that not a one of them has anything different to say?

Weird, just weird,

Salem

And the hinkiest part is that the alternates should not have discussed the case with any of the others. They were supposed to be separated, so now they all say WE, as the universal WE. I don't get that.

 

[kelian36]

Dean Eckardt [sp?] the 22 yr old alternate juror said this on DateLine.

I was watching it on tv and posting here and transcribed it myself that he said
He "liked Baez's style..that he did not seem what you expect an attorney to be like."

He also said he watched Casey's body language and thought she was sincere, although she might have been acting.

And he said that he had a hard time ignoring the story of the sexual abuse because once it has ben said it is in thde back of your mind. [paraphrased that part.]

There is a link to the Dateline upthread and I will try and find it for you. But I do know it is on their website too.

You got it all right, I should know, lol, I watched it twice today. This alternate juror thought Baez was cool. :banghead: This juror was a 22 year old kid. Where there other young jurors? Did the DT vote on these jurors partly for that reason?

This alternate could have been explaining a video game--he wasn't concerned in the least imo with Caylee's death.

 

[gitana1]

I know that the Nancy Grace, JVM, et al neglect to say this but deliberating 10 hours isn't all that unusual.

Juries can, and have been known to, come back in far shorter order with a verdict. Two examples which I have details to hand are Morgan Leppert (FDM, FL, 2 Hours deliberations) and Sarah Johnson (FDM, ID, 10 hours deliberations, 6 week trial, http://bit.ly/ri7HD4)

Also remember Scott Peterson (FDM, CA). After the first juror was dismissed the jury deliberated just over a day, taking Veterans' day off, before returning a verdict. The deliberations before that are irrelevant since a jury is supposed start deliberations afresh after one of their number has been excused/dismissed.

Snipped by me for space.

Hi friend! The scott peterson jury deliberated for one week. They then had to deliberate the penalty phase. That took them an additional 11 hours. They did their job and went through all of the evidence.

Of course, scott is male. Easier to convict, I suppose.

 

[gitana1]

BBM

Correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that you are of the opinion that even though the jury deliberated for a week prior to one juror being replaced that they started over from square one and are counting the deliberations from that point on in reaching a verdict.

Yes, I realize that a jury is supposed to start deliberations from the beginning if a juror is replaced. Frankly, I think it is impossible for 11 people to completely wipe the slate clean and start over as though nothing has been discussed for a week. Starting over would be - okay, new juror with us, let's take a vote. If that new juror has the same vote the majority of the original 11 that have been deliberating for one week already, then it is just reasonable that a final verdict would be shortly thereafter.

That does not erase the week they have already been deliberating. If that were the case, then case history on that particular trial would say jury deliberations were 1 day or 10 hrs (whatever the count was from the time the new juror came onto the panel). It does not, it says 8 days.

IMO

If a juror is dismissed, they do have to begin deliberations all over again because the alternate who replaces the dismissed juror was not in deliberations to begin with. However, as stated above, the scott peterson jury, the jury who reached the guilty verdict, did deliberate, with the 12, final jurors, for an entire week. uklaw is getting their guilt phase deliberations confused with their penalty phase deliberations which took an additional 11 hours.

 

[mitzi]

My understanding is that the duct tape was only stuck to her hair on one side. The duct tape over the mouth, nose is just the speculation prosecutors used to infer. IIRC. If PT had pictures of the remains with the tape over the mouth and nose they certainly would have presented such instead of a made up superimposed re-creation IMO

The superimposed 're-creation was only to show how 3 pieces of duct could have covered the mouth and nose.

The jury and those in the courtroom saw the ACTUAL PICTURES of Caylee's skull with the duct tape across the nasal holes, and mandible, attaching on both sides to the hair mat. The jury and those in the courtroom saw the picture of Caylee's skull BEFORE the duct tape was clipped off, to remove it. WE, the public, only saw the ACTUAL SKULL blurred. Where are ya'll getting the idea that the only picture of Caylee's skull seen by the jury was the superimposed re-creation? JA stated if the jury looked at the actual pix of Caylee's skull with the duct tape attached, there would be no way they would not call it a homicide.

Please, let's get this straight. Too many here have stated that the re-creation was the picture of Caylee's skull with the ductape...WRONG!

 

[mitzi]

Where was the evidence that she was a party girl? That implies someone who has a pattern of behavior. Yes, there were pictures of her but from how many different occasions? Most of them seemed to me to be from the same "hot body" contest. And IIRC there was testimony from her friends at the time that she was not a big drinker. There was nothing to firmly establish that she was a "party girl".

There were other pictures from other dates, during the 31 days...PLUS there were pictures during parties during the month before the 31 days (including KC with a US flag wrapped around her sexily), but HHJP wouldn't allow them all in because according to the defense, "they were too prejudicial!"

 

[mitzi]

He acknowledged picking it up in August as well.

No...he said he saw something that looked white and round. That's all.

 

[mitzi]

Wow. We have taken more than 10 hours on this thread discussing this...

Iornic, huh!

 

[crucibelle]

The superimposed 're-creation was only to show how 3 pieces of duct could have covered the mouth and nose.

The jury and those in the courtroom saw the ACTUAL PICTURES of Caylee's skull with the duct tape across the nasal holes, and mandible, attaching on both sides to the hair mat. The jury and those in the courtroom saw the picture of Caylee's skull BEFORE the duct tape was clipped off, to remove it. WE, the public, only saw the ACTUAL SKULL blurred. Where are ya'll getting the idea that the only picture of Caylee's skull seen by the jury was the superimposed re-creation? JA stated if the jury looked at the actual pix of Caylee's skull with the duct tape attached, there would be no way they would not call it a homicide.

Please, let's get this straight. Too many here have stated that the re-creation was the picture of Caylee's skull with the ductape...WRONG!

Bold and red by me. I just wanted to point out, that even the state's witnesses said the tape DID NOT go over the nasal hole in the skull.

 

[irishbosoxfan]

Wouldn't surprise me if one of the networks gathered the jury members and replayed elements of the SA's and DT's presentations

then stopped the tape at crucial junctures and asked jury members to individually explain what they'd drawn from the evidence to that point

If no network has plans to do so, it might be a good idea if they did, imo

Sorry I'm so late getting to this but I wanted to say I think this is a good idea. However I think they should do it individually. Find out each persons take on it.



I wanted to postsomething here I posted on another site because I read thru a lot of posts about the duct tape and how it was or wasn't stuck and figured my thoughts would fit in.

Also something else about the duct tape that doesn't seem to have been grasped at the trial...Yes the tape was on her face and yes it held the jaw in place BUT only partially. Everyone seems hung up on "Well if it wasn't sticky enough to get DNA how was it still stuck to her face?" It WASN"T stuck to her face.

The tape had been on her face while she decomposed. Because she was dead she didn't move. Animals came and ripped her body apart but were uninterested in the skull as food. Her skull at that point remained immobile. The tape was wrapped around her head and was in her hair. As the skin disintegrated, her hair fell over the tape. (Imagine you're taking a shower and drape a towel over your arm..Your arm in this scenario is the duct tape over the skull and the towel is the hair)

We now have hair on both sides of the tape and the skull isn't moving. Decomp fluids are now soaked into the hair. The skull is now sitting in mud. Mud created by the fluids of her body mixed with the dirt she laid on. Eventually there is no more fluid and everything is drying up. Bugs come and set up house in her hair, leaf debris settles on her and grass and plants start to grow under her and her hair is now a tangled mess.

The rains come and the area floods. I have honestly no idea exactly how much water was in that area (if it was enough for the skull to float or even if skulls float at all) What we do know is that the skull was found with the bag so that means the skull stayed fairly immobile.

Everything starts to dry out. The skull and hair once again become home to bugs. It's caked in mud and bugs and leaf debris and the roots that had already sprouted prior to the rains continue to grow.

So at this point the tape isn't sticky anymore. Hasn't been for awhile. But the tape is still around her face. At this point it's not being held in place by glue but the pressure of the hair mass. (Now go back to the towel you have drapped over your arm..reach down and grab the ends of the towel and pull them away from your arm. Not matter how hard you pull on the towel it's not going to come thru your arm.) So you have the tape weighed down by the hair mass caked in mud and debris with roots growing thru all of it. That's my thoughts on how the tape came to stay on her skull



And can I just say that this jury probably would've understood everything better if we had put it in play form for them. Take them to a theater and have actors act out the parts with a little cardboard cutout of Caylee that just disappears from the scenes on the 16th. Or maybe a puppet show?

 

[txsvicki]

I haven't read the whole thread, and did not and will not watch any shows with the jurors or other characters. However, I'm interested to learn if the jurors say pretty much all agree that they believe Casey is guilty of something but it's just that the evidence didn't prove it? I don't agree with any of those people making a dime, but maybe if they all get on TV ASAP before Casey has a chance, and say they thinks there's guilt it will effect her chances of making money. It would be great if any movies or books show her guilt and how she got away with murder instead of poor casey accused of murder.