2011.07.08 - Dateline NBC

[gramcracker]

Odd that the jury couldn't forget the lies about George but they totally ignored Baez saying Caylee died in the morning....err, afternoon.....err, morning...err, we may never know....no, it was morning -- in spite of the fact that Casey was, according to the defense story, right there when it happened. What kind of good mother doesn't remember the exact time that her child died?

the same kind of good mother who doesn't remember the exact time she dropped her child off at the stairs leading to Zanny's apartment (sometime between 9:00 and 1:00)

funny how both stories have the same vague estimate of the timing of the main event

The jurors just did not get what they were supposed to do. I remember the nursing student or maybe it was the 1st alternate that spoke said they were all getting together next Friday. Is that normal for jurors to get together after a trial? It just sounded weird to me. I resent this jury because they did not pay attention. Maybe they could not prove how she died, but dang it, you don't put duct tape on a child if it is an accident, you don't put them in a bag and toss them out if an accident. If this were truly an accident and GA helped dispose of the body, it would never have been duct taped and she would not have been tossed out like that. IMO had GA had anything to do with it, the baby would have been buried some place and most likely in the yard. Maybe it was an accident, but if it was, why go to the trouble of duct tape, trash bags and leaving her in the trunk until the smell is that bad?

IMO it was not an accident, KC was the only one responsible and when GA wanted his gas cans she freaked, cussed him out and dumped her baby that day.

<modsnip>.

<modsnip>_ _ _

one thing: the concept of a jury of your peers doesn't mean people w/ background, education, experience, lifestyle, etc, similar to yours. a jury of your peers is supposed to represent those who live in your community. (I live in UT and I'm not a Mormon. because they are about 90% of the population, I would expect a jury of my peers to be heavily weighted w/ Mormons rather than non-Mormons). so ... this jury was representative of ... what?
_ _ _

many are talking about not watching certain shows to demonstrate disgust w/ the outcome. does anyone know if cable/dish providers can track who watches what? can internet providers track who watches what online? does that have anything to do w/ hearing that X,000,000 tuned in to the Super Bowl, the Rose Parade, etc? surely all those millions are not Nielsen families. because I would sooooo willingly boycott even more networks/shows than I plan on doing if I knew that my non-viewership was being tallied somehow, and noticed. (which is proving a negative, but I hope you know what I mean). TIA

 

[Yellow]

One of you asked whether it is the case that the jurors think she is guilty but they could not prove it. Fact is, and I think this is what has people so outraged, they are not really saying that. Although in soundbites they spin that line, I take all of them coming out so far as saying that they believe it was an accident and George was involved some how in the coverup.

I think if they simply said yeah, we believe it COULD have been an accident (a 5 percent chance) and that Casey covered it up, there would not be as much of an outrage. But they are not saying that, they are implying that the accident scenario is at least a 50 percent probability and not only was there an accident but George was also involved, that is what is so baffling !

They all seem to say Casey MIGHT have been involved but her involvement was probably limited to just covering up the accident. They are pretty much discounting all evidence about the duct tape and car smell. They do not think the body was in the car!

 

[2goldfish]

I am not just picking on the Jurors - when they come out in public and make statements, those statements are fair game, public record and open for debate:innocent:
I am, well at a loss of words by Jennifer Ford saying this:

Did she/they not read past the first sentence on the first page?
And this re: Nancy Grace:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anthony_trial/casey-anthony-juror-nancy-grace-verdict/story?id=14017505
By KATIE KINDELAN and CHRISTINA NG - July 7, 2011

Yes, they reached a verdict but I do not have to say that I think they went over the evidence, made the right decision, understood the jury instructions, took the case seriously nor that they came up with the correct verdict. My opinion about this defendant being guilty is not based on speculation and opinions. It's based on reading forensic evidence for days in order to get close to understanding it and listening to audio and reading for hours upon hours evidence that this Jury obviously didn't spend the time to go over.

So yes I think they talked - IMO this verdict was not a collective consciousness epiphany type event arrived at after a few hours of deliberation.

why was this juror opining about nancy grace anyways? according to her voir dire, she didnt watch her show and knew nothing at all about the case.

 

[uklaw]

why was this juror opining about nancy grace anyways? according to her voir dire, she didnt watch her show and knew nothing at all about the case.

I wondered that. But I am pretty sure if she didn't know about the case before she was swore in she went and googled it when she got home. Also her friends and fan would have said "Nancy grace said..." And prob refer them to recorded shows. She would also see the criticism after verdict

 

[eleni777]

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

RK picked up the bottom of the bag up twice and shook it (not hard) but he says that he shook it.. that's how the skull fell out and then he used his meter reader stick to move it a bit so he could make sure it was what he thought it was: a SKULL...he never picked the skull up with the stick but he did manipulate it a bit.

All of his interviews are on you.tube..just go there and search his name.

 

[Angelonline]

IMO Baez was extremely lucky when this jury was picked, because they found 12 citizens (maybe even 17) that all had the same mentality as him! I never thought for a minute there was anyone who could understand JB's rhetoric, much less like him... Just odd IMO, very very odd! 12-17 people who not only thought JB's story was truthful, but apparently also thought he was a good lawyer ?? and thought ICA seemed sincere??
Geez, I feel like I am in an alternate universe or something!!!!

 

[SunnieRN]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilly Willy
Can you cite one other case ever in which someone tried to make a child's accidental death look like a murder?[/QUOTE]

BBM
...and this is EXACTLY when common sense takes over and when coupled with a ton of circumstantial evidence.. becomes enough to determine guilt. We ALL make judgments every moment of our days and rarely do we have "all the facts" or information laid out for us in a neat tidy row to make determinations on. Casey is GUILTY. Her behavior, her actions...the evidence that does exist, in conjunction with common sense ... all tells us so. Would I convict her on the death penalty for what I believe? No..there are variables involved, primarily the premeditation vs impulse of the murder. Would I convict her on a lesser murder charge based on what my own common sense tells me in spite of not knowing for sure if premeditation was involved??????? YEEEEEEES

I might not know all the ins and outs of why and how she did it ... but for whatever reason... she DID do it.. she covered up a murder. Whether she had help or not.. is a moot point for me. She COVERED UP A CHILD"S MURDER. The dead child was in HER car that she drove around constantly. We are supposed to believe that George loaded the baby in HER car.. left the child's body in there for DAYS and when Casey noticed the smell she never connected her dead child could be in her trunk? Gimme a freaking break. She alone did NOT call the police. She did NOT seek help from anyone. Instead she had fun. Those photos do not lie, her friends did not lie.. she had FUN in those 31 days. She enjoyed herself, completely and without reservation. She alone was responsible for that child. She died on HER watch.. and NO one tries to make an accidental death look like a murder when it can be traced back to yourself so easily and then holds on to that lie for over three years when the child's body is found and then is arrested, charged and in prison. NO ONE!!!!!!!!! And this folks.. is where common sense comes in to full play.. SHE IS GUILTY. End of story.

Pat

Yes I can name another case. In fact it's a case that has never even had the chance to be prosecuted. That on JonBenet Ramsey.

 

[technicalconfusion]

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

Read this post. There are links there to testimony discussing this exact issue. It's very clear even if you don't see the pictures.


[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6885002#post6885002"]Did the jury get it wrong, or... - Page 49 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

Some of the pics the jury saw are here, but the skull has been blurred for the public. It wasn't in the courtroom:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...ony-crime-scene-photos,0,1630574.photogallery

 

[com n sense]

One of you asked whether it is the case that the jurors think she is guilty but they could not prove it. Fact is, and I think this is what has people so outraged, they are not really saying that. Although in soundbites they spin that line, I take all of them coming out so far as saying that they believe it was an accident and George was involved some how in the coverup.

I think if they simply said yeah, we believe it COULD have been an accident (a 5 percent chance) and that Casey covered it up, there would not be as much of an outrage. But they are not saying that, they are implying that the accident scenario is at least a 50 percent probability and not only was there an accident but George was also involved, that is what is so baffling !

They all seem to say Casey MIGHT have been involved but her involvement was probably limited to just covering up the accident. They are pretty much discounting all evidence about the duct tape and car smell. They do not think the body was in the car!

There was a snippet of Juror #3 a day after the verdict. Her first snippet she said "it could have been an accidennt, there wasn't any proof it wasn't A few hours later they showed another snippet & by that time she knew of the horror most were feeing about their decision.
I think she was trying to cover herself when she said "I didn't say I thought she was innocent".
An ult juror was interveiwed outside just after the verdict. He said he never believed there was a body in the car, they all were suspicius of George, and they all believed it was a"" horrific accident that smowballed"" Sound fimiliar?
They didn't believe there was enough evidence but yet they don't think she's innocent. They all were crying a feeling sick yet the checked off NG.
Sounds to me like they knew she was guilty & Baez story didn't fit but for some reason I will never understand did not convict.

 

[okiedokietoo]

He acknowledged picking it up in August as well.

Nope Never got close enough to touch anything in August -

 

[Serjen]

Yes, that alt. juror watched her 'body language' and decided she was SINCERE.
I guess it didn't matter that she lied her arse off for 31 days. Because he watched her close and she looked sincere to him. I just cannot get past that moronic statement. How can the biggest PROVEN LIAR in the nation be given the label "SINCERE" by one of the jurors?

That juror should feel like a moron for saying that out loud...Even her own defense team told the world that their client was a pathological liar who wouldn't know the truth if it was smacking her in the face. And he comes out and calls her 'sincere'. No words.

 

[Just Jayla]

Yup...that's exactly what they are calling the "CSI effect'. The jury expects all of the forensic evidence to unfold just like it does in a 1 hr fictional TV show. Scary, isn't it? :waitasec:

Yeppers. I was in a waiting room Friday evening and the TV had some CSI-type show playing....on the show, a guy walks in and tells his co-workers that he found a tooth, and that he carbon-dated (or something like that) the tooth and it was 23-24 years old, not 22 years old, so it must have been a different culprit. I am sure by the end of the show the dude was right, they were off by a year on the tooth and they caught the real killer, not the original suspect.
I wanted to swing like an orangutan on that TV until it came out of the wall, I was a little irked.
Also a little irked that people ignore the point of the show '48Hours'...that when a body is left in a swamp for more than 48 hours, let alone more than 48 days...the likelihood of gathering the evidence that will lead to a killer plummets. I had always thought that, fortunately, in this case the cops had an easy answer as to who did it even beyond the "First 48."
Too bad the jury was still off somewhere looking at the 22 year old tooth.

 

[Serjen]

RK picked up the bottom of the bag up twice and shook it (not hard) but he says that he shook it.. that's how the skull fell out and then he used his meter reader stick to move it a bit so he could make sure it was what he thought it was: a SKULL...he never picked the skull up with the stick but he did manipulate it a bit.

All of his interviews are on you.tube..just go there and search his name.

His first story was that he shook the bag and the skull rolled out. His second story was that the skull never actually rolled out of the bag, and that he just used his meter stick to tilt it but never picked it up. He told 2 separate stories. I think the first WAS a lie and like Ashton said, he was trying to make it sound more dramatic by saying the skull rolled out. When he realized there was no way for the to have happened based on the root growth and whatnot, then he admitted it never actually rolled out.

 

[mitzi]

Does he even know the definition of sincere?
I think not.

bold mine

Psssst....I think he thought it meant 'hot'. *rolleyes*

 

[Melanie]

That juror should feel like a moron for saying that out loud...Even her own defense team told the world that their client was a pathological liar who wouldn't know the truth if it was smacking her in the face. And he comes out and calls her 'sincere'. No words.

Did they not hear JB say "lying slunt", not once, not twice, but 3 times? Now she's sincere? Maybe it was the frilly shirts and lowering her chair all those days. If that's what it takes to get away with murder, the world is in BIG trouble.

MOO

Mel

 

[Hot Dogs]

His first story was that he shook the bag and the skull rolled out. His second story was that the skull never actually rolled out of the bag, and that he just used his meter stick to tilt it but never picked it up. He told 2 separate stories. I think the first WAS a lie and like Ashton said, he was trying to make it sound more dramatic by saying the skull rolled out. When he realized there was no way for the to have happened based on the root growth and whatnot, then he admitted it never actually rolled out.

There were more than two stories. Others include...

He kicked the bag and the skull came out.

He tore a hole in the bag with his meter reader rod and the skull came out.

 

[mitzi]

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.

Yes, but the nasal 'holes' on a skull are higher up on the skull than the nasal openings in a person's nose, when there is skin and an actual nose on the skull, so yeah, it didn't cover the nasal holes in the skull, but picture a child's head with a nose, and their 'nostrils' are closer to the mouth.

Hope I explained that properly.

 

[mitzi]

RK picked up the bottom of the bag up twice and shook it (not hard) but he says that he shook it.. that's how the skull fell out and then he used his meter reader stick to move it a bit so he could make sure it was what he thought it was: a SKULL...he never picked the skull up with the stick but he did manipulate it a bit.

All of his interviews are on you.tube..just go there and search his name.

Just to make clear, I was responding to what RK saw/did on August 11th.
You are referring to December 11th.
Two different days.

Also, not that this was made clear, but it seems to clear it up for me....On Dec. 11th 2008, when Roy K. found Caylee's remains, he said he picked up the bag, something shifted in the bag, and when he looked down on the ground, he saw the skull. So, I can surmise that Roy at that time "thought" that the skull rolled out of the bag....but what if what really occurred was that Roy 'thought' the skull rolled out because he picked up the bag and he thought this because some other bones 'shifted' in the bag. Maybe the skull was already on the ground, beneath the bag.

 

[LambChop]

RK picked up the bottom of the bag up twice and shook it (not hard) but he says that he shook it.. that's how the skull fell out and then he used his meter reader stick to move it a bit so he could make sure it was what he thought it was: a SKULL...he never picked the skull up with the stick but he did manipulate it a bit.

All of his interviews are on you.tube..just go there and search his name.

RK said he shook what was in the bag, looked down, saw the skull and then dropped the bag. Don't forget the skull was rooted to the ground with plant growth. So it could not have possibly fallen out of the bag. RA said RK likes to embellish a bit. jmo

 

[JBounds]

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

I wouldn't doubt the jury will get together with Casey in some interview and have one big party afterwards, since they loved her so much and thought she was so sincere.