2011.07.08 - Dateline NBC

[IRule254]

I always thought the day TL came in to testify that KC mustve hated her
awful clothes and librarian hairdo she had on :floorlaugh:

Its clear to see how vain she is. When she thought she was scot free she sure dropped the ruffled blouses and bun hair style FAST.

I demand you retract this statements on behalf of myself and librarians everywhere!

 

[mamatimeless]

No, he was an alternate juror.

 

[Hisimage]

This young alternate juror is unbelievable. I think he was totally taken by our Miss Casey.

Says "I'm young, I like to go out," didn't see Casey as a party girl, just your average young girl.

Said "the 31 days were wrong, but THE LAW SAYS you can't go on emotion." Are you kidding me. It is not EMOTION that makes it wrong to not report your child missing for 31 days.

"There was no blood, there was no decomp in the trunk." Might have helped if they would have actually asked to SEE the trunk liner up close.

"Why would you use chloroform AND duct tape, doesn't make sense." I didn't know that EITHER ONE of them, either single or together, would make sense with a little child.

He liked Baez's style and Casey's body language seemed sincere.

Sounds to me he was more interested in Casey's hitting him up when she got out.

Perhaps he is the one some of you saw her winking at?

 

[Robinez]

Exactly - the 2 things that didn't need to be proven. Even if they understood the instructions that those 2 things didn't need to be proven doesn't mean that they didn't WANT to hear them. I think that is where they felt the reasonable doubt came in. It seems the whole trial didn't make sense to them without the motive and cause of death. Maybe there is a better way to word juror instructions, I don't know. Even excluding the things I know that weren't shown at trial, I think I would have voted to convict on at least child abuse and manslaughter.

Jeff Ashton said as soon as he heard innocent on the child abuse he knew they were going to let her off. He said he accepts that they didn't see the evidence of the duck tape and her disposal in the swamp the same way he did.

One person (I think it was the young alt. juror) didn't understand why someone would use duck tape if they wanted to smother someone else.

As distastefull as it may sound, this would point me in the direction of ICA. Smothering is very personal. It takes mins to do it while the victim is fighting.

ICA was too close to the victim and chose Ductape instead. Put it on and walk away. After all, she is the kinda gal that walks away..

TC, Robin

 

[Nefriahaia]

Was he the one she was making goo-goo eyes at during trial? Yeah, go ahead and hit that. You'll be waking up with a choloroform headache and duct tape stuck in your hair.

:floorlaugh:

 

[Robinez]

Me too. I would also like to hear what any of them have to say after hearing about some of the other evidence that wasn't allowed at trial - theft from Amy, theft from her mother, that she had Amy believing that the house was going to be given to her, the reason given for the break-up with Jesse, that the current bf told her he didn't want Caylee spending the night, that she didn't help look for Caylee when she was out on bail (or even talk about her), what Tim said about how the family acted when he had his team there......and even about the fight if Shirley Plesse(?) will say Cindy told her about it.

This brings me back to dual discovery. I am not sure that was such a good idea on the prosecuters end....

 

[borndem]

Right. It all seemed to hinge on why and how for them. Even though the state didn't have to show motive, they all looked for it and they couldn't figure out what it could be. That's why they should have introduced more that showed the relationship - and that ICA's current boyfriend didn't want C***** staying over.

It seems to me, that ICA was able to kill three birds with one stone:

1. Get back at her mother for wanting her to be home by 11:00, and wanting her to be a better mother (it's called "responsibility," ICA)
2. Take care of the little-CA-at-boyfriend's-house problem
3. Free up her hours for late-night partying

 

[uklaw]

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))

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.

The fact of the matter is quite simply that juries can and do return verdicts quickly even in long cases. I don't agree with it since I believe that it can lead to a rush to convict.

However, people on this board would have no qualms if the jury came back with a conviction in the period of time which they did. Indeed, I bet my bottom dollar you would all be arguing that this indicated how "clear" the evidence was and that it was "obvious she done it".

What people are really annoyed at is the verdict itself, not how quickly it was returned.

But what is the point in trying someone if your not going to accept any verdict apart from Guilty? (See caveat contained in footnote)


FOOTNOTE:
I would understand if the evidence was so clear that nobody could look at the evidence and say that there was any doubt that she was guilty but as much as you would like this to be this is not one of those cases (compare with Joseph Smith's murder of Carlie Brucia and John Couey's murder of Jessica Longsford). Indeed, as has been pointed out by many (including one of the verified attorney's on this board), the evidence of pre-meditation was far from iron-clad to say the least.

 

[Malini2001]

If he was the same one I remember from a day or so ago he is Alt 4

I just listened again to the part where he is introduced. They did call him Alt 4 - I think Dean something....can't understand his last name.

Actually, he sounds pretty well-spoken for a guy his age. Explained his thought process pretty well - not that I agree with him. He did say although he tried to look at ICA's body language, he realized she could be acting. I think he is typical of the current generation with a short attention span. He liked Baez's style....need I say more?

 

[feddup]

This young alternate juror is unbelievable. I think he was totally taken by our Miss Casey.

Says "I'm young, I like to go out," didn't see Casey as a party girl, just your average young girl.

Said "the 31 days were wrong, but THE LAW SAYS you can't go on emotion." Are you kidding me. It is not EMOTION that makes it wrong to not report your child missing for 31 days.

"There was no blood, there was no decomp in the trunk." Might have helped if they would have actually asked to SEE the trunk liner up close.

"Why would you use chloroform AND duct tape, doesn't make sense." I didn't know that EITHER ONE of them, either single or together, would make sense with a little child.

He liked Baez's style and Casey's body language seemed sincere.

Sounds to me he was more interested in Casey's hitting him up when she got out.

I know!! I could not believe he would say OK for KC to go out and party, well, did he wonder WHO was watching Caylee? In the pics, does he see a Caylee? NO
I thought this was explained to them that those pics were taken when no one had ever seen a "Nanny" and CA had not seen Caylee for 31 days?
I really do not understand these jurors.
Andfrom what he said: they really bought into KC's library look and body language. Guess he never saw her laughting, etc during court.

I found the vid here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032600/#/43691568

 

[uklaw]

Perhaps he is the one some of you saw her winking at?

She was winking at the jurors? Before jury selection, I thought she would try her girly charms (I can't think of a better phrase atm) to woo some of the younger male jurors. However, I never thought she would be so blatant about. Surprised LDB didn't object.

The other problem of course for ICA, was that there really wasn't any young male jurors them on the actual jury itself.

 

[feddup]

I demand you retract this statements on behalf of myself and librarians everywhere!

oops! lol I didnt know how else to describe the hairdo!

I alled her hair style the other day the pole dancer look s Im now going to apologise to the Pole dancer ladies out there too:innocent:

 

[IRule254]

oops! lol I didnt know how else to describe the hairdo!

I alled her hair style the other day the pole dancer look s Im now going to apologise to the Pole dancer ladies out there too:innocent:

LOL :floorlaugh:

At least I am not a pole dancing librarian who created the ultra-fantastic "bump it"

 

[BeagleMom]

This young alternate juror is unbelievable. I think he was totally taken by our Miss Casey.

Says "I'm young, I like to go out," didn't see Casey as a party girl, just your average young girl.

Said "the 31 days were wrong, but THE LAW SAYS you can't go on emotion." Are you kidding me. It is not EMOTION that makes it wrong to not report your child missing for 31 days.

"There was no blood, there was no decomp in the trunk." Might have helped if they would have actually asked to SEE the trunk liner up close.

"Why would you use chloroform AND duct tape, doesn't make sense." I didn't know that EITHER ONE of them, either single or together, would make sense with a little child.

He liked Baez's style and Casey's body language seemed sincere.

Sounds to me he was more interested in Casey's hitting him up when she got out.

This guy was totally smitten by KC (I think I wrote that in one of my summaries of this dateline). He completely bought into her act. During the first part of the interview he sounded grounded and thoughtful. But, once the conversation moved from the crime to the defendant, his testesterone took over.

Oh, the other thing both the jurors said more than once was "there wasn't a smoking gun." There wasn't fingerprints, DNA, etc.

I do hope all the jurors are inquiring as to why there is so much publicity surrounding their verdict. I hope they research everything. I hope they find this website and use it's resources and if they (as individual jurors) determine down the line, that maybe they did not understand their role as jurors, I hope they share how this has affected them.

I am so afraid that what happened in this case will open the door for similar situations to occur in courtrooms around the country.

Oh, I just wish my heart weren't so heavy....

Sincerely,
BeagleMom

 

[borndem]

Beth Karas was on, think she said KC will owe State about 191K.

I missed very first part.

BBM
Hmmmm....sounds like they're gonna need to triple the first printing of ICA'$ book.... Title suggestions, folks?

How to be a Successful Partying Parent or

101 Uses for Duct Tape or
what???

 

[IRule254]

This young alternate juror is unbelievable. I think he was totally taken by our Miss Casey.

Says "I'm young, I like to go out," didn't see Casey as a party girl, just your average young girl.

Said "the 31 days were wrong, but THE LAW SAYS you can't go on emotion." Are you kidding me. It is not EMOTION that makes it wrong to not report your child missing for 31 days.

"There was no blood, there was no decomp in the trunk." Might have helped if they would have actually asked to SEE the trunk liner up close.

"Why would you use chloroform AND duct tape, doesn't make sense." I didn't know that EITHER ONE of them, either single or together, would make sense with a little child.

He liked Baez's style and Casey's body language seemed sincere.

Sounds to me he was more interested in Casey's hitting him up when she got out.

Chlorofom to put her to sleep and then duct tape to kill her so she wouldnt have to "watch" her die, she would die in her "sleep"
MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO ME. Geez. What were these jurors smoking?

 

[Littleone48]

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.

The fact of the matter is quite simply that juries can and do return verdicts quickly even in long cases. I don't agree with it since I believe that it can lead to a rush to convict.

However, people on this board would have no qualms if the jury came back with a conviction in the period of time which they did. Indeed, I bet my bottom dollar you would all be arguing that this indicated how "clear" the evidence was and that it was "obvious she done it".

What people are really annoyed at is the verdict itself, not how quickly it was returned.

But what is the point in trying someone if your not going to accept any verdict apart from Guilty? (See caveat contained in footnote)


FOOTNOTE:
I would understand if the evidence was so clear that nobody could look at the evidence and say that there was any doubt that she was guilty but as much as you would like this to be this is not one of those cases (compare with Joseph Smith's murder of Carlie Brucia and John Couey's murder of Jessica Longsford). Indeed, as has been pointed out by many (including one of the verified attorney's on this board), the evidence of pre-meditation was far from iron-clad to say the least.

I would like to know why we are retrying the case all over again? Will it change anything? No. It is what it is and none of this will change this case. All this is doing is feeding into the media frenzy. It will also make people think twice about serving on any jury.

I have noticed that JA is getting more comfortable with going against the system (what we haven't heard is what the D Team was not allowed to have in) which makes me very uncomfortable. JG has also changed his story depending on who is interviewing him or they are showing the interviews in whole.

All IMO

 

[milliac]

in in no way meant to insinuate they could not read or write... I just meant that, in my opinion, they did not give the instructions the proper weight in their decision.. and also did not fully consider six weeks of circumstantial evidence (re: ten hours of deliberations... with breaks thrown in there):twocents:

Everyone is talking about jury instructions. From what I can find, the jury instructions consist of can you exclude all, partial, or or none of the witness's testimony. all I found was one page. Is this what they should apply to each piece of evidence and testimony. Ohhh....man i'm not ignorant, but I wish there was some kind of logical matrix the jurors could have had to help. It sounds like they were lost and confused. No direction, so they just winged it. So sad that they didn't feel they could investigate and ask questions. Who pressured them for a quick decision? There was no hurry. If it was 6-6 for manslaughter, who caved, pressured others, and why?

 

[uklaw]

I would like to know why we are retrying the case all over again? Will it change anything? No. It is what it is and none of this will change this case. All this is doing is feeding into the media frenzy. It will also make people think twice about serving on any jury.

I have noticed that JA is getting more comfortable with going against the system (what we haven't heard is what the D Team was not allowed to have in) which makes me very uncomfortable. JG has also changed his story depending on who is interviewing him or they are showing the interviews in whole.

All IMO

BBM1: If that doesn't certainly the hateful comments and threats levelled against these jurors will. You saw how few jurors got through the hardship stage of this jury selection and the number of cop outs (not saying I blame them). The only ppl willing to serve on a jury in a case like this will be fame-seekers.

BBM2: I don't understand. Can you clarify please?

 

[mom2pt]

This young alternate juror is unbelievable. I think he was totally taken by our Miss Casey.

Says "I'm young, I like to go out," didn't see Casey as a party girl, just your average young girl.

Said "the 31 days were wrong, but THE LAW SAYS you can't go on emotion." Are you kidding me. It is not EMOTION that makes it wrong to not report your child missing for 31 days.

"There was no blood, there was no decomp in the trunk." Might have helped if they would have actually asked to SEE the trunk liner up close.

"Why would you use chloroform AND duct tape, doesn't make sense." I didn't know that EITHER ONE of them, either single or together, would make sense with a little child.

He liked Baez's style and Casey's body language seemed sincere.

Sounds to me he was more interested in Casey's hitting him up when she got out.

Ditto to everything you said. He definitely seemed interested in Casey.