2011.07.08 - Dateline NBC

[crucibelle]

What happens to duct tape when it is stuck to a garbage bag and left in a hot car trunk OR a steaming hot summer dumpsite? IT MELTS TOGETHER WITH THE THIN PLASTIC BAG. There is no way that tape would come loose from the bag and still have any adhesive.

That tape was on the baby's face. That tape held the mandible in place. I do not understand how they can ignore the mandible in their rejectionm of the duct tape evidence.

They might have rejected it, because one of the state's expert witnesses said the mandible was being held on by roots. One of the expert witnesses (don't know if it was state or defense) said it was the hair holding it to the skull. I think Dr. G said it was the tape, but I'm not sure.

 

[Chilly Willy]

As far as I know, the SP jury was sequestered only during deliberations.

Right. I recall Juror #5 in the SP case (the side salad guy) got in trouble for talking to one of the lawyers on his way into the court house one day, and was eventually thrown off the jury.

 

[LambChop]

I have seen some pretty extensive 'talking' with no cuts. For example on Nightline, the lady juror spoke for quite some time, answering extensively, no interruptions, no cutting and editing. And it made her look sketchy, imo. She contradicted herself and sounded very confused.

And that makes me angry because they should not be 'confused.' They had a responsibility to deliberate, look into facts they were unsure about, and delve into anything that was 'confusing.' If they reached this verdict on day 3 or 4 then I would be respectful of their decision. But they deliberated about 7 hours if you subtract the lunch hours. That was not enough because the ones I have heard interviewed have said things that go against the jury instructions. But whatever. The Lord works in mysterious ways. I think Casey Marie is in for a rude awakening if she thinks she is going to waltz her way into La Bella Vita.

I think they deliberated less than 7 hours because some of the jurors were dressed up, when they had been dressing casually during the trial, as if they expected to finish up that day. By the time they settled in, finished up on the paperwork, then sat and talked about how they would handle the media after being released (and we just know they did) it probably was close to lunch. They finished lunch and there you have it. Having served on a jury I'm guessing they spent a total of 3 hours tops. Nothing wrong with this if they all agreed on the evidence. If some of the juror's had questions and were admonished for speaking up about those questions then there was a real problem. We already know there was a heated debate about the voting and the silence of the other jurors makes you wonder what really happened here. jmo

 

[LambChop]

They might have rejected it, because one of the state's expert witnesses said the mandible was being held on by roots. One of the expert witnesses (don't know if it was state or defense) said it was the hair holding it to the skull. I think Dr. G said it was the tape, but I'm not sure.

But when you think about it the roots cannot grown through flesh but they were growing through the skull. Once the tissue starts to decompose the mandible will fall off. The hair was tangled with the duct tape. It's really amazing they found it the way they did. But anyone with common sense would have to believe Dr. G. because she was on the scene. However does Dr. Spitz' suggestion that someone took the skull home and put the mandible back exactly in the right position, taped it with weathered tape that had been exposed to the environment for 6 months, somehow managed to find a hairmass and placed it so it appears it is tangled within the duct tape and then placed it back at the scene so plant growth could grow through it within two weeks and that sounds like common sense. Whewww. I guess I would have trouble with that as a juror. jmo

 

[Nefriahaia]

I bet Scott Peterson wishes he had lived in Florida.

Post of the Day!! :takeabow:

 

[aeneas1]

"she seems sincere, but again you don't know if she's acting..."

clearly the keen mind you want on the jury, someone able to deftly process the mountains of evidence regarding casey's non-stop lies and come away with "she seems sincere...". no doubt other jurors felt the same as this savant...

 

[kimmera]

See said they just sat own and were dumbfounded at the question of how Caylee died.

:waitasec:

I think Dr. G explained it without having to mention DNA, hairs, trunks, smells, partying, molestation, or anything else when she stated simply:

Didn't call in a drowning: Homicide
Trashed the baby: Homicide
Duct tape on a child's face: Homicide

And, IMO, Dr. Spitz did nothing to refute that. It was that simple for the jury, they chose not to see it that way because they wanted some huge uber-scientific, "ah -hah" epiphany.

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:

 

[crimesnooper]

No, not at all. But whe a PT puts forth the evidence and it does not support their theory then I think there should be a not guilty verdict regardless of one's emotions.

But what you are saying is if you are emtoionally involved you can not make a decision based on the evidence and leave your emotionalism out. And I beg to diifer. I think it's completely possible and the right thing to do. You seem to keep arguing that if people feel the state proved its case, then we are all just emotional. So please hear me. I think the state proved it case. Not for murder 1 but for the second and third charge. And it is based on how I viewed the evidence, not on the emotions surrounding the case. And frankly like you, I have not been particularly emotionally invested. more fasinated than anything.

 

[2goldfish]

Can you imagine being the child of one of these jurors?

Mom: "Okay, who ate the cookies after I told you not to?"

Child: "It wasn't me."

Mom: "Well then, I don't know what happened to them. Now go wash those crumbs off your face and let's get you ready for bed."

I laughed at that then burst into tears. that's EXACTLY what these jurors did.

:sick:

 

[aeneas1]

I bet Scott Peterson wishes he had lived in Florida.

well only two states in the country have a lower high school graduation rate than florida, an ugly statistic which casey has obviously contributed to. i guess scott had the bad luck of being tried in a state with a 68% high school grad rate compared to florida's 59% rate...

 

[aeneas1]

Can you imagine being the child of one of these jurors?

Mom: "Okay, who ate the cookies after I told you not to?"

Child: "It wasn't me."

Mom: "Well then, I don't know what happened to them. Now go wash those crumbs off your face and let's get you ready for bed."

priceless.

 

[Mosby]

"she seems sincere, but again you don't know if she's acting..."

clearly the keen mind you want on the jury, someone able to deftly process the mountains of evidence regarding casey's non-stop lies and come away with "she seems sincere...". no doubt other jurors felt the same as this savant...

LOL and spot on!

All of these jurors should be ashamed to show their faces let alone make the most ridiculous statements EVER in public. Is it really possible that they don't realize how downright idiotic they sound. Really?

I think at 30 bucks a day they were way overpaid. They did not follow the instructions they were given. They did not follow the law. They did not do their job.

 

[Nefriahaia]

Idiocracy, folks. It has finally come to pass. :waitasec: :doh: :dunno:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiocracy"]Idiocracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[Mosby]

I find it interesting that both the jurors and the alternate jurors we've heard from so far tend to use the same phrases, such as KC was a 'good mom' and George was 'evasive' and 'combative'. Seems too contrived. Looks like they got their stories straight.

These people 'pre-deliberated' in the comfort of their hotel rooms.

BBM

They absolutely did. On the day of LDB's closing argument, knowing that they were going to get the case that day, it was reported that some of them were dressed up for the first time. Thought they were going home that day!

No "reasonable doubt" about it.

 

[Mosby]

True, but saying that to someone who thinks Irish babies come with accents, I dunno....

:floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:

 

[katydid23]

They might have rejected it, because one of the state's expert witnesses said the mandible was being held on by roots. One of the expert witnesses (don't know if it was state or defense) said it was the hair holding it to the skull. I think Dr. G said it was the tape, but I'm not sure.

But that is so frustrating because the roots would take months to grow into place to keep the mandible together. SOMETHING had to be holding it together in the very beginning. Like maybe the TAPE !!!

 

[aeneas1]

"why would casey kill her daughter when there wasn't any evidence of prior abuse... she was a loving mom."

i guess he missed the part about casey not having worked a day in caylee's life to support her, that she had left this parental task up to george and cindy. or the part about her kicking back with her bf the same day caylee "drowned". honestly, were these jurors plucked from the fire sale rack? good grief.

 

[katydid23]

I think they deliberated less than 7 hours because some of the jurors were dressed up, when they had been dressing casually during the trial, as if they expected to finish up that day. By the time they settled in, finished up on the paperwork, then sat and talked about how they would handle the media after being released (and we just know they did) it probably was close to lunch. They finished lunch and there you have it. Having served on a jury I'm guessing they spent a total of 3 hours tops. Nothing wrong with this if they all agreed on the evidence. If some of the juror's had questions and were admonished for speaking up about those questions then there was a real problem. We already know there was a heated debate about the voting and the silence of the other jurors makes you wonder what really happened here. jmo

Juror #3 said that on the first vote TWO VOTED GUILTY FOR FIRST DEGREE MURDER. Ten for not guilty. And later it was 6 voting guilty for manslaughter.

So how did those two who initially voted guilty on murder one end up voting for her acquittal?

 

[katydid23]

I found it interesting when CM gave JC the interview ( snippets aired on HLN) when she asked him to describe KC,
he actually states she was always cleaning the defense table like it was her job. He then states he remembers her
friends testifying to the same about her cleaning the apartment, doing the laundry, ect...
Sounded like he was trying to imply this was a "positive" trait. Maybe he was, or, maybe he wasn't but that was the impression I got.
I instantly thought it sounded more like her m-o to me. Always trying to endear people to throw off suspicion. JG
and his dad also gave me that impression about her.

If CM fell for this maybe the rest of the defense did too. I dunno
But I would like to remind them that Ted Bundy actually worked a suicide hotline before ...well...
we all know how that played out.
Just my 2 cents.

Then did he ever find it odd that her car trunk was full of old garbage from Tony's apt---like an old tin full of spit tobacco and old food wrappers?

WHY would she complain about the smell in her car and then leave bags of old garbage in the trunk? Especially if she was such a clean freak.

 

[JBounds]

The thing these jurors overlook is good mothers and fathers kill their children all the time. It happens unfortunatley. I've brought this up before but Susan Smith was proved to be a good mother and never abused her children, yet she drowned her kids in the lake. The list goes on.

I swear these jurors act like they live on a cloud somewhere that it doesn't happen and Casey lived with them there at this magical place. So that must mean she couldn't have done it. It just tells me they had their minds made up about her from the start.