Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[Sustained]

As much as I believe the prosecution proved their case, their biggest mistake was not to explain to the jurors in closing statements how to evaluate circumstantial evidence, both behavioral and forensic.

I read in another thread that Florida law does not require (I don't know if it allows it or not) an explanation of the meaning of circumstantial evidence.

In this case, contrary to the prior post, ALL the evidence for Casey 's guilt or innocence on murder, manslaughter, and child neglect was circumstantial. Some of the circumstantial evidence was based on forensics (duct tape, decomposing body in the trunk, search for chloroform) and some behavioral.

For example, the placement of the duct tape is not direct evidence that Casey killed Caylee with duct tape, But circumstantial.

There was direct evidence that Casey lied to LE, both eyewitness and recordings.

The jury ignored all the behavioral evidence on Casey's guilt. They also did not seriously examine the forensic evidence but went along with Baez' false assertion that since there were conflicting opinions by expert, that by itself constitutes reasonable doubt.

In hindsight, I believe the State should have spent some time explaining the difference between circumstantial and direct evidence and that the jury would have to draw inferences or solve the puzzle laid out. They also could have mentioned the lesser charges. Certainly, if CM could bring out his reasonable doubt-o-meter, the State could've cited Scott Petersen's case among others .

 

[Peepers]

I have listened to juror number 3 and the foreman over and over, I dont like the verdict, but I can see why they came to the NG verdict. Juror number 3 was spot on when she said they looked at all of the evidence without emotion. When you take the emotion out of it and look at in the legal sense, there was alot missing on the prosecution side. The focus on her behavior is ludicrous. Of course its odd, weird, nuts, uncaring, whatever, put it does not prove how Caylee died and when and where KC threw her in the woods. Maybe we should focus on the fact that half the US was looking for a missing child who was about 100 feet from their house the whole time. LE dropped the ball. The standard of proof is much higher in a courtroom than it is here.

 

[WillChgo]

I have listened to juror number 3 and the foreman over and over, I dont like the verdict, but I can see why they came to the NG verdict. Juror number 3 was spot on when she said they looked at all of the evidence without emotion. When you take the emotion out of it and look at in the legal sense, there was alot missing on the prosecution side. The focus on her behavior is ludicrous. Of course its odd, weird, nuts, uncaring, whatever, put it does not prove how Caylee died and when and where KC threw her in the woods. Maybe we should focus on the fact that half the US was looking for a missing child who was about 100 feet from their house the whole time. LE dropped the ball. The standard of proof is much higher in a courtroom than it is here.

The problem with juror 3 and your argument is that the prosecution does NOT have to prove the how, when, and where.

The prosecution only has to prove the what- that a murder or manslaughter occurred and the who- that Casey did it.

It is misguided to say that the focus on her behavior evidence is ludicrous. You can interpret it on other ways, as did the DT, but IMO it is not responsible to just ignore it.

 

[sacrablue]

I have listened to juror number 3 and the foreman over and over, I dont like the verdict, but I can see why they came to the NG verdict. Juror number 3 was spot on when she said they looked at all of the evidence without emotion. When you take the emotion out of it and look at in the legal sense, there was alot missing on the prosecution side. The focus on her behavior is ludicrous. Of course its odd, weird, nuts, uncaring, whatever, put it does not prove how Caylee died and when and where KC threw her in the woods. Maybe we should focus on the fact that half the US was looking for a missing child who was about 100 feet from their house the whole time. LE dropped the ball. The standard of proof is much higher in a courtroom than it is here.

I don't care how Casey killed her. I don't care when Casey killed her. I don't care why Casey killed her. She was the last person to have been seen with Caylee...now Caylee is a pile of bones...this I care about.
I am so tired of hearing LE dropped the ball. We are lucky the child was ever found, can we be thankful of that for once...you know closure for the family and all the typical post death conversations??

 

[natsound]

I have listened to juror number 3 and the foreman over and over, I dont like the verdict, but I can see why they came to the NG verdict. Juror number 3 was spot on when she said they looked at all of the evidence without emotion. When you take the emotion out of it and look at in the legal sense, there was alot missing on the prosecution side. The focus on her behavior is ludicrous. Of course its odd, weird, nuts, uncaring, whatever, put it does not prove how Caylee died and when and where KC threw her in the woods. Maybe we should focus on the fact that half the US was looking for a missing child who was about 100 feet from their house the whole time. LE dropped the ball. The standard of proof is much higher in a courtroom than it is here.

(Bold by me) The focus on her behavior is NOT ludicrous. There's a reason circumstantial evidence is called evidence.

KC's lying went beyond weird, nuts, and uncaring as you say. It was a deliberate attempt to misguide law enforcement.

There's a reason why KC lied. Obviously, she was responsible and didn't want police to know that. Why do I say she was responsible? A body decomposed in her car, which was proven by cadaver dogs hitting on her trunk and a hair with a death band in her trunk. How do we know GA isn't responsible? Overwhelming circumstantial evidence and good old-fashioned common sense.

I'm stunned that this jury did not weigh the circumstantial evidence in this case.

 

[natsound]

While I'm thinking about it, JB told jurors not to be ruled by emotion, or something along those lines. Was that also in the jury instructions?

 

[lg25]

The foreman said on Greta that her actions afterwards was "something we weren't really able to take into consideration..." Sounds like they just dismissed the entire 31 days. Why did they think they couldn't take that into consideration? It certainly evidence.

 

[Leah0107]

I absolutely hate when I keep hearing 'if we take the emotion out of it...." So if I believe the enormity of the circumstantial evidence in this case, that makes me emotional. I tried my hardest to find something that showed me she didn't do this and based on the evidence I saw I couldn't do it. If I was by law required to cast my verdict based on direct evidence only, perhaps I could have voted not guilty and walked away completely sickened. IMO that is what the jury believed and what they did.

 

[Kavya01]

This midnight or shortly there after or so we will get to observe the fruits of the jury's lax labor.

May they have sleepless nights and groan in remorse for months to come.

 

[Mosby]

The foreman said on Greta that her actions afterwards was "something we weren't really able to take into consideration..." Sounds like they just dismissed the entire 31 days. Why did they think they couldn't take that into consideration? It certainly evidence.

Because this group did not understand the instructions at all and didn't even try to clarify. They did not get the part about circumstantial evidence IS evidence. Why do they think it was presented; if it was not to be considered the judge would not have let it in. And at the same time gave a lot of credibility to the DT OS and zeroed in on GA, even though they were instructed that opening statements are NOT evidence. One of the jurors (I think #3?) said they did not believe the abuse stuff. So if you didn't believe and consider the abuse stuff that was ONLY contained in the OS why did you obviously believe the part about GA and the drowning when there was absolutely no evidence of that either.

This group of jurors could not have gotten it any more wrong! And the more they talk the more clear it becomes to everyone.

 

[Mosby]

This midnight or shortly there after or so we will get to observe the fruits of the jury's lax labor.

May they have sleepless nights and groan in remorse for months to come.

And I hope she moves to their county! Let them deal with her and the fallout. I'm pretty sure Orlando has had enough.

 

[Solange82200]

Additionally, and don't hate me... if the jury wasn't given those instructions how much can they really be blamed for following what was put in front of them with the instructions. Personally, I believed strongly in the circumstantial evidence that was presented. I wrestled over many things. But the CE was so strong that it convinced me of her guilt. I wonder if I was in their shoes with 20 something pages of jury instructions with NOTHING mentioned about circumstantial evidence, what conclusion I would have come to. I'd like to believe I would have been the one blowing the horn and asking the judge questions and wanting to review evidence, etc., but would I have in those circumstances? It's all just so horrible and it's why we are still reeling about it.

I dont hate you, or think your comment is unreasonable.. BUT im pretty sure I remember JP explaining it. Im almost positive, unless Im going crazy. Regardless, it's common sense, I still cant take the blame off them..

 

[EPfan]

The problem with juror 3 and your argument is that the prosecution does NOT have to prove the how, when, and where.

The prosecution only has to prove the what- that a murder or manslaughter occurred and the who- that Casey did it.

It is misguided to say that the focus on her behavior evidence is ludicrous. You can interpret it on other ways, as did the DT, but IMO it is not responsible to just ignore it.

The prosecution does have to prove murder. The medical examiner said on the stand that the cause of death could be drowning. There wasn't anyone that could testify how she died, murder or accident. The prosecutions theory was chloroform, or duck tape. The chloroform evidence wasn't strong enough and esp. since there wasn't any present in the hair, nor drugs. The tape wasn't wrapped around the skull. The duck tape, 2 pieces was on the side in a hair mass, the third piece was found 8 to 10 feet away. How did the third piece get separated from the other 2 pieces? This tape was circumstantial evidence, but not strong enough. I wouldn't have found her guilty to anything but accidental manslaughter. That is the only charge that would fit the evidence. MOO.

 

[jjenny]

The cause of death could be drowning? It could have been anything else because the body was skeletal remains. So they couldn't rule out drowning or pretty much anything else. The only way to have a cause of death on skeletal remains would be a bullet hole or a knife wound. But the cause of death isn't necessary for a conviction. If it was, Scott Peterson would be hopping around a free man.

 

[natsound]

The prosecution does have to prove murder. The medical examiner said on the stand that the cause of death could be drowning. There wasn't anyone that could testify how she died, murder or accident. The prosecutions theory was chloroform, or duck tape. The chloroform evidence wasn't strong enough and esp. since there wasn't any present in the hair, nor drugs. The tape wasn't wrapped around the skull. The duck tape, 2 pieces was on the side in a hair mass, the third piece was found 8 to 10 feet away. How did the third piece get separated from the other 2 pieces? This tape was circumstantial evidence, but not strong enough. I wouldn't have found her guilty to anything but accidental manslaughter. That is the only charge that would fit the evidence. MOO.

The duct tape was looped and stuck to hair on one side of the skull. What does that TELL you? There's no guessing involved.

 

[cluciano63]

I dont hate you, or think your comment is unreasonable.. BUT im pretty sure I remember JP explaining it. Im almost positive, unless Im going crazy. Regardless, it's common sense, I still cant take the blame off them..

I don't think the fact that circumstantial evidence is to be given equal weight as direct evidence is common sense at all. I only learned that this past year, and only from reading heavily on WS and about various cases, and I thought I knew a lot before that. I think the state really needed to not only point this out, but pound on it, JMO, until it was ringing in their ears, blocking out everything else if necessary.
Again, JMO.

 

[Solange82200]

(Bold by me) The focus on her behavior is NOT ludicrous. There's a reason circumstantial evidence is called evidence.

KC's lying went beyond weird, nuts, and uncaring as you say. It was a deliberate attempt to misguide law enforcement.

There's a reason why KC lied. Obviously, she was responsible and didn't want police to know that. Why do I say she was responsible? A body decomposed in her car, which was proven by cadaver dogs hitting on her trunk and a hair with a death band in her trunk. How do we know GA isn't responsible? Overwhelming circumstantial evidence and good old-fashioned common sense.

I'm stunned that this jury did not weigh the circumstantial evidence in this case.

Exactly, if you can't focus on behavior, then Scott Peterson wouldnt have been found guilty (his running away to mexico with blond hair meant nothing). As well as millions of other convicted felons. This is BEYOND ridiculous!!!!

 

[MEM2010]

Initially after the shock of the verdict and that sick feeling went away, I thought I understood how the jury got to the decision they did. I didn't necessarily agree with it but I could see how they got it.

BUT now that the foreman is running is mouth all over the media I feel sick all over again. It's OBVIOUS he was running the show. He instructed the jury to disregard the 31 days? WHAT?!!?!?!!?!?! that is some of the most CRUCIAL evidence!! I can't believe it. He went about this all wrong and was probably more concerned about a popularity contest than the verdict!!

And to top it all of he's on his computer every night working on his masters? Yeah..BS!


Somethings wrong here!!!


sry for the vent

 

[AlwaysShocked]

What I am finding hard to believe is that 11 jurors would/could have allowed 1 juror (the foreman) to lead them so astray on matters of the law. If that is indeed what took place.

The young lady (Ms. Ford) seems less than assertive and not particularly in possession of any strong critical thinking skills. And she's a nursing student??? God help us.

A "den mother" juror who is washing and neatly folding the underwear of another juror? How bizarre is that?

As many witnesses said about Casey's car (all of whom were IGNORED by this jury) Something STINKS here!

In discussing review of a jury verdict, the TV lawyers said only if there was outright fraud could a verdict be looked at. What qualifies as outright fraud, I wonder? Who initiates such an investigation?

The jury foreman had access to the internet throughout the sequestration? Come on!
I would like to see a forensic examination of the hard drive on the computer the juror was using throughout the trial.

IMO

 

[Solange82200]

I don't think the fact that circumstantial evidence is to be given equal weight as direct evidence is common sense at all. I only learned that this past year, and only from reading heavily on WS and about various cases, and I thought I knew a lot before that. I think the state really needed to not only point this out, but pound on it, JMO, until it was ringing in their ears, blocking out everything else if necessary.
Again, JMO.

Maybe not the concept about equal weight, but if you were on this jury, would you have looked at the tons of guilty behavior and evidence all pointing at one person, and said "oh its not enough". I think most people would have realized that in this case there was so much circumstantial evidence it is ridiculous NOT to convict of at least manslaughter. Again, just my opinion, no disrespect meant to anyone who agrees with the verdict, and also like I said, I am pretty sure JP explained circumstantial evidence and that it can be considered and used to determine guilt. Does anyone else remember?