I think it was correct. While shocked, I reflected on trial looking at what evidence was presented and what I wanted it to believe.
Jury got it wrong. All the defence did was provide UNREASONABLE doubt. The jury members failed to spot the difference between that and reasonable doubt IMO.
I couldn't login here for an hour after the verdict. I left to run errands and get my mind off of this for the last almost 3.5 hours and just returned home. I haven't read this entire thread, but I think you're both right. Later tonight or tomorrow I will read this thread and I expect to see posts with bits and pieces that are similar to mine.
If I were on this jury, I would have voted guilty and also would have been able to vote for DP. I would have accepted a life sentence only if my fellow jurors' votes could not be changed. Casey wouldn't have spent one second of her life sentence feeling remorseful about killing Caylee.....because she is not capable of caring about anyone but herself. To me, death was appropriate for what I believe she did and what I believe she is.
Whether or not the 'accidental drowning' happened, Casey knew Caylee was dead on June 16, 2008. She sat in jail facing the death penalty rather than tell people where Caylee's remains could be found (even preventing testing that would have helped her PROVE drowning) and let thousands of people spend countless hours and thousands upon thousands of dollars to search for Caylee and to prosecute Casey.
Having said that, the Prosecution presented a lot of evidence about cholorform - at the very least it was in her trunk and she did searches about how to make it. What they
didn't present was evidence of her buying the ingredients or of her making or trying to make chloroform. (What happened to the Home Depot video? Do we know to this day what was on the video?)
If one or more of the jurors chose to hang onto that lack of evidence as their 'reasonable doubt', I would have been arguing the other way that put together with all of the other circumstantial evidence presented, I find her guilty even without any of that evidence presented.
For me.....there are just too many circumstantial things piled up against Casey for me to believe she is not guilty. They can only be explained if she is guilty.
I posted before I left that people expect too much because of all the CSI shows they watch. Every episode the crime happens and is solved with fancy-schmancy machines that probably most labs would kill to have. There's always dna or forensics of some kind or a suspect or witness that breaks or comes out of the woodwork..... Jurors need to be educated that real life cases are not like that. They need to understand that murder cases are successful when the victims' body is not even found - therefore no time of death, cause of death, and likely no or few scientific pieces of evidence to even test. They need to be given a legal definition of the word "reasonable".
I've come to wonder if a random, unbiased lawyer doesn't need to be in the jury deliberation room for complex cases. Just to answer questions and steer jurors toward what the law really means.
It's a sad day for Caylee and for anyone who loved that precious little girl.
Sorry so long.
