Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[deelytful1]

My husband and I just spent the day visiting our one and only grandbaby. We enjoyed every second with that precious little girl. She fills our heart with love!!!

Then when we heard the verdict while visiting, I was ready to bawl my eyes out. I held my granddaughter tightly and told her how much I loved her.

IMO this not guilty verdict is the biggest travesty of justice since the OJ Simpson trial!!! :furious:

WTH were the jurors thinking? They found Casey not guilty on all THREE counts? :banghead: Seriously? Really? I feel like I'm being punked! A precious, beautiful child is DEAD!!! Where is the justice in that? Casey will walk away a free woman and face no consequences whatsoever for the death of HER daughter? Where is the justice in that? IF Casey moves back to George & Cindy's home, if G&C were smart, they would sleep with one eye open at all times!

I am beyond sick, beyond disgusted, beyond angry, beyond devastated that our sweet Caylee will NOT receive justice.

Our legal system sucks and this case proves it!!!! Hey, we all have the right to free speech and we are the citizens of the US of A, so let's go back to town hangings, right in the middle of the town square and let the criminals hang! How is that for justice? I don't think the "old west" had such a bad idea after all! MOO


Oh yeah, one more thing......IMO the jurors rushed a verdict so they could hurry back home. So I hope this weighs on the minds of the jurors for the rest of their lives.

Very well said!
This whole thing also makes me wonder if it was a big mistake sequestering this jury (or any others going forward!!) If they were talking to each other (which seems apparent), then I'm sure they were talking with loved ones at their private visits, so maybe if they were "on good behavior" and allowed to go home, they would have put more effort into a verdict!
But coulda, shoulda, woulda.. sigh. Changes nothing now.

 

[LinasK]

:guitar:

Billy Flynn:

Though you are stiffer than a girder
They'll let you get away with murder
Razzle dazzle 'em
And you've got a romance

Give 'em the old Razzle Dazzle
Razzle dazzle 'em
Show 'em the first rate sorcerer you are
Long as you keep 'em way off balance
How can they spot you've got no talents?
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Razzle Dazzle 'em

And they'll make you a star!

It's all a circus, kid. A three ring circus.
These trials- the wholeworld- all show business.
But kid, you're working with a star, the biggest!

Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it
And the reaction will be passionate
Give 'em the old hocus pocus
Bead and feather 'em
How can they see with sequins in their eyes?


What if your hinges all are rusting?
What if, in fact, you're just disgusting?
Razzle dazzle 'em
And they’ll never catch wise!

Give 'em the old Razzle Dazzle
Give 'em the old flim flam flummox
Fool and fracture 'em

How can they hear the truth above the roar?
Throw 'em a fake and a finagle
They'll never know you're just a bagel,

Razzle dazzle 'em
And they'll beg you for more!

Give 'em the old double whammy
Daze and dizzy 'em
Back since the days of old Methuselah
Everyone loves the big bambooz-a-lah

Give 'em the old three ring circus
Stun and stagger 'em
When you're in trouble, go into your dance

Though you are stiffer than a girder
They'll let you get away with murder
Razzle dazzle 'em
And you've got a romance

Give 'em the old Razzle Dazzle
Razzle dazzle 'em
Show 'em the first rate sorcerer you are
Long as you keep 'em way off balance
How can they spot you've got no talents?
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Razzle Dazzle 'em

And they'll make you a star!

Thank-you for that! I remember it well- Jose Baez as Billy Flynn. Whoever thought we'd see life imitate art???

 

[kgeaux]

There was no reasonable doubt in this case. Even if somebody were convinced it was an accident, there was no evidence of it. It is reasonable to assume that duct tape on a baby's body in the swamp was intentional. Manner of death was proved. Accident doesn't play in this case. To think so, is NOT reasonable thinking.:banghead:

The jury did not need evidence of an accident!!! The way our justice system is set up is that the PROSECUTOR has to offer enough evidence of the crime so that the evidence overcomes any reasonable doubt a juror may have.

The jury could rightly question the duct tape evidence, since not only did it include DNA that did not belong to Caylee or Casey, the skull had also been manipulated by Roy Kronk! The duct tape was adhered to Caylee's hair, but it was not stuck to the skull and NO ONE could say 100% that the duct tape had been applied to Caylee in the same position it was found in.

Manner of death was a "reasonable assumption" (I think that is the term Dr. G used) based on her opinion that no mother fails to report a missing child for 31 days. Now, I agree with her, I think she is a wonderful pathologist. But the fact remains that no forensic evidence was available to PROVE homicide.

If Nancy Grace is responsible for this mess then we all are too.

I just meant to say that Nancy Grace is not more responsible than any of us. None of us is responsible. KC/family/defense are!

Honestly, the Nancy Graces of this world DO hold some responsibility. To air twisted facts, or only the facts that they themselves agree with is damaging the public's perception of truth. To have talking heads on night after night who don't know even the basic facts of a case but are willing to pass judgement anyway is damaging to the public's perception of the truth.
I think if Nancy had believed that Casey had nothing to do with Caylee's death/disposal, a majority of people would be sighing with relief right now, "Whooo, I'm so glad that the jury saw through the nasty prosecutor's case and were able to see how innocent Casey is!" That will never happen in this lifetime, if only because Nancy is ALWAYS pro-prosecution.

The State erred, in my opinion, by not offering any alternate theories of how Caylee died and still make Casey responsible other than premediatated murder. They could have shown a theory where Casey overdosed Caylee by accident and told them what charge that would be. They could have given them an option of Casey leaving Caylee alone and she falls off the counter or Casey hitting Caylee and causing a brain injury. But they wanted to go for the top charge only and did not give any of these other types of examples. So to the jury, who apparently wanted it spelled out to them, they had a choice of premeditated murder by chloroform and duct tape or the accident put forth by Jose B. There were no charges for not reporting a death, or improper disposal of a body, so they opted out, IMO...

I totally agree. In fact, if the prosecutor had embraced the drowning theory and told the jury that even IF the death was accidental, the jury could find guilty of manslaughter, or if they had rebutted the drowning theory energetically, we might be all high-fiving each other right now.

IMO, the prosecution lost the case because they relied so heavily on the duct tape, when much about the duct tape was questionable.

 

[nomoresorrow]

(BBM)

Maybe, but the state did not really give them a scenario to fit manslaughter. They only presented the theory for premeditated murder. Sure, the jurors probably should have figured out something on their own...but they basically went in there being told it was either the duct tape theory or accident...

I respectfully disagree. They had 3 counts to choose from and, based upon everything I've heard thus far from juror #3 and alt. juror #14, they couldn't get past COD. Unfortunately Casey's (or should I say "fortunately" for her...) lies helped to prolong Caylee's remains from being discovered and therefore they were beyond the point of being able to determine COD when they finally were found.

While there may not have been a "smoking gun", if you really look at it, there was far more that pointed toward homicide, rather than an accident. The ONLY thing that pointed toward an accident was Casey's account that JB announced during his OS. Other than that there was nothing that backed it up. Even as convoluted as GA, CA, and LA's testimonies were, there was nothing in them that even remotely backed up an accidental drowning. All there was was just another story by a well established liar who the jurors choose to give the benefit of the doubt to which I will never understand.

Soft kill + skeletonization = lack of exact COD but there are definite conclusions that can be drawn;
Do parents typically bag their child up and throw them on the side of a road following an accident? NO. Dr. G established that and reported that the data DID NOT support that.
Do parents typically go out and rent movies, curl up and bed with their lover, and their "lover" detects NO change in their demeanor whatsoever, following an accident that occurred only hours before? All of us know better (common sense). We've all personally suffered losses and/or seen many who have and this IS NOT the behavior of a parent who just lost a child by way of an unintentional accident.
I could go and on here but we all know the story. My point is that there are/were many inferences that could and should have been drawn with the use and application of common sense and governed by the law.

 

[Cherry Ames]

For those that bring up jury misconduct or mistrial? Cannot happen. Casey can confess to Caylee's murder and not do one more day of time. She's NOT even on probation after she is released on Weds.

So, hypothetically, if an entire jury is shown to have accepted bribes for a verdict, that verdict wouldn't be overturned?

 

[time]

The jury did not need evidence of an accident!!! The way our justice system is set up is that the PROSECUTOR has to offer enough evidence of the crime so that the evidence overcomes any reasonable doubt a juror may have.

The jury could rightly question the duct tape evidence, since not only did it include DNA that did not belong to Caylee or Casey, the skull had also been manipulated by Roy Kronk! The duct tape was adhered to Caylee's hair, but it was not stuck to the skull and NO ONE could say 100% that the duct tape had been applied to Caylee in the same position it was found in.

Manner of death was a "reasonable assumption" (I think that is the term Dr. G used) based on her opinion that no mother fails to report a missing child for 31 days. Now, I agree with her, I think she is a wonderful pathologist. But the fact remains that no forensic evidence was available to PROVE homicide.





Honestly, the Nancy Graces of this world DO hold some responsibility. To air twisted facts, or only the facts that they themselves agree with is damaging the public's perception of truth. To have talking heads on night after night who don't know even the basic facts of a case but are willing to pass judgement anyway is damaging to the public's perception of the truth.
I think if Nancy had believed that Casey had nothing to do with Caylee's death/disposal, a majority of people would be sighing with relief right now, "Whooo, I'm so glad that the jury saw through the nasty prosecutor's case and were able to see how innocent Casey is!" That will never happen in this lifetime, if only because Nancy is ALWAYS pro-prosecution.



I totally agree. In fact, if the prosecutor had embraced the drowning theory and told the jury that even IF the death was accidental, the jury could find guilty of manslaughter, or if they had rebutted the drowning theory energetically, we might be all high-fiving each other right now.

IMO, the prosecution lost the case because they relied so heavily on the duct tape, when much about the duct tape was questionable.

Excellent post, thank you.

 

[cluciano63]

So, hypothetically, if an entire jury is shown to have accepted bribes for a verdict, that verdict wouldn't be overturned?

No because it would not be considered the defendant's fault or responsibility...or at most, if they could vacate the verdict, for the records, they still could not try her again.

 

[sharkeyes]

There was AMPLE evidence to convict Casey Anthony, at the very least, of manslaughter and willful cruelty to a child. Gutless jury, absolutely gutless. I do believe there is more to the story than Casey's blatant lies. George and Cindy know waaaaayyyyyy more than they'll ever admit to; and the brother knows more too.

Casey will get hers....go out and try to live your "Bella Vida" now honey...be careful what you wish for. After the dust settles, she'll be wishing she had been convicted and put in a nice safe cell.

 

[Nova24]

#2 states they had 6-6 for Agg Man so #3 knows darn well there were other charges to consider. They had Agg Child Abuse and Agg Man to choose from as well as 2nd Degree Murder. They didn't have to give DP. This wasn't an all or nothing case and #3 knows it unless she slept through the instructions, charges, and deliberation. If they had given her Agg Man and 4 counts lying people wouldn't be all too upset. They let her walk and that's why people are enraged.

 

[Nova24]

So, hypothetically, if an entire jury is shown to have accepted bribes for a verdict, that verdict wouldn't be overturned?

Correct. On a criminal level for ICA this case will stand as is. If there was jury tampering, etc. that could be proven it would be the jurors themselves that would pay the legal price.

 

[JDB]

For those that bring up jury misconduct or mistrial? Cannot happen. Casey can confess to Caylee's murder and not do one more day of time. She's NOT even on probation after she is released on Weds.

She is for lying to the polis . She can't leave the county without the courts permission

 

[Nova24]

Russ the alternate also stated on Greta that if they had a speck of doubt it was RD. That's inaccurate. He didn't understand RD at all.

 

[deelytful1]

Don't know if anyone posted this yet, but apparently the jurors home town think they got it wrong too!!!

http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anth...y-juror-nancy-grace-verdict/story?id=14017505

 

[jon_burrows]

The jury did not need evidence of an accident!!! The way our justice system is set up is that the PROSECUTOR has to offer enough evidence of the crime so that the evidence overcomes any reasonable doubt a juror may have.

The jury could rightly question the duct tape evidence, since not only did it include DNA that did not belong to Caylee or Casey, the skull had also been manipulated by Roy Kronk! The duct tape was adhered to Caylee's hair, but it was not stuck to the skull and NO ONE could say 100% that the duct tape had been applied to Caylee in the same position it was found in.

Manner of death was a "reasonable assumption" (I think that is the term Dr. G used) based on her opinion that no mother fails to report a missing child for 31 days. Now, I agree with her, I think she is a wonderful pathologist. But the fact remains that no forensic evidence was available to PROVE homicide.





Honestly, the Nancy Graces of this world DO hold some responsibility. To air twisted facts, or only the facts that they themselves agree with is damaging the public's perception of truth. To have talking heads on night after night who don't know even the basic facts of a case but are willing to pass judgement anyway is damaging to the public's perception of the truth.
I think if Nancy had believed that Casey had nothing to do with Caylee's death/disposal, a majority of people would be sighing with relief right now, "Whooo, I'm so glad that the jury saw through the nasty prosecutor's case and were able to see how innocent Casey is!" That will never happen in this lifetime, if only because Nancy is ALWAYS pro-prosecution.



I totally agree. In fact, if the prosecutor had embraced the drowning theory and told the jury that even IF the death was accidental, the jury could find guilty of manslaughter, or if they had rebutted the drowning theory energetically, we might be all high-fiving each other right now.

IMO, the prosecution lost the case because they relied so heavily on the duct tape, when much about the duct tape was questionable.

I could not disagree more (respectfully of course). Dr. G hit the nail on the head. There is only one reason for a 2 year old to end up bagged/hidden and tossed in a swamp with duct tape on her face---homicide. No one had access to Caylee's first coffin (the trunk) except ICA. It really is that simple. Jeff Ashton said who would stage an accident to look like murder? And, LDB brought it all home in her closing so that a 5 year old could understand.

This case is so simple it's mind boggling that 12 people could set a killer free.

Heaven help ICA's next victim.

IMO

 

[natsound]

I've been too disgusted with the verdict to come here until now. It's all settling in.

The jury had a much stronger burden than we do. We can sit at our computers and spout off. I had KC tried and convicted as soon as I saw the first article on the case, and my opinion only grew stronger from there.

There were holes in the prosecution's case, like method of death and where Caylee died. I personally think the motive was established.

Despite those holes, it's possible to connect the dots by eliminating others who did not have a motive, and who were eliminated through the jailhouse conversations. GA's suicide note went far to exonerate him, I believe.

I think there was jury fatigue, and I think they saw it through a different lens than those who followed the trial did. I think justice was not served by this jury, because KC is guilty of killing her child and they know it.

 

[Marple]

Have any of the jurors or alts who've spoken said anything about the dogs? Did they discuss the dog testimony?

I also thought that the fact she backed her car in the garage (which she never did before), and borrowed a shovel from next door neighbor (to dig up a bamboo root that dag nabit, she kept tripping over!) was Hinky to the Hilt.

There was just SO MUCH circumstantial evidence, IMO. What are the odds that all of this would happen to KC and so obviously point to her?

 

[3doglady]

Piers tonight : Jeff Ashton: If #CaseyAnthonyVerdict was based on George Anthony it is a "breach of their duty as a juror." VIDEO: http://t.co/xf3Z6So

 

[DoxieMom]

All I keep going back to are those 31 days and the duct tape on that poor baby's face. I could even buy into the accident theory, but as the pros said why cover up an accident and make it look like a murder? If not reporting an accident and triple bagging her body isn't child abuse then what is?!

As a side note - As someone who has been unable to have biological children, it makes my stomach hurt to think she could possibly (I believe likely) have other children.

 

[jon_burrows]

Have any of the jurors or alts who've spoken said anything about the dogs? Did they discuss the dog testimony?

I also thought that the fact she backed her car in the garage (which she never did before), and borrowed a shovel from next door neighbor (to dig up a bamboo root that dag nabit, she kept tripping over!) was Hinky to the Hilt.

There was just SO MUCH circumstantial evidence, IMO. What are the odds that all of this would happen to KC and so obviously point to her?

BBM - Not that I've heard. In fact, they showed very little to no comprehension of the evidence. I think it's time for an IQ test before someone can serve on jury duty.

IMO

 

[Boytwnmom]

this universally praised system can produce such opposite results and yet we can be told we're not to criticize the jury. Sorry, they were a combination of lazy, sloppy, bored, overwhelmed, eager to leave and unintelligent. And if our system convicts SP and not ICA why should we agree the jury must be right in both cases. Why? It's obviously inconsistent give the type of evidence presented and the lack of evidence to establish things like cause of death, exactly when she died, exactly how she died.

I was out to dinner with 18 other lawyers last night. All have difernt backgrounds and none are currently prosecutors. All agreed, based on what they knew of the case, that it appeared she was clearly guilty of something (either murder 1,2 or manslaughter) and that they all were matter of fact about the jury getting it wrong. This is a part of this system. The jury's verdict has ot be accepted because it's our system. That doesn't mean it's right-just that we accept the verdict ends it. I agree it's over but I will never believe the jury was either dilligent or right.

Cause of death was not required to convict ICA. For a juror to sit there for 6+ weeks listening to detailed scientific testimony and only deliberate for 10 hours and not requested any rereads of testimony or evidence displays says it all. I believe juror #3 stated that they couldn't convict because the death penalty was on the table. Didn't they know that they were not to consider the punishment in arriving at a verdict ? And at one point they were 6-6 on the manslaughter charge ... 6 jurors just abruptly changed their mind or did they want to go home. And if any of these jurors based their verdict on the testimony of River Cruz, they ought to go to jail for contempt. Man, I'll bet Scott Petersen wishes he got this jury ...