Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[magnolia]

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.

BBM I disagree. There was absolutely no evidence produced at trial the death was caused by an accident. Jurors are instructed not to speculate.

 

[Boytwnmom]

the jurors would be charged with applicable crimes but ICA can't be charged again in this matter.

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

 

[Boytwnmom]

and may have well believed the DP was somehow invovled in all the charges. Or she just never bothered ot figure it out. She obviously didn't understand the law or the evidence or the legal terms.

#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.

 

[natsound]

You know what I learned from this trial? That the defense could have just sat there and said nothing, and KC still would have been found not guilty.

 

[Who_What_When]

I voted all three…

The jury got it wrong - I believe they got it wrong when it came to the Child Abuse and Manslaughter charge. I think their verdict on the other charges were correct IF you go according to the law and the instructions they were given. I do not understand how they did not find her guilty of the lesser two crimes. Going by the law and jury instructions “The death of Caylee Marie Anthony was caused by the culpable negligence of Casey Marie Anthony”. Well if they believed that the death of Caylee was from an accidental drowning they should have convicted her of Aggravated Manslaughter and Aggravated Child Abuse as she was under Casey's care when the "drowning" happened, and although that doesn't necessarily make it a crime, not seeking help for the drowning does (it's "culpable negligence") so I cannot understand how they did not find her guilty of these two crimes.

The state didn't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt – IMO the State did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt when it came to proving that Casey was the cause of Caylee death. There were too many loose ends in their theory on how Caylee died and they didn’t tie it all together. For example, the Chloroform. They never gave any BARD evidence to support that Casey actual made Chloroform and used it on Caylee. I understand that they didn't have this evidence to present but that's the whole point, there was nothing substantial to go on. The internet searches did not prove this BARD and the level in the trunk was disputed so it could not be trusted. The Duct Tape - without seeing the photos I can’t really speculate on whether or not this was used as a method to kill Caylee. Mostly because of the various different testimonies on how the skull was found/moved. From the testimony itself there was some doubt, however I do believe if I was on the jury and saw the photos I probably would have been persuaded to believe it was used to kill Caylee (which would have changed my opinion on the first option above).

The Defense provided reasonable doubt and the jury got it right – I only half believe this statement. I think that the Defense created reasonable doubt when it came to the possibility of an accident ONLY because the SA couldn’t prove BARD how Caylee died. Since the drowning was allowed as evidence in this case it gave the jurors an alternative theory and allowed a possibility of another way of the death occurring. If they weren’t sure of either (murder or accident) and had to weigh between the two then they would have to go with the accident as the DT doesn’t have to prove it BARD but the SA does.

 

[back2back19]

You know what I learned from this trial? That the defense could have just sat there and said nothing, and KC still would have been found not guilty.

Yup. The jury bonded with the defense as they could see them from their spots. Casey probably could have had a meltdown on the stand and confessed and they'd still have acquitted her.

 

[203_forensics]

I still want to know what Casey and George was doing before Caylee drowned? Baez started by saying Casey walked around the corner and saw George holding her. I need to turn Nancy off, because I'm still shock.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Alternate juror Dean Eckstadt speaks out today: http://palmharbor.patch.com/article...-are-upset-that-people-think-were-incompetent

He was also on the Today Show, and I'm sorry if this info has been posted elsewhere.

(I tried to put the embedded code for the video into this posting, but I wasn't successful ... sorry about that! It is on the Today Show website though ...)

 

[kgeaux]

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

I agree with you that Dr. G's testimony was very strong. I merely suggest that the fact that she had to admit under oath, during testimony, that her decision to name homicide as manner of death was based on a "reasonable assumption" may have left an opening in the minds of jurors. You know what some people joke about assuming.

I don't know if the tape was across Caylee's face. IMO, nobody could know, because it was not adhered to any bone. And we heard testimony that Roy Kronk moved the skull.

I do not believe Caylee's body spent any amount of time in the trunk, if it was ever there. I just can't get past there being no evidence of blow flies in the trunk.

BBM I disagree. There was absolutely no evidence produced at trial the death was caused by an accident. Jurors are instructed not to speculate.

I think maybe you misunderstood me. I am not suggesting that jurors speculated---I am saying two things. #1: the defense was not required to produce evidence to prove there was an accident. #2: the prosecutor was required to produce evidence that overcomes the presumption of innocence, and that overcomes reasonable doubt.

The juror need not speculate to believe the prosecutor did not meet the burden of proof.

You know what I learned from this trial? That the defense could have just sat there and said nothing, and KC still would have been found not guilty.

I don't know if that is true or not, but I certainly think that in this case, the jurors questioned the evidence the prosecutor presented because of the testimony of the defense witnesses.

I haven't mentioned this before, but I was really offended when the prosecutor asked "Did you wrap your pigs in a blanket? HAHA, I promised I'd say that, pigs in a blanket!" I really lost respect for this prosecutor as the trial went on, and that joke was one reason why.

 

[cluciano63]

BBM I disagree. There was absolutely no evidence produced at trial the death was caused by an accident. Jurors are instructed not to speculate.

The judge did allow them to consider the accident scenario, even if he did not believe it himself. He did not allow them to consider sexual molestation.

 

[rbrnmw2]

Someone said we should respect the jury? Respect is earned. I'm still giving the other ones the benefit of the doubt but some of them lost that. One wants money, one got on TV and talked nonsense, the alternate sounded confused and casey was a good mother nonsense, the last one voted guilty but let the others pressure him into it. If one juror comes out and says, "you know what after reading and seeing everything I messed up". Or, "I think she is guilty but the eveidence didnt sway me". Not oh George did it, not we think it was an accident, or the family lied so much, i dont understand the sciency stuff and uh the charges were too harsh. I dont want to hear spin from the jury, but honest heartfelt truth. It just feels like more lawyer spin.

BBM

She sounded kinda coached one of my friends said. If she was eager to be on the jury maybe there is a reason for the eagerness and eagerness to just get it over, I don't know maybe it's just the age we live in.

 

[natsound]

I don't know if that is true or not, but I certainly think that in this case, the jurors questioned the evidence the prosecutor presented because of the testimony of the defense witnesses.

I haven't mentioned this before, but I was really offended when the prosecutor asked "Did you wrap your pigs in a blanket? HAHA, I promised I'd say that, pigs in a blanket!" I really lost respect for this prosecutor as the trial went on, and that joke was one reason why.

The "pigs in blanket" comment was equally matched by "who cut the cheese"?

I agree about being a little offended here and there with the prosecution. I thought LDB got too pompous in her closing argument. Out of the gate, she said she was akin to a football player running with the ball, going for the win. Then she said "I don't mean to offend you....". THEN, she criticized KC's friends for calling her a good mother, suggesting they were clueless just because they didn't have kids.

 

[Solange82200]

I agree with you that Dr. G's testimony was very strong. I merely suggest that the fact that she had to admit under oath, during testimony, that her decision to name homicide as manner of death was based on a "reasonable assumption" may have left an opening in the minds of jurors. You know what some people joke about assuming.

I don't know if the tape was across Caylee's face. IMO, nobody could know, because it was not adhered to any bone. And we heard testimony that Roy Kronk moved the skull.

I do not believe Caylee's body spent any amount of time in the trunk, if it was ever there. I just can't get past there being no evidence of blow flies in the trunk.

.

So you are worried about a lack of blowflies, but you have no problem discounting the 10 people who smelled what they recognized as death in the car? Along with the cadaver dog? Along with the "coincidental" finding of Caylee';s hair in the trunk that shows death banding (that although isnt 100 percent provable, cannot be replicated in any other way?) And the self serving message she sent to Amy admitting her car smelt like death? I dont understand how you can let one little thing like lack of blowflies bother you, but all that stuff can be handwaved away.

 

[magic-cat]

You know what I learned from this trial? That the defense could have just sat there and said nothing, and KC still would have been found not guilty.

I don't think so. I think they were very successful at confusing the jury with the things they implied, outright lied about and insinuated. They had a plan for sure, and each and every one of the Anthony family were part and parcel of the plan, and they all played their parts to perfection. The jury was so confused they believed that George was on trial and they didn't even know who was responsible for Caylee. They were considering things that were said instead of considering the evidence that was before them. If the defense had remained silent, Casey would be facing some serious time...

 

[Solange82200]

I am just disheartened, i feel like people think reality is tv. Where everything points to one person, only at the end it ends up being the last person you expect. In real life, when you have all these things saying : dead body in her car, she was the last person with the victim, she hid the fact the victim was dead, etc, it means she did it. I dont understand how that can be logically denied. It takes a lot of stretching of the imagination and reality and the way the real world works to think this was an accident. Of course the prosecution was confident, im assuming like me and half the world they could not believe anyone with any sense could think all these incriminating things are coincidental.

 

[Solange82200]

Also, you expected the tape to be on the bone? Do you realize that is impossible? The tape was on the skin. The skin is gone, and by that time the stickiness of the tape is gone with it. How would it stick on the bone? It was stuck to what was ON the bone, which is skin. If it was stuck to the bone, that would prove it was put there afterward. The way it was found is consistent with it being stuck on skin, which is what the experts testified. I think people make too many assumptions on their own and dont listen to experts. Why even have them on then? Why even have experts exist? Lets just all pretend we know where blowflies should be found and tape should be after 6 months of the elements. In defense of the blowflies, I know there was an expert saying they should be found, but he had almost no experience compared to the expert that says otherwise. Why would anyone choose to believe him over the other?

 

[natsound]

I don't think so. I think they were very successful at confusing the jury with the things they implied, outright lied about and insinuated. They had a plan for sure, and each and every one of the Anthony family were part and parcel of the plan, and they all played their parts to perfection. The jury was so confused they believed that George was on trial and they didn't even know who was responsible for Caylee. They were considering things that were said instead of considering the evidence that was before them. If the defense had remained silent, Casey would be facing some serious time...

Nah. I realize none of this is worth arguing any more, but I don't think all of this was orchestrated with the A family. The defense was surprised at the verdict, just like the prosecution. They asked for a mistrial a dozen times because they didn't think they would win. What I heard from jurors is that they were waiting for a what, where, and when on the death of Caylee and never got it from the prosecution.

 

[Solange82200]

The "pigs in blanket" comment was equally matched by "who cut the cheese"?

I agree about being a little offended here and there with the prosecution. I thought LDB got too pompous in her closing argument. Out of the gate, she said she was akin to a football player running with the ball, going for the win. Then she said "I don't mean to offend you....". THEN, she criticized KC's friends for calling her a good mother, suggesting they were clueless just because they didn't have kids.

I could see how some people could be offended, but I wasnt. I think she was making the point that the people saying she was a good mother only saw her with caylee for a couple hours at most, or not enough to really know. Also, about her comment about her fear about the big picture, she was obviously to me dead on, they did exactly what she was afraid they;d do. I thought her closing was great, but I could see how some people took it differently

 

[Solange82200]

Nah. I realize none of this is worth arguing any more, but I don't think all of this was orchestrated with the A family. The defense was surprised at the verdict, just like the prosecution. They asked for a mistrial a dozen times because they didn't think they would win. What I heard from jurors is that they were waiting for a what, where, and when on the death of Caylee and never got it from the prosecution.

One thing that bothers me i will admit is the "where". I wonder if it was in the car... She was supposedly in the area of the house when caylee died, but according to George not in the house. I still dont think that should be enough reasonable doubt, but that is one thing I could see how it could nag at someone.

 

[magic-cat]

Things that common sense will tell us from the evidence:

1.)Casey showed no remorse during the period immediately following her daughter's demise-no matter what the cause. She went out and acted like all was well, when in fact, all was far from well. Her young daughter was DEAD. This is very telling of how she felt about Caylee, regardless of how individuals grieve. Common sense tells us that a mother who loved and cared for her child would have been a little shaken up. Not so Casey-she was busily covering her tracks and robbing her friends to pave the way to avoid facing her parents without Caylee.

2.) Casey did in fact lie through her teeth to keep the investigation headed in the wrong direction, right up until the moment her daughters skeletonized remains were found a quarter mile from HER house, thrown away in the woods. She told a multitude of different Zanny the Nanny stories, and these HAD to be investigated. She told these tales to save her own skin, and it is easy for a reasonable person to conclude this fact.

3.) Casey wore Find Caylee shirts and bracelets knowing full well her daughter was dead. One should ask onesself what sort of person can do this? And primp and preen around like a rooster in heat? One may reasonably conclude that she did this because she feels only for her own self, and this was another method of covering HER tracks.

4.) Casey did not tell ANYONE on the planet that Caylee was dead. Why not? If she drowned why was no aid attempted? Why no call to 911? Why no desperate attempt to revive her? Why no screams heard by neighbors? And what happened then? She finds her dead child and then what? Duct tapes her face? That is unreasonable to conclude that.

5.) Casey turned on her family, probably with their consent, at least some of them, but maybe not. Maybe they all defended her to the end, and she just did not give a flying fig about any of them. She accused her brother and her father of atrocities, and yet offered no testimony or proof to back up those claims. She refused to even see her family all these years as she cooked this whole scheme up to save her own skin.

6.) There is no reason for a child, living or dead, to have duct tape placed over her face. And it so obviously was over her face. It was holding the mandable in place. That means something. It means that even though her flesh, her skin rotted off of her bones that tape was still stuck in her hair in such a way that it held the jaw in place. Of course it was not stuck to the bone. THAT is unreasonable to even state, as she had SKIN when the tape was applied. Also, concerning the tape, the three pieces were overlapping-stuck together from the beginning. It is not reasonable to conclude that they were around the bag-they were too short, and they were overlapping. Perhaps the one piece that was found some distance away WAS on the bag, but not the short pieces that were caught in the hair mat. As the skin slipped and rotted, and the hair came to rest at the base of the skull, the tape remained there, firmly in place. It is completely and utterly reasonable, when taken in light of all the other evidence, to conclude that it was over her face.