Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[Jstc4caylee]

Ok...someone set me straight. Because I think now I am beyond all reasonable sense..
To me, what this verdict means to me is in any future murder, unless there is a video tape of someone committing the murder, any defendant just walks into the courtroom and makes up any kind of defense they want. And is ludicrous as it is, and no evidence for it...they just walk free..because, hey aliens could have done it...I am at a loss.

I will tell you one thing. I actually had a jury summons for July 6th that I exempted out of because of young children at home..I think it is a very good thing, for whomever it may have been ,I was not a juror..Not saying I would be vindictive. But this has really done a number regarding rationale within the system.. mooooooo

 

[rosepetal1065]

Also, I think it may be a mistake to select jurors who know nothing about the case. I just heard that a juror said they didn't believe a word George said. Well, we "know" George and Cindy by now. Know their past history, attitudes, truths and lies. We know why GA was belligerent with Baez and why he acted like he did on the stand. I do think he lied about his affair with Cruz, but what did that have to do with Casey killing Caylee? And what about Casey's past criminal history? The jurors just saw a sweet little girl in a pink blouse.

Maybe jurors need to know as much about the case as possible in order to make a decision.

Agreed. A fair trial goes out of the window, when you commit a crime worthy of constant airtime (IMO)

 

[Solange82200]

I absolutely am appalled they didnt hear about her stealing. Jose sat there and lied in his closing by saying that everyone considered her kind and caring. Kind and caring people dont clean out your bank account, their grandfather's nursing home account, their mothers' credit cards... That was a straight out lie, and the fact that he lied about that, should tell you he lied about everything else. There is no common sense anymore.

The article SMK just posted is one of the best I read. In particular, read about the guy who got acquitted because some of the women jurors thought he was good looking, and the man who thought he was guilty didnt want to hold out because it was almost 4 oclock.

How come changes aren't being made? How more obvious can it be that juries do not work the way it is now? We are trusting people with a life or death decision (and i mean life or death of Casey;s next victim), yet these are people we probably wouldn't even trust to babysit our pets??? Is there any organization out there that we can rally around that supports some changes to the justice system?

I wont pretend I know the answer, but I do know the way it is now is not it.

 

[SMK]

I absolutely am appalled they didnt hear about her stealing. Jose sat there and lied in his closing by saying that everyone considered her kind and caring. Kind and caring people dont clean out your bank account, their grandfather's nursing home account, their mothers' credit cards... That was a straight out lie, and the fact that he lied about that, should tell you he lied about everything else. There is no common sense anymore.

The article SMK just posted is one of the best I read. In particular, read about the guy who got acquitted because some of the women jurors thought he was good looking, and the man who thought he was guilty didnt want to hold out because it was almost 4 oclock.

How come changes aren't being made? How more obvious can it be that juries do not work the way it is now? We are trusting people with a life or death decision (and i mean life or death of Casey;s next victim), yet these are people we probably wouldn't even trust to babysit our pets??? Is there any organization out there that we can rally around that supports some changes to the justice system?

I wont pretend I know the answer, but I do know the way it is now is not it.

Well, I am not sure of my own feelings about the U.S. trial by jury system, but here is a man who seems to agree with you that it needs changing:

Should We Abolish the Jury System?

The defense did a Johnny Cochrane routine -- they blamed everybody within a 10 mile radius of the murder for the murder. Defense attorney Jose Baez suggested that Casey's dad, George, had sexually abused her during her childhood, without any evidence whatsoever. Baez also claimed that Caylee had drowned in the pool while George was at home, and that George had been involved in dumping the body.

There was no evidence to any of this. It was pure conjecture, a sociopathic response to being caught red-handed. And Casey Anthony is a sociopath: outwardly charming, pathologically lying, indecently self-centered, lacking in shame or guilt, promiscuous, exploitative and irresponsible, and willing to hurt anyone and everyone in order to get her way.

So, why did the jury acquit her? Because the jury system, as currently run, is stupid.

http:///columnists/benshapiro/2011/07/06/should_we_abolish_the_jury_system

 

[Solange82200]

Oh yeah, remember why Cristina and Casey stopped being friends? Remember she was lying to Cristina about working at SPorts Authority, and Cristina would babysit Caylee for free, until she found out Casey had lied and used the time to go out with guys. What a "great friend" Casey is. SHe is the biggest user I have ever seen, why shouldnt the jury hear about that? I think the defendant's character is pertinent to the case. We hear about George's affair and how Amy supposedly stole Casey's exes (that was sickening when Jose said that, I hated him more and more each time he opened his fat hole of a mouth), yet we cant hear the horrible things Casey did to the people around her?


Also, the defense made a big deal about the fact that when she was out she was on house arrest, and therefore couldnt tamper with evidence... But why didnt the jury hear that she spent 8 hours a day at her attorney's office???? Every day??? That gives her opportunity to dispose of stuff, plus it was a joke. I bet she used that time to go on the internet or talk on the phone without fear of being monitored. How many people on house arrest get to do that??????

 

[Serjen]

I just listened to Juror #3's interview again.

If this woman had been on the Scott Peterson Jury,she would have needed the cause of death in order to vote guilty. If left up to her, he would be living a fancy free lifestyle right now.

I remember in his closing arguments, State prosecutor Rick Distaso told the Jury...I don't have to prove to you how he did it...I don't have to prove to you why he did it. All I have to do is prove to you is,he did it.

Had Jeff Ashton included the above in his closing argument, would it have made a difference?

I don't really think so because listening to these jurors, they wanted exact proof and evidence that Casey and Casey alone did it. They wanted solid, without-a-doubt proof...they were not seeing anything else, IMO. Jennifer Ford said it that they didn't know that Casey did anything, that being a liar didn't make her a murderer. :banghead:

 

[HartsX3]

The more I have thought about this, I have decided that I do not believe the jury got this wrong for what they were given. 1st off, these jurors make me sick, wanting $ to talk, and some of their crappy attitudes, but reading what they were missing, I see their points.

I think the Duct Tape being the murder weapon was off... I think it was Chloroform, Casey was using it to sedate Caylee, and it went bad.. the DT was used to make this look like a kidnap/murder.

If the prosecution threw the DT theory away and ran with the chloroform, we have everything the jury was missing...
1. Motive - Casey wanted to party, needed to sedate Caylee since Cindy wouldn't babysit, and she didn't have $ to pay a babysitter
2. Premeditation - Casey searched for chloroform on the computers months before Caylees death - she planned to sedate her
3. What the defense was trying to prove with the chloroform... they were confused if it was used to hurt Caylee or to show remains.
4. George had no connection with the chloroform (it was Cindy that lied)

The state didn't expect the defenses opening argument. They weren't prepared to counteract that... They needed to show Casey was scared to get caught, by police and by Cindy for accidentally murdering her child, so she tried to act normal during the 31 days. They needed to try to find other times before Caylees death of Casey out partying, when they couldn't confirm a babysitter.. to show it could have very well been the car and chloroform.
I really wish they would have ran another direction with the duct tape and chloroform since it was not fully determined... the only piece of evidence the jury wanted to see was the DT with the heart sticker that was damaged... should have just been left out.

this simple minded jury needed simple minded explanation

JMO

 

[kaRN]

The jury got it so wrong!!
Please sign this petition to have ICA tried in Federal court under the exception to double jeopardy called the Martha Stewart Law. ICA lied to the FBI so it's a whole other ball of wax. They can also re-try the murder if jurors weren't following the law. Please and thanks!!!!

http://www.change.org/petitions/the-us-supreme-court-try-casey-anthony-in-federal-court

 

[ecs5298]

Awesome article here on just how "wrong" the jury got it! There is absolutely no excuse for this jury. They have disgraced the judicial system and anyone who has a shred of common sense in their entire bodies!

http://powerwall.msnbc.msn.com/politics/casey-jury-brainwash-1694371.story

 

[Mamietwo]

I took this from the Todays Current News Thread.

Quote:
The 32-year-old nursing student said the jury members were "sick to our stomach to get that verdict" but said there just wasn't enough evidence to convict Anthony.


"In our country ... we have to prove it. You can't just be like, 'Yeah that really looks bad. Smells bad. Looks bad.' I get that. It does:smells bad, looks bad. I get that. But it's someone else's life, and if I'm wrong, and I kill someone else? I can't live with that," she said, referring to the possible death sentence that could have been handed down. While Ford didn't receive direct compensation from the network for the interview, the Times reported that she and four others were treated to a trip to Disney World. Disney owns ABC.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...html?tag=strip

BBM
Why were they considering death in the guilt phase. And by the way they were supposed to be a death qualified jury. A miscarrage of justice.
I still can't get over this.

I agree with you 100% regarding this jury! Juror #3 did add to her next interview which was "Good Morning America" that the state did have strong Circumstantial Evidence but just didn't have proof. She said she was sick to her stomach from not knowing whether a crime was committed or not. She also said that she was not saying she thought Casey was innocent. She made that clear.

What, she can't "make it from here to there" (her words) that Casey was the last one known to have Caylee and Caylee was dead! She said that she didn't know whether Cindy was taking care of her or not. Wait---Cindy testified that she went to work at 7 AM that morning (June 16th) and had not seen Caylee since the night before. George testified that he had seen Casey and Caylee both on that last day leaving the house shortly before 1 PM. This juror also said the first vote was 10-2. So I want to know if it was ever said while they were deliberating that if they ever wanted to go home, the other two would have to swing over to their side because they were not changing their minds.

This jury was only concerned about themselves in getting out of there so they could make whatever deals they were going to make with the media, and take that cruise! They made up their minds a long time ago. I just find it very strange that 14 people, right away, came up with the decision to hold Casey Anthony not responsible in any way for her daughter's death. It's too bad there isn't a video camera in the jury room to see just how much real deliberation goes on.

As another poster said that this would all come out in time, I hope it does come out.

 

[kimmera]

If they had taken minimal notes, not referred to the testimony, photos, etc. collected over a 6 week period, not followed the instructions of the judge to use evidence and common sense and to not take opening or closing arguments as evidence, to consider "reasonable doubt".....yes, I would. I call em as I see em, and to me......this is juror misconduct. This will all come out a little bit at a time and we'll see just how much this particular jury did the "wrong" thing.

Personally, if I felt that the jury had taken the time to really deliberate and followed the court's instructions as they were advised to, then still voted to acquit...well I would be feeling a lot better about the situation. I wouldn't be happy about it, but they way it stands now, it appears that there was jury misconduct, IMO.

In order to vote NG on ALL charges (besides the lying) they basically had to agree that either all of the state's experts either lied or mistaken about everything. That simply isn't logical to me. FGS, even the dogs supported the state's argument! :banghead:

 

[cluciano63]

Ok...someone set me straight. Because I think now I am beyond all reasonable sense..
To me, what this verdict means to me is in any future murder, unless there is a video tape of someone committing the murder, any defendant just walks into the courtroom and makes up any kind of defense they want. And is ludicrous as it is, and no evidence for it...they just walk free..because, hey aliens could have done it...I am at a loss.

I will tell you one thing. I actually had a jury summons for July 6th that I exempted out of because of young children at home..I think it is a very good thing, for whomever it may have been ,I was not a juror..Not saying I would be vindictive. But this has really done a number regarding rationale within the system.. mooooooo

I have seen murder cases with convictions with not much physical evidence and no witnesses, that were based heavily on motive. Many times husbands are convicted of killing wives because they had a big insurance policy, for example, or had a girlfriend. I know motive is not required, but it does give the jury a sense of why a person was killed by a specific other person. The motive shown in this case was weak, IMO. They should have challenged Cindy about the fight even if the question was sustained, just to get it out there, she would have lied and said no, but it would have had an impact, IMO.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I just want someone to please tell me how do you find her guilty of lying to LE for the disapearance of your child but could not find her guilty of even child neglect? I can not grasp my head around that. Makes no sense to me.

BBM: EXACTLY !!

I have been :banghead::banghead::banghead: over this since the verdict !

KC was found GUILTY on the 4 Counts of giving "false information" to LE ... therefore she should have been found GUILTY of at least one of the following pre-mediated murder/1st degree murder/felony murder/manslaughter and/or child neglect !

Good Grief !!! Caylee was MISSING ... NO ONE had seen Caylee for 31 Days when this interview with LE was videotaped. KC's LIES to LE clearly indicated that she was GUILTY OF "SOMETHING" to Caylee ! KC was RESPONSIBLE FOR CAYLEE !

This is just COMMON SENSE 101, JURORS ! Caylee is MISSING and she admitted Caylee was missing but LIED to LE and told them she was "kidnapped" by the Nanny !

Oh, one other thing : the jury watched the videotape of KC being interviewed by Yuri and LE ... I guess since they saw a "videotape" of the actual LIE this constituted PROOF for the jury that she was lying.

I hope this made sense ... I am still trying to make sense of it 4 days later!

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[camcneishg]

I would like to share with you this article that was written by a dear friend of mine....
I would like to see someone run with this on the change.org site and title it "Caylee's Class".....I am not one that is good with words, but am hoping someone here will help with this.....there is a petiton on there now for understanding the laws for a juror....I would like this one to instruct the public just how to be jurists......please share any thoughts ....http://www.thesouthernvoice.com/2011/07/08/caylee-anthony-proveswhat-jurists-should-know/

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

Well...what's done is, well whatever....BUT, I see from some of the jury's statements, their minds were made up BEFORE deliberations.
I am in NO way legal minded, but I was scratching my head as to WHY CM was allowed to "explain" the law/decision process in the closing statements. His presentation, IMO, was DEFINITLY defense skewed...even if ever so slightly.
I've posted a similar position in other threads, but, I HONESTLY believe that CM's over simplified presentation was what this jury based their decision on.
I DON'T believe they listened or read the "real" instructions and honestly didn't even bother to review the evidence or ask questions to make sure they understood what was REALLY expected of them.
I truly think justice was NOT served....and it's not just sour grapes....with each juror stepping forth and giving their "rendition" of the process, as JA just said....they, basically, didn't follow the law.


ETA : just read the post above...THAT'S what I was talking about!!! The jurors simply kept CM's closing "instructions" in their head....paid NO attention to JBP's because those were harder to understand and just sounded like blah, blah, blah.....and they didn't comprehend the process of deliberation OR how to do it. There MUST be some sort of process to ensure each and every juror understands what is expected of them....a pop quiz?? LOL

The jury felt there WASN'T enough evidence, or even if they felt there WAS.....they did NOT take the process seriously enough to actually follow the letter of the law...their statements to the press are telling us that story. All just IMO.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I am going to go back and re-listen to Judge Perry read the "jury" their "instructions".

From what I remember, I think Judge Perry's instructions were very clear ... and if the jury did not understand them, they knew darn good and well the Judge would have come in and explained those instructions to them ... Judge Perry "bent over backwards" -- and then some -- to accommodate these "unappreciative" jurors.


Below are the links I found.


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fC7ykNwQf8&feature=related"]YouTube - ‪Casey Anthony: Murder Trial - Part 7 - 7/4/11 (Jury Instructions)‬‏[/ame]


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYpV4X5589M&feature=bf_next&list=PL2EEA5A95590F2BD7&index=3"]YouTube - ‪Casey Anthony: Murder Trial - Part 8 - 7/4/11 (Jury released to deliberate 12:09 PM EDT)‬‏[/ame]

 

[leesap]

I believe that the jury didn't bother to take the time and look at the evidence. They got it wrong.

 

[LancelotLink]

I would like to share with you this article that was written by a dear friend of mine....
I would like to see someone run with this on the change.org site and title it "Caylee's Class".....I am not one that is good with words, but am hoping someone here will help with this.....there is a petiton on there now for understanding the laws for a juror....I would like this one to instruct the public just how to be jurists......please share any thoughts ....http://www.thesouthernvoice.com/2011/07/08/caylee-anthony-proveswhat-jurists-should-know/

Great idea! We used to take a civics class in school.

 

[Solange82200]

I have seen murder cases with convictions with not much physical evidence and no witnesses, that were based heavily on motive. Many times husbands are convicted of killing wives because they had a big insurance policy, for example, or had a girlfriend. I know motive is not required, but it does give the jury a sense of why a person was killed by a specific other person. The motive shown in this case was weak, IMO. They should have challenged Cindy about the fight even if the question was sustained, just to get it out there, she would have lied and said no, but it would have had an impact, IMO.

The motive was weak? I thought it was crystal clear, especially considering the Susan Smith case which had the same motive and she was found guilty. I mean, that jail call home spelled it out even more, how many times did Casey say "I just want Tony's number!".

What a coincidence that the day Caylee died is the day she had plans to spend the night with Tony, but told her mom Caylee would be with the nanny. Hearing the fact that she was willing to let her child sleep in the bed with her boyfriend (Ricardo) at the time shows she is willing to do just about anything to spend time with men. She wanted to be with a man, that is all she ever wanted and Caylee got in the way. I dont see how it could be any more obvious.

Not that the dumb jury would have even put it together, but I wish they had heard when Jesse told the cops how Casey changes who she is based on the guy she is with. That she is a chameleon. He said when she was with him, she became ms innocent church girl. With another boyfriend she died her hair or did something else he said. With Tony, she wanted to be party girl / party every night while Tony was dj-ing. This woman got every ounce of her self worth from having a boyfriend. She changed her entire persona just to adapt to whatever boyfriend she had, she was nothing without a man at her side. It is crystal clear and very typical of these kind of women. Its not too different from woman who let their boyfriends abuse and hit their child just so they dont lose the man. Casey just took it a step further. I dont see how it could get any more obvious.

 

[SMK]

The motive was weak? I thought it was crystal clear, especially considering the Susan Smith case which had the same motive and she was found guilty. I mean, that jail call home spelled it out even more, how many times did Casey say "I just want Tony's number!".

What a coincidence that the day Caylee died is the day she had plans to spend the night with Tony, but told her mom Caylee would be with the nanny. Hearing the fact that she was willing to let her child sleep in the bed with her boyfriend (Ricardo) at the time shows she is willing to do just about anything to spend time with men. She wanted to be with a man, that is all she ever wanted and Caylee got in the way. I dont see how it could be any more obvious.

Not that the dumb jury would have even put it together, but I wish they had heard when Jesse told the cops how Casey changes who she is based on the guy she is with. That she is a chameleon. He said when she was with him, she became ms innocent church girl. With another boyfriend she died her hair or did something else he said. With Tony, she wanted to be party girl / party every night while Tony was dj-ing. This woman got every ounce of her self worth from having a boyfriend. She changed her entire persona just to adapt to whatever boyfriend she had, she was nothing without a man at her side. It is crystal clear and very typical of these kind of women. Its not too different from woman who let their boyfriends abuse and hit their child just so they dont lose the man. Casey just took it a step further. I dont see how it could get any more obvious.

I know, but the problem is, was all of what you are saying really clear to the jury?? Remember , Susan Smith confessed. If she had not, would she be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt?