Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[Horace Finklestein]

the jury did not get it wrong....the prosecution team DID NOT do their job, IMO! The anger and derogatory statements directed towards the jurors is mis-directed. And, knowing now that Jeff Ashton postponed retirement to handle this case and seeing him on the Today show the morning after the verdict was handed down, it is now my opinion that his motivation was not finding justice for Caylee but to make a name for himself to help his career endevors after retirement.

You mean Mason not Ashton right?

 

[Horace Finklestein]

The state didnt have to prove how she died, but they needed to narrow it down, was it chloroform or was it the duct tape? were the jurors supposed to just pick one because they thought she was guilty? There was nothing brought in to evidence on that courtroom that put KC with Caylee when she died..no matter what her cause of death was.
I dont like the verdict, but I can see why they came to this conclusion. Its a court of law not a tea party. they took the instructions very seriously; more seriously than other juries?? maybe..but they did do what they were asked to do. 12 people agreed on it, they were not all stupid or lazy or corrupt as portrayed here.

They evidently believed JB's fantasies, and they placed ICA at the scene - or at the very least under her care which should have been a definite guilty verdict for neglect.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I was on a jury, it wasnt murder, it was sexual molestation. It was daunting and heartbreaking. We found him guilty and he will spend the rest of his life in prison. When you are on a jury and someones life (prison or death) is on the line, you take the orders seriously. We all took it very seriously, "evidence" and reasonable doubt" take on a new meaning. I cannot imagine being harassed and ostracized after sitting my time on a jury, inconveniencing my family and tossing and turning about the details. I did my civic duty just like these people did.
It was 12 people, not 1. They deserve to be respected for their time, effort and ability to take the emotion out of their verdict.

I don't believe this jury deserves respect because of what seems to be coming out about them. They were derelict in their duty based on the statements of the few who are talking. They should be reviled imo. Several had criminal records and were clearly not honest in voir dire.moo

 

[technicalconfusion]

Had the jury bothered to look at the evidence, which they didn't, once they got back to deliberations, they would have had to look at pictures. They would have seen this one:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...ony-crime-scene-photos,0,1630574.photogallery

#28.

I'm not a chemist, a medical examiner, or scientist - just your average joe blowette off the street.

To me, this looks like several pieces of duct tape. That possibly went across a baby skull face and wrapped around that skull, after it was peeled off that skull in a lab.

Even if I thought ICA was not guilty, this picture would have made me stop and ask myself this: Is this what caused Caylees death? Who needs chloroform when you have duct tape?

They did not look at the evidence. At all.

 

[technicalconfusion]

I really don't think the defense picked where the jury would be seated. The defense is always on the left in every case I've seen and the state on the right, when you are in the back of the room looking toward the judge. I thought the fact that the jury could see her so well would be a big negative anyway.

Actually, I believe they did. There was considerable whining from the defense about folks wanting to read their laptops :rollseyes: They wanted their back to the wall.

 

[costalpilot]

Actually, they were 6-6 on the manslaughter charge and spent quite a bit of time after that discussing it.

they should have spent quite a bit more time

 

[Soulmagent]

Had the jury bothered to look at the evidence, which they didn't, once they got back to deliberations, they would have had to look at pictures. They would have seen this one:

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...ony-crime-scene-photos,0,1630574.photogallery

#28.

I'm not a chemist, a medical examiner, or scientist - just your average joe blowette off the street.

To me, this looks like several pieces of duct tape. That possibly went across a baby skull face and wrapped around that skull, after it was peeled off that skull in a lab.

Even if I thought ICA was not guilty, this picture would have made me stop and ask myself this: Is this what caused Caylees death? Who needs chloroform when you have duct tape?

They did not look at the evidence. At all.

Peeled off the skull??

Where ever you heard that is wrong,mistaken or misleading.

That tape does not look as if it went though a decompsition of a human body. Where is the staining? did it test for apicore(sp?) or any of the decomposition acids ? Not that I heard . Why?

 

[my_tee_mouse]

You mean Mason not Ashton right?

That's a pretty good description of Ashton and not Mason. Ashton is the one that put off retirement for this case, and Ashton is the one that is appearing on television ad nauseum.




Some food for thought with regard to the prevailing negative attitude toward the jurors:

http://www2.tbo.com/news/2011/jul/08/bay-area-man-misidentified-as-casey-anth-56166-vi-23238/

[Bay Area man misidentified as Casey Anthony juror]

The jury bashing game is getting way way out of control.

 

[my_tee_mouse]

Ummmmm no.

There was testimony from a woman in the lab, whose DNA it turned out to be.

So the only way a juror could claim reasonable doubt is if they didn't listen to the testimony.......................and if one of the other jurors did listen maybe they took notes and could refresh their memory with those note...............but, strangely, none of the jurors asked for their notes :waitasec:................

There was plenty of reasonable doubt...including the issue of the lab worker's DNA on evidence...the reasonable doubt being the validity of state's evidence marred by lab mishaps, iffy computer programs, and policemen who did not bother following up on reports of a sighting of the body in the swampy area, not to mention key witnesses who contradicted their own previous testimony.

 

[miss plum]

I suspect if you mentioned any of those to the jurors they would get blank 'lost in a maze' looks on their faces.

 

[rose222]

I don't believe this jury deserves respect because of what seems to be coming out about them. They were derelict in their duty based on the statements of the few who are talking. They should be reviled imo. Several had criminal records and were clearly not honest in voir dire.moo

Thank you. I'm glad that most of us feel this way. The jurors did not do their duties and nothing will change our minds about this because it is the
t-r-u-t-h.

 

[2goldfish]

Casey Anthony verdict could haunt jurors
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-07-07-casey-anthony-juror-oj-simpson_n.htm

whoa, if fox news is calling you "a bunch of idiots", you know you did wrong :floorlaugh:

ETA wow the OJ simpson juror says she doesnt want to condemn the anthony jury but she thinks the verdict was wrong.


LOL how wrong are you when even the OJ juror thinks so?

 

[Kavya01]

whoa, if fox news is calling you "a bunch of idiots", you know you did wrong :floorlaugh:

ETA wow the OJ simpson juror says she doesnt want to condemn the anthony jury but she thinks the verdict was wrong.


LOL how wrong are you when even the OJ juror thinks so?

Man oh man. Ain't THAT the truth :crazy:

 

[smart blonde]

I posted this in the wrong thread earlier, and really wanted to share it here.

My apologies if someone else already posted it, and no matter one's opinion on Bill O'Reilly himself, I feel this short video is worth watching:

Bill O'Reilly Goes Off On Casey Anthony Juror:

www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/bill-oreilly-casey-anthony-juror-209259

 

[Aqua_Green_Bean]

The more I hear jurors and alternates speak out, the angrier I get. They got it wrong. They did not do their job as jurors because they did not take the time to ask questions about rules they didn't understand (i.e. what is reasonable doubt, not taking the penalty into consideration when deciding on guilt, not needing a cause of death in order to prove death, etc.).

It is also painfully obvious that they did not heed HHJP's admonitions and they were discussing the case before deliberations. There is no way the 2 alternates and 2 jurors who have come forward would say the EXACT SAME things as to why she was found not-guilty had they not been talking about it when they should not have. The alternates were not there during deliberations, yet they said the same reasons the 2 actual jurors did. I am even more certain about this because reasons they gave - no cause of death, George was confrontational and evasive, no DNA - are ridiculous reasons for her to be found not guilty.

 

[Phoebeb]

I suspect if you mentioned any of those to the jurors they would get blank 'lost in a maze' looks on their faces.

I would love it if an interviewer would sort of quiz the jurors who are speaking on the lack of evidence. Not to get a gotcha moment exactly, but ask specific questions to show whether they have recollection of the details we know by heart.

 

[jenniek]

I would love it if an interviewer would sort of quiz the jurors who are speaking on the lack of evidence. Not to get a gotcha moment exactly, but ask specific questions to show whether they have recollection of the details we know by heart.

I, too, wish they would be asked questions or even called out to say "hey the SA doesn't need to prove COD or motive". I think they are clueless and I hope their "plan" about making money for this case i.e. books and interviews backfires (which I think it will, no one cares what they have to say because I don't think many people have respect for them.) Hope the trip to Disney was worth it, a little girl will never be able to go to Disney World EVER - but why would they care.

jmo

 

[jharres]

I have a hard time believing that there were 12 stealth jurors. One or two, maybe, but all 12? Eh, I just don't buy it. I don't really understand why they found her not guilty, but they did. One of the interviewed jurors said that they didn't believe that the state was able to tie down their accusations of murder, that there were too many unknowns. When it came down to it, the State just couldn't provide concrete enough evidence of murder. Reprehensible behavior, absolutely, but not murder.

Personally, I believe that the defense won the case on account of the Anthonys. They put them all up on the stand and let them lie their butts off and contradict each other. Basically, they were left with a whole mess of contradictory information from the directly involved parties and it was enough to muddy the waters. I think the jury did exactly what they were called to do. I don't agree with the outcome (AT ALL), but the system worked as it should have and the defense won.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

The jury got it right.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/neal-boor...t-1006140.html

Back off the rhetoric about the jury. At least these people served. I would suggest that unless you heard every second of testimony and reviewed every item placed in evidence, you were not as prepared to render a verdict as they were. You’re upset? Vent that on the prosecutors who, it seems, over-charged Anthony. Maybe you can write an angry letter to the police who didn’t do a thorough search the first time they were called to the location where Caylee’s body was eventually found.

If you’re ever wrongly accused of a crime you don’t want capable citizens to remember the anger focused on the Casey Anthony jury and say no thanks to their summons. You may need 12 people just like these someday.

You tell 'em!

Oh, and this one too. Excellent.

http://pottstown.patch.com/articles/...justice-system

Instead, the prosecution attempted to hang its hat on circumstantial evidence -- including an ambiguous journal entry and bleeding edge science from the Body Farm -- to try to carry a case they too may have believed to be open and shut. Fortunately for the justice system and our society, brave individuals decided to care more about the facts than what the talking heads and outraged sheep had already decreed. It is a heavy burden to literally hold life or death in one's hand, and these jurors decided that they could not kill based on the facts they were presented.

While Anthony may indeed be guilty, I would rather she be set free to face the universe, God and herself than to let an innocent woman be put to death. I would rather 100 guilty people go free than have an innocent life thrown away.

If the citizens and pundits declare Anthony guilty regardless of what the courts say, then the courts serve no purpose. Let vigilante justice reign supreme.

Lady Justice is portrayed holding scales and a double edged sword. It is the blindfold she wears, however, that is most important to her visage. She sees nothing, relying on the facts and objectivity to mete out punishment that has an unfathomable impact on an individual's life. Grace and her ilk are blind as well; blind to common sense, the Constitution and the very foundation of the American judicial system

 

[Kavya01]

The jury got it right.

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/neal-boor...t-1006140.html



You tell 'em!

Oh, and this one too. Excellent.

http://pottstown.patch.com/articles/...justice-system

The difference in this is that I consider myself 100 times more at risk to be a VICTIM of a crime rather than a PERPETRATOR of one.


So to me, these commentaries have no value. I want justice to be done for victims, and do NOT see myself needing 12 people from Pinellas county one day.