Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[Boston]

From listening to Juror # 2 this is what I gather what they though of some of the States Evidence.

Chloroform in the Trunk - Wasn't there...LE just made it up

Decomp in Trunk - Wasn't there - A few Police officers didn't smell it

Duct Tape - Thats how the Anthony's burried their Pets - Doesn't prove murder

Heart Shaped Sticker - ????

31 Days - Bad behavior doesn't prove murder

Casey's Lying - She's been lying for years - Doesn't prove murder

Hair with Death Band - There should have been more than 1 so Body wasn't there

George - Jose said George disposed of the Body & he lied on the stand so he must be involved in a cover up ..........."Of an Accident"..????

 

[Soulmagent]

Don't you think that being underwater and otherwise exposed to the elements for six months could and probably would wash all of that away? The duct tape was in pretty rough shape when the remains were found.

I guess in theory it sounds good,but in reality,no I dont really think that being out in the weather for six mounth would wash any discoloration from decomposition that would surely stain the tape. At the very least the fiber strings that were left. I dunno justt something I thought about.

 

[Sharai]

I believe in our justice system, and I'd like to believe that we get things right more often than we get things wrong; however, juries are not infallible. Juries don't always interpret the evidence and/or the law correctly; innocent people are convicted (and even sentenced to death), and guilty people are set free. As much as I dislike that, it happens because our system is not flawless. That being said, I respect the jury's decision, but I do not agree with it. My opinion is not based on mere emotion; it's based on the evidence I saw presented during the trial.

Here's how I connected the dots based on the evidence:

The Car

I believe that there was a dead body in the trunk at some point. This is based on the testimony of several people who have had numerous experiences smelling dead bodies (including Simon Birch, who has also smelled all sorts of garbage/rotten food due to his prior work in waste management), the cadaver dogs, the chemical analysis, and the death band on the hair.

Here's the thing, though: As the defense pointed out, some of the technology/science the state presented is still new, so it's not 100% reliable. If the state had only presented the hair with the death band, for example, I would have reasonable doubt; however, when you take all of those things together, it's far more reasonable to believe that there was a dead body in the trunk than it is to believe that all of the trunk evidence was incorrect. When I consider the fact that Casey's defense attorney admitted that Caylee died on June 16th, I feel even more strongly about this.

Access to the Car

The DT seemed to imply that since George had keys to the car, he also had access to it and may have been responsible for putting Caylee's body in the trunk . . . which is odd when you consider the fact that they'd been fighting so hard to prove that there'd never been a body in the trunk in the first place.

But the thing is, when would George have had a chance to put the body in the trunk? If I remember correctly, the DT seemed to try to imply that he could have done it after Casey left her car or after it had been towed, but to believe this would mean that one would have to believe that George somehow randomly found her car in a city as big as Orlando, somehow transported a decomposing body in his own vehicle, somehow put it in Casey's car in a public place where he could have been seen, and somehow later came back to take it out. That, IMO, is far less reasonable than believing that Casey put the body in the trunk, even if you only go on the basis that she had more access to the car. (Of course, there are other things that tie Casey to trunk and to the crime itself, and I'll get to that in a bit.)

Chloroform

Regardless of whether or not the chloroform site was visited eighty-four times, it seems clear that someone* searched for it -- along with instructions on how to make it. That alone isn't too damning, but it is when you consider that the reason the computer was searched to begin with was due to unusually high levels of chloroform in the trunk. If the state had only presented the computer searches without presenting the evidence of chloroform in the trunk (or vice versa), then I would have reasonable doubt on this issue. The chloroform in the trunk could have been explained away by cleaning products, but when you view the evidence in conjunction with the computer searches, it seems far more sinister and a lot less coincidental. True, there is no proof that chloroform killed Caylee, but since evidence of Caylee's dead body and chloroform were both found in the trunk, there seems to have been some sort of connection. Personally, I've always believed she used the chloroform to knock Caylee out before placing the duct tape over her nose and mouth because there'd be no reason to place duct tape over her nose and mouth if she'd already been killed by the chloroform. I think it's likely that she used the chloroform to prevent a struggle.

*I'm not even going to mention Cindy's testimony because I think the state proved pretty conclusively that she was at work when those searches were made. George was also at work when these searches were made, so that leaves us with Casey.

The Duct Tape

This, IMO, was the murder weapon. Like Jeff Ashton said, there is absolutely no reason to put duct tape over the nose and mouth of a child, regardless of whether the child is dead or alive. Some people have speculated that the duct tape may have been used to stage a kidnapping, but this did not look like a kidnapping; it looked like a murder by suffocation. Kidnappers generally use duct tape to prevent someone from making noise, so if this was a staged kidnapping, the duct tape would have only covered her mouth. There would have been no need for three pieces to cover her nose and her mouth. Others have suggested that she may have used the tape to prevent decompositional fluids from coming out of her nose and mouth, but by the time her body was decomposed enough to be leaking fluids, that would be the equivalent of putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. Her face, along with the rest of her body, would have already been leaking.

So ... did someone put the duct tape on Caylee's skull after it was already decomposed, which is what Dr. Spitz suggested? First of all, why would anyone do that? There is absolutely, positively no evidence that any of the investigators tampered with the scene. The defense claims that Roy Kronk moved the body and may have placed the tape on Caylee's skull, but why on earth would he do that? Why would he care if her mandible became detached from the rest of her skull? What reason would he have to risk tying himself to the scene -- and, therefore, possibly implicating himself -- if all he cared about was claiming the reward money? I'm also not the least bit concerned about the lack of DNA on the tape and the lack of tape residue on the skull. After all, both had been exposed to the elements for six months, so that's not too unexpected.

Basing his opinion on the "pet cemetery" testimony, one of the alternate jurors thought that the tape could have come from the burial, but that doesn't really make sense. First of all, the Anthonys didn't place duct tape on their pets' faces. Secondly, the presence of the duct tape on the nose/mouth area -- with the mandible still attached -- strongly seems to indicate that the duct tape was placed on her face prior to decomposition, otherwise the mandible would have become detached when her face decomposed.

Tying Casey to the Crime Scene

The laundry bag Caylee was found with came from the Anthony home. The remains of the shirt found with Caylee's body hadn't been seen in the Anthony home, but Caylee was seen wearing it in a photo she'd had taken with Casey. Therefore, it's logical to assume that Casey may have kept it with her in a diaper bag. IIRC, Cindy also testified that she hadn't seen Caylee's Winnie the Pooh blanket since May of 2008, so it's logical to assume that Casey also had this in her possession. As far as I'm concerned, these things (along with other things, of course) rule out everyone in the Anthony home except for Casey.

The Manner of Death and Other Things

Dr. G said that Caylee died as the result of homicide by undetermined means. She based this on the duct tape and the manner in which Caylee was found. She also said that whenever an accident happens, 911 is always called. When you take this into consideration -- along with the rest of the evidence -- it seems reasonable to conclude that Caylee did not die as the result of an accident. There is no logical reason to make an accident look like a murder.

And last but not least, we have Casey's behavior. As you may have noticed, I've listed this last. Contrary to popular belief, it's possible to come to the conclusion that Casey killed Caylee without even looking at her behavior; however, when you look at her behavior in conjunction with everything else, it's pretty damning.

All that being said, I have no idea why the jurors were unable to put the puzzle pieces together. Like Vinnie Politan said, what other reasonable explanation is there that explains all the circumstances? Many of the jurors have said that they needed a motive, a concrete cause of death, a time of death, a place of death, etc., but legally, none of those things were required. Don't believe me? Take a look at their jury instructions.

Excellent well thought out post. I commend you for taking the time to logically state your thought process, demonstrating your ability to connect the dots, and especially for exemplifying how one makes reasonable inferences. I, too, don't understand how the jurors were not able to follow this process. Thanks for you post.

 

[yolorado]

No way. I would prefer to be judged by a jury of peers. The system is working. Just because there is an outcome that people don't like doesn't mean it isn't working. It's the talking heads that have corrupted this process. They convicted her to the masses, and so that is exactly the outcome the public was expecting--in fact, demanding! There should be restrictions on the media, not changes to the jury system. MOO

Restrictions on the media? I don't think so. This is a new age. The media and the public had access to most of the evidence through the document dumps. This is a very good thing. There are people in the media and public who know much more about the evidence than, apparently, the jurors. Changes in technology may also call for changes to our government systems. Having exposure and knowledge provided by the new media focus and internet tech can alert us to a problem with our legal system, such as the one exposed by the KC trial. While we don't want the innocent in jail, we also don't want the guilty out of jail-until they have been held accountable for their crimes. KC is guilty, but for some reason, our legal system failed and she will go free. The media and internet provide us the knowledge to make this type of assessment.

MO, the KC jury panel was selected from far to small a sample of "our peers." We need to work toward greater diversity, to limit changes of venue and end sequestration, which has the potential of creating group think.

 

[Boston]

If Casey were a Man & Caylee were that man's wife & prosecutors presented the same case against that man would this same Jury find him Not Guilty?

I think not so please stop telling me that there was not enough evidence for a conviction!!

 

[Boytwnmom]

so that the public can't be informed about a murderers crimes. Well, I guess that's one conclusion-the publics right to know and freedom of speech is the problem.

No way. I would prefer to be judged by a jury of peers. The system is working. Just because there is an outcome that people don't like doesn't mean it isn't working. It's the talking heads that have corrupted this process. They convicted her to the masses, and so that is exactly the outcome the public was expecting--in fact, demanding! There should be restrictions on the media, not changes to the jury system. MOO

 

[jon_burrows]

Don't get me wrong, I think LDB and JA did a fabulous job. I paid attention. I could clearly connect the dots. But some people have suggested that they didn't, in my words, "dumb it down" enough for the jury. They were factual, objective, cerebral, logical in their approach. No dirty pool.

Jose, on the other hand, schmoozed the jury. "Good morning ladies and gentlemen....Good morning Mr. Baez..." Rather than being intellectual, he used schmooze, sleaze and truly unethical tactics. And this was more effective, with this jury, than the "intellectual" approach used by the prosecution.

There is no excuse for his conduct. He violated the rules of conduct, and he needs to face consequences.

And the jury....oh boy...I am so truly upset by their lack of ability to absorb, process and infer. It would have taken me several hours to simply delve into and understand the charges! This was a very complex case. They didn't even bother with any details. I am left with the following question about jury trials:

Is this the new norm? How much do we have to "dumb it down" to get a group of 12 to "get it"? I have lost a huge part of my belief in the system. I do not respect these jurors. They lacked intellect and the cojones to reach a tough decision. How easy to hang your hat on "reasonable doubt" rather than do the 'hard thinking' and demonstrate the courage required to live up to the responsibility they accepted when placed on that jury? They were a complete waste of space.

ITA with your post but a 10 year old could have understood JA and LDB's closing arguments. I think this jury was lazy and didn't have any critical thinking skills whatsoever. They really need to stop doing interviews. They don't even realize how ridiculous they sound. The juror with an agent shopping around for the highest bidder should stay under his rock where he belongs. It's disgusting.

IMO

 

[Italy]

Can't help but wish SOMEONE on the jury had said "No" when they were polled. The case would have then been a mistrial - jury could go home and the juror who said "No" would be a national hero.

 

[Boytwnmom]

the problem with a jury which doesn't understand their instructions and evaluate the evidence and deliberate thoroughly is that this failure could just as easily result in an unfair convinction than an unfair acquital. What if the next SA uses their OS in the same unfair manner as the DT here and tells an unsupported tale that the next lazy jury buys-the accused is convicted when they shouldn't be becasue the jury doesn't do their job properly. The system depends on all elements doing their job appropriately. When one element fails, it all fails. This time in favor of the accused but next time who knows. I will never believe this jury did their job to the best of their ability and that causes the whole system to fail.

Wow. Just wow. Just mind blowing is all. Even Jeff Ashton has the courtesy to accept (and understand) the verdict and thank them for their duty.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

MO, the KC jury panel was selected from far to small a sample of "our peers." We need to work toward greater diversity, to limit changes of venue and end sequestration, which has the potential of creating group think.

Why do think that is? EVERY SINGLE PERSON has the right to a fair trial. It's not media-by-trial. Thank god. The pool got smaller BECAUSE of the media frenzy. How difficult it must have been to find a jury that was not tainted by 3 years of media obsession. Convicted in the media as guilty before even going to trial.

 

[jon_burrows]

I believe in our justice system, and I'd like to believe that we get things right more often than we get things wrong; however, juries are not infallible. Juries don't always interpret the evidence and/or the law correctly; innocent people are convicted (and even sentenced to death), and guilty people are set free. As much as I dislike that, it happens because our system is not flawless. That being said, I respect the jury's decision, but I do not agree with it. My opinion is not based on mere emotion; it's based on the evidence I saw presented during the trial.

Here's how I connected the dots based on the evidence:

The Car

I believe that there was a dead body in the trunk at some point. This is based on the testimony of several people who have had numerous experiences smelling dead bodies (including Simon Birch, who has also smelled all sorts of garbage/rotten food due to his prior work in waste management), the cadaver dogs, the chemical analysis, and the death band on the hair.

Here's the thing, though: As the defense pointed out, some of the technology/science the state presented is still new, so it's not 100% reliable. If the state had only presented the hair with the death band, for example, I would have reasonable doubt; however, when you take all of those things together, it's far more reasonable to believe that there was a dead body in the trunk than it is to believe that all of the trunk evidence was incorrect. When I consider the fact that Casey's defense attorney admitted that Caylee died on June 16th, I feel even more strongly about this.

Access to the Car

The DT seemed to imply that since George had keys to the car, he also had access to it and may have been responsible for putting Caylee's body in the trunk . . . which is odd when you consider the fact that they'd been fighting so hard to prove that there'd never been a body in the trunk in the first place.

But the thing is, when would George have had a chance to put the body in the trunk? If I remember correctly, the DT seemed to try to imply that he could have done it after Casey left her car or after it had been towed, but to believe this would mean that one would have to believe that George somehow randomly found her car in a city as big as Orlando, somehow transported a decomposing body in his own vehicle, somehow put it in Casey's car in a public place where he could have been seen, and somehow later came back to take it out. That, IMO, is far less reasonable than believing that Casey put the body in the trunk, even if you only go on the basis that she had more access to the car. (Of course, there are other things that tie Casey to trunk and to the crime itself, and I'll get to that in a bit.)

Chloroform

Regardless of whether or not the chloroform site was visited eighty-four times, it seems clear that someone* searched for it -- along with instructions on how to make it. That alone isn't too damning, but it is when you consider that the reason the computer was searched to begin with was due to unusually high levels of chloroform in the trunk. If the state had only presented the computer searches without presenting the evidence of chloroform in the trunk (or vice versa), then I would have reasonable doubt on this issue. The chloroform in the trunk could have been explained away by cleaning products, but when you view the evidence in conjunction with the computer searches, it seems far more sinister and a lot less coincidental. True, there is no proof that chloroform killed Caylee, but since evidence of Caylee's dead body and chloroform were both found in the trunk, there seems to have been some sort of connection. Personally, I've always believed she used the chloroform to knock Caylee out before placing the duct tape over her nose and mouth because there'd be no reason to place duct tape over her nose and mouth if she'd already been killed by the chloroform. I think it's likely that she used the chloroform to prevent a struggle.

*I'm not even going to mention Cindy's testimony because I think the state proved pretty conclusively that she was at work when those searches were made. George was also at work when these searches were made, so that leaves us with Casey.

The Duct Tape

This, IMO, was the murder weapon. Like Jeff Ashton said, there is absolutely no reason to put duct tape over the nose and mouth of a child, regardless of whether the child is dead or alive. Some people have speculated that the duct tape may have been used to stage a kidnapping, but this did not look like a kidnapping; it looked like a murder by suffocation. Kidnappers generally use duct tape to prevent someone from making noise, so if this was a staged kidnapping, the duct tape would have only covered her mouth. There would have been no need for three pieces to cover her nose and her mouth. Others have suggested that she may have used the tape to prevent decompositional fluids from coming out of her nose and mouth, but by the time her body was decomposed enough to be leaking fluids, that would be the equivalent of putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. Her face, along with the rest of her body, would have already been leaking.

So ... did someone put the duct tape on Caylee's skull after it was already decomposed, which is what Dr. Spitz suggested? First of all, why would anyone do that? There is absolutely, positively no evidence that any of the investigators tampered with the scene. The defense claims that Roy Kronk moved the body and may have placed the tape on Caylee's skull, but why on earth would he do that? Why would he care if her mandible became detached from the rest of her skull? What reason would he have to risk tying himself to the scene -- and, therefore, possibly implicating himself -- if all he cared about was claiming the reward money? I'm also not the least bit concerned about the lack of DNA on the tape and the lack of tape residue on the skull. After all, both had been exposed to the elements for six months, so that's not too unexpected.

Basing his opinion on the "pet cemetery" testimony, one of the alternate jurors thought that the tape could have come from the burial, but that doesn't really make sense. First of all, the Anthonys didn't place duct tape on their pets' faces. Secondly, the presence of the duct tape on the nose/mouth area -- with the mandible still attached -- strongly seems to indicate that the duct tape was placed on her face prior to decomposition, otherwise the mandible would have become detached when her face decomposed.

Tying Casey to the Crime Scene

The laundry bag Caylee was found with came from the Anthony home. The remains of the shirt found with Caylee's body hadn't been seen in the Anthony home, but Caylee was seen wearing it in a photo she'd had taken with Casey. Therefore, it's logical to assume that Casey may have kept it with her in a diaper bag. IIRC, Cindy also testified that she hadn't seen Caylee's Winnie the Pooh blanket since May of 2008, so it's logical to assume that Casey also had this in her possession. As far as I'm concerned, these things (along with other things, of course) rule out everyone in the Anthony home except for Casey.

The Manner of Death and Other Things

Dr. G said that Caylee died as the result of homicide by undetermined means. She based this on the duct tape and the manner in which Caylee was found. She also said that whenever an accident happens, 911 is always called. When you take this into consideration -- along with the rest of the evidence -- it seems reasonable to conclude that Caylee did not die as the result of an accident. There is no logical reason to make an accident look like a murder.

And last but not least, we have Casey's behavior. As you may have noticed, I've listed this last. Contrary to popular belief, it's possible to come to the conclusion that Casey killed Caylee without even looking at her behavior; however, when you look at her behavior in conjunction with everything else, it's pretty damning.

All that being said, I have no idea why the jurors were unable to put the puzzle pieces together. Like Vinnie Politan said, what other reasonable explanation is there that explains all the circumstances? Many of the jurors have said that they needed a motive, a concrete cause of death, a time of death, a place of death, etc., but legally, none of those things were required. Don't believe me? Take a look at their jury instructions.

You put alot of thought and reasoning into this post and I wanted to do more than just hit the 'thanks' button.

I wish you had been on the jury

BBM in red - I wish you had been on the jury too.

IMO

 

[Boytwnmom]

for the "loosing" attorney to take this on. But it is appropriate for the general public and especially citizens of FL to take this on as they could be the next victim of a jury which doesn't do their job diligently.

And thank goodness for that. If he believed there was a huge miscarriage of justice I expect he would speak out about that, yet he hasn't.

 

[cluciano63]

Wow. Just wow. Just mind blowing is all. Even Jeff Ashton has the courtesy to accept (and understand) the verdict and thank them for their duty.

Yes, and if memory serves, he and his side had a chance to be in on jury selection too. True, they ended up with a juror they did not want, who seems to have been the least of their problems.

Anyway, IMO, this is one case that many feel the jury got it wrong. It does not make the entire system a "joke" or "broken." Most trials I have watched have resulted in verdicts that seem to fit the evidence. On the other hand, few people get riled up if an average person gets acquitted. This case took on momumental proportions from the start. So it is a highly visible case where the jury's verdict did not meet the public's expectations. But it is not the end of the jury system in this country, IMO, nor should it be.

 

[rotterdam]

ITA with your post but a 10 year old could have understood JA and LDB's closing arguments. I think this jury was lazy and didn't have any critical thinking skills whatsoever. They really need to stop doing interviews. They don't even realize how ridiculous they sound. The juror with an agent shopping around for the highest bidder should stay under his rock where he belongs. It's disgusting.

IMO

Once the names of the jurors have been released, I hope scam artists will take note. If their NG verdict was a reflection of their impaired logical brain facilities, in spite of compelling circumstantial evidence, they surely must be ripe for successful scamming.

 

[TexasLori]

They did not let her walk,imo. The case was not proven to them and I do not agree that they ignored facts.

Everything is open to interpretation. We had a case here where the jury was shown a video of the ENTIRE CRIME which was a gang rape! Yet, the doubt instilled by the defense team was enough to hang the jury. I was really angry about that for a long time. Then I realized that they interpreted the same thing I saw with different eyes and as much as I absolutely did not get to where they did, I came to understand their verdict (kind of)
But,ultimately it came down to the DA overcharging and while punishment should not be considered, there is always the human element and these jurors were searching for a way to keep from sending teenagers to prison for life.
The DA recognized that as an issue.Ultimately they were re-tried and convicted, but the DA reduced the number of charges and the charges themselves to get that conviction and they did so easily.I think they were guilty of every single original charge based on the video alone. But I respect that even though the DA felt as I did, they wanted to make sure these boys got puished rather than walk, so the gave the jury what they could handle.

The SA in this case needed to recognize the difficulty they would have in convicting a young mother of killing her child with no direct evidence;especially with a premeditated charge. JA himself said it is a hard concept for many to grasp.

IMO,if they had gone for an involuntary manslaughter charge based solely on the 31 days of no reporting and built a case around a mother that was so dysfunctional she made bad decisions every which way she turned and supported that with behavioral evidence, they would have won a conviction easily. IOW, we cannot necessarily prove premeditiation, but we can prove through circumstantial evidence that this woman was involved in Caylee's death in some capacity, I think they would have convicted with ease. they went all or nothing and that,imo, was a strategic error. But there is certainly an argument to be made that it was a worthy gamble.

Jurys are a funny thing and largely unpredictable. I am not a gambler by nature, so I would have gone with the safer bet.

With no disrespect to you, JBean, all I can say is wow. That is scary and makes me worried for our system.

 

[Italy]

Yes, and if memory serves, he and his side had a chance to be in on jury selection too. True, they ended up with a juror they did not want, who seems to have been the least of their problems.

Anyway, IMO, this is one case that many feel the jury got it wrong. It does not make the entire system a "joke" or "broken." Most trials I have watched have resulted in verdicts that seem to fit the evidence. On the other hand, few people get riled up if an average person gets acquitted. This case took on momumental proportions from the start. So it is a highly visible case where the jury's verdict did not meet the public's expectations. But it is not the end of the jury system in this country, IMO, nor should it be.

I don't think it should be the end of the jury system either - but this verdict points out (to some of us) some serious deficiencies which should be addressed. I believe one should not be able to get out of serving on a jury for any but the most compelling reasons. First 12 names called are the jury.

There is an argument that a jury is simply a group of 12 people too dumb to get out of jury duty. I submit a high profile case could be 12 people eager to cash in (as evidenced by the juror saying he wants 5 figures to discuss his verdict).

I am much less comfortable with our jury selection process than I was before this trial and I would like to see some changes.

 

[Soulmagent]

I feel that the Jury used pure speculation & unsubstantiated claims by the defense to come to the conclusion this was most likely "just an accident". It's easier for them to believe in an an accident than it is to believe that a mother could do something so horrible to her own child. Their minds were made up before they even started to deliberate & any time a cold hard fact got in the way of their "Accident Theory" they tossed it aside.

Juror # 2 told Greta Van S. that she didn't believe that there was any Chloroform in the trunk & that LE just exaggerated that because they found Chloroform searches on the Computer 1st. Did she even bother to look at the evidence to see weather LE found the Chloroform in the Trunk 1st or the computer searches for Chloroform 1st..??

She is basically saying that LE lied about the presence of Chloroform in the trunk just because they found the computer searches.

I'm so sick of hearing that there wasn't enough evidence to find Casey Guilty. If you took the same circumstances & evidence of this case & applied it to a Man murdering his wife then this jury would have come back with a guilty verdict.

They took the easy way out..."It had to be an accident". They just couldn't wrap their heads around the Pure evil that is Casey Anthony

Juror #2 is a black male.

 

[jjenny]

If Casey were a Man & Caylee were that man's wife & prosecutors presented the same case against that man would this same Jury find him Not Guilty?

I think not so please stop telling me that there was not enough evidence for a conviction!!

Well we all know Scott Peterson is sitting on death row. No cause of death for Laci Peterson and very little physical evidence. I am guessing jury was looking at Casey, sitting there all demure in her modest clothing, looking like a little girl. If this was some guy sitting there I bet they might have come back with a different result.

 

[CharlestonGal]

Why do think that is? EVERY SINGLE PERSON has the right to a fair trial. It's not media-by-trial. Thank god. The pool got smaller BECAUSE of the media frenzy. How difficult it must have been to find a jury that was not tainted by 3 years of media obsession. Convicted in the media as guilty before even going to trial.

That gives me a lot of comfort in this case. ICA may not spend the rest of her life behind bars (as I think she should), but her life is still basically OVER because thanks to the media the entire country (and an extraordinary number of people in other countries) know good and well what this person has done to her defenseless child. ICA will forever be a pariah and will never be accepted into decent society. It will be impossible for her to go somewhere and just start over like she hasn't done what she has done, thanks to the media and social networking.

That is how it should be. The official court is free to find her "not guilty", but the societal court has certainly spoken in this case and she will forever be an acquitted murderer in the eyes of most people. And rightly so. She has earned her infamy and the disgust of the world. Yes, the "court" let her go, but society won't because, thankfully, word has spread far and wide about this woman. Thanks to the media there is at least SOME justice in this case.

 

[rotterdam]

They did not let her walk,imo. The case was not proven to them and I do not agree that they ignored facts.

Everything is open to interpretation. We had a case here where the jury was shown a video of the ENTIRE CRIME which was a gang rape! Yet, the doubt instilled by the defense team was enough to hang the jury. I was really angry about that for a long time. Then I realized that they interpreted the same thing I saw with different eyes and as much as I absolutely did not get to where they did, I came to understand their verdict (kind of)
But,ultimately it came down to the DA overcharging and while punishment should not be considered, there is always the human element and these jurors were searching for a way to keep from sending teenagers to prison for life.
The DA recognized that as an issue.Ultimately they were re-tried and convicted, but the DA reduced the number of charges and the charges themselves to get that conviction and they did so easily.I think they were guilty of every single original charge based on the video alone. But I respect that even though the DA felt as I did, they wanted to make sure these boys got puished rather than walk, so the gave the jury what they could handle.

The SA in this case needed to recognize the difficulty they would have in convicting a young mother of killing her child with no direct evidence;especially with a premeditated charge. JA himself said it is a hard concept for many to grasp.

IMO,if they had gone for an involuntary manslaughter charge based solely on the 31 days of no reporting and built a case around a mother that was so dysfunctional she made bad decisions every which way she turned and supported that with behavioral evidence, they would have won a conviction easily. IOW, we cannot necessarily prove premeditiation, but we can prove through circumstantial evidence that this woman was involved in Caylee's death in some capacity, I think they would have convicted with ease. they went all or nothing and that,imo, was a strategic error. But there is certainly an argument to be made that it was a worthy gamble.

Jurys are a funny thing and largely unpredictable. I am not a gambler by nature, so I would have gone with the safer bet.

I can see your point. DP is becoming less and less popular with juries. However, I am afraid that this case has sent a clear message to murderers and their DT. Do not ever confess, do not take plea deals. Milk the case for publicity from day one. The monetary rewards afterwards will be awesome. Worth a gamble.