Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[cuppy199]

No, so if they were that easily swayed, they must not have been too sure of their "guilty" vote in the first place. It did not take them long to get the unanimous "not guilty" verdict, so why does everyone think they had to ask endless questions, go over evidence, and ask for documents? They didn't need it, obviously.

They say it was 10-2 right. Have you ever been that 2% that didnt agree? Doesnt mean they didnt think she was guilty but when you have 10 angry jurors wanting to go home I would imagine there would be alot of pressure.

 

[cluciano63]

I was not meaning to say that the jury should change their decision on liking the lawyers, but they are human and unfortunately that does play into their decision in some way. Just like the Prosecution and Defense hire and pay thousands of $$'s to "jury panel profilers" to investigate and study the members of the jury after it is selected and help them present their case based upon the individual personalities and experiences of the jurors. It happens all the time, especially in high stakes cases and both sides do it. It just a unfortunate reality that all of this does affect the ultimate verdict.

JA always seemed defensive and objected so much - the one time he wouldn't even sit down between objections until JP told him to - it seemed like he was hiding something. He also did not need to bully the witnesses like he did..IMO.

The jury system of justice is very much a "subjective" system of justice. I think we can all see that with this trial.

As someone who did not follow the case before trial, I often felt that JA was trying to prevent info from coming out...which he may well have had "legal" rights to do, but it still probably affected the jury, wondering what they were not hearing.

Also I found it interesting that in one of JA's interviews, he said that he does not think the lawyers themselves have any bearing on the jurors' feelings; I think he is wrong about that, as pitiful as that may be. I agree that people are human and react in human ways and probably "pick a side" early on in many cases. And then wait and see if the other side can prove them wrong about their initial feelings. In this case, the state apparently was unable to do so.

 

[magnolia]

Are you implying that the jury should have came up with their verdict based on the fact that it was a high profile case and what the public thought the verdict should be? If that is the case, why have a trial at all...put all the "facts" out in the media and let the public cast a vote, like American Idol or something..it would sure save a lot of time and money. I am, of course, kidding. That would be ridiculous.

The jurors came up with the correct verdict, IMO, based on the evidence. The prosecutions case was very weak and JA and LDB were not very likeable. On the other side, the DT was able to show that it just as well could have been an accident, cast a lot of doubt on the scientific evidence and were much more personable with the witnesses and they jury. Every morning and afternoon JB greeted the jury with a smile. He was respectful to witnesses. JA and LDB were both very confrontational, even to their own witnesses. Jurors are only human and things like that can mean a lot. The jury, by law, can form their own opinions and disregard any evidence they want.That is the law based on our constitution. They are not ignorant and uneducated. They were not swayed by public opinion. Do you really want people sent away to prison for the rest of their lives or given the DP with such little evidence? The burden is high for the prosecution, as it should be, otherwise our prisons would be filled with innocent people.

I find it interesting that some people think there was "little evidence" while other people believe they saw a "mountain of evidence". Could it be that some people don't believe a totally circumstantial case deserves it's place in a Court of Law? Scott Peterson's case was very similar.Do you feel there was little evidence in that case as well. Just curious.

You say the Jury was not swayed by public opinion.Yet,imo,you seem to suggest the Jury was swayed because Jose Baez was more personable. I agree a Jury should not allow themselves to be swayed by public opinion. However,I do not agree it's ok for them to favor one side...because Jurors are humans and impressed because an Attorney greets them with a morning smile. When did it become necessary for prosecutors to play up to the Jury in order for them to do their job?

 

[cuppy199]

I think the jury went about deliberations wrong but I can see how they came to their conclusion.

But what I don't get is if their guts were telling them something else, and they had a feeling KC was involved some how why not hang the jury to give the state another shot??

Would there be any money in a hung jury? Im starting to wonder if one of the jurors which we know knows alot about TV appearances might of had a real good idea how much they would get for this kind of verdict.Im not saying they did but sadly money talks in this country . But we will never really know sadly.

 

[Sustained]

All purely speculaton. She should have just said the manner of death was also undetermined..becaue it was. Why speculate.. the jurors saw through it. She was also very unprofessional with her arrogance and the way she left the stand.

And Dr. G's counterpart Dr Spitz was not arrogant on the stand ? He couldn't remember an interview he had done THREE days earlier ? 60,000 autopsies ? Someone on WS did the math and there was no way humanly possible that he could have done 60,000 autopsies. Or and BTW, Dr. G was not paid for her testimony and Dr Spitz was paid handsomely.

One more thing ... I challenge you to find an example anywhere of where someone covered up an accident and made it look like a murder.

 

[cluciano63]

I think the jury went about deliberations wrong but I can see how they came to their conclusion.

But what I don't get is if their guts were telling them something else, and they had a feeling KC was involved some how why not hang the jury to give the state another shot??

I don't think a hung jury would have been allowed for at least another week, maybe longer...that could be a factor. They had reached an agreement of sorts and wanted out.

 

[cluciano63]

I find it interesting that some people think there was "little evidence" while other people believe they saw a "mountain of evidence". Could it be that some people don't believe a totally circumstantial case deserves it's place in a Court of Law? Scott Peterson's case was very similar.Do you feel there was little evidence in that case as well. Just curious.

You say the Jury was not swayed by public opinion.Yet,imo,you seem to suggest the Jury was swayed because Jose Baez was more personable. I agree a Jury should not allow themselves to be swayed by public opinion. However, I do not agree Jurors should favor one side over the other because an Attorney greets them with a morning smile. When did it become necessary for prosecutors to play up to the Jury in order for them to do their job?

Not to say there was not enough evidence in Caylee's case, but SP's motive was one people could buy into easily, IMO, when it came out about Amber. even if that was NOT his entire motive, it is one people believe to be a "normal" motive for murder. It does seem normal to kill your child so you can party, IMO. Whether or not a case ever needs motive, I will never believe it is not a factor for juries.

 

[TexasLori]

I find it interesting that some people think there was "little evidence" while other people believe they saw a "mountain of evidence". Could it be that some people don't believe a totally circumstantial case deserves it's place in a Court of Law? Scott Peterson's case was very similar.Do you feel there was little evidence in that case as well. Just curious.

You say the Jury was not swayed by public opinion.Yet,imo, you seem to suggest the Jury was swayed because Jose Baez was more personable. When did it become necessary for prosecutors to play up to the Jury in order for them to do their job?

BBM. I think you are onto something. People are having trouble with the fact that this was a largely circumstantial case. Regardless of the fact that by law circumstantial evidence is evidence. Like some have said, it seems people only want to convict if there is a video and fingerprints on a murder weapon.

 

[cuppy199]

All purely speculaton. She should have just said the manner of death was also undetermined..becaue it was. Why speculate.. the jurors saw through it. She was also very unprofessional with her arrogance and the way she left the stand.

DT says it was a drowning isnt that speculation? Hmmm Dr spitz left the stand in just about the same manner is he also unprofessional?

 

[Sustained]

I don't think a hung jury would have been allowed for at least another week, maybe longer...that could be a factor. They had reached an agreement of sorts and wanted out.

It is common knowledge here in Central Florida that one of the jury members had a cruise planned scheduled to depart on 7/7. An extra week would have put that in jeopardy.

 

[Solange82200]

Not to say there was not enough evidence in Caylee's case, but SP's motive was one people could buy into easily, IMO, when it came out about Amber. even if that was NOT his entire motive, it is one people believe to be a "normal" motive for murder. It does seem normal to kill your child so you can party, IMO. Whether or not a case ever needs motive, I will never believe it is not a factor for juries.

Perhaps the prosecutors didnt emphasize this enough, but the motive was not so much about partying as it was about being with Tony. In order to be with Tony, she had to keep up with his lifestyle. She couldnt do that with a child. Jesse told the cops that Casey changed her whole identity based onthe guy she was with. She would become a church girl with him, with another guy she changed (I forgot the details), and with Tony she became party animal girlfriend of the dj/club promoter. We have Diane Downs and Susan Smith who killed their children over a man, and thousands of women who let their husbands/boyfriends abuse and sometimes kill their kids, because they dont want to lose their man. It is quite prevalent from what I have seen, and it was so obviously the motive in this case. Remember her call from jail? ALL SHE WANTED WAS TONY'S NUMBER. That call was sickening, yet laughable at the same time. I couldnt even count how many times she asked for Tony's number.

 

[Soulmagent]

Have you ever seen tape after being on decomposing body??? How would you even pretend to know what would or wouldn't happen? Crazy thought here... but maybe we should just listen to the experts, the people who have seen this kind of thing before and said that the tape having no dna or stain did not mean it wasnt on her mouth?

Couldn't find a Dr. Snow anywhere on our witness lists.

Rodriguez did not get permission from his employer - the department of defense. His boss saw him on national tv and told him to get his butt home. THe boss then contacted JA and explained Rodriguez did not get permission, and if he went back to testify he would lose his job. Both the defense and prosecution agreed he didn't have to testify.



Dr. G said the manner of death was homicide by undetermined means. They couldn't come up with a cause of death because they were dealing with a skeleton that had no trauma to the bones. She even said that Caylee could have been shot - but if the bullet only went thru soft tissue and didn't hit bone they couldn't tell.

Homicide was determined because of what they saw:

A baby in bags thrown in a swamp.
A baby with duct tape around the lower half of the face.
A baby who was not reported missing for 31 days.
No accident was reported.

She explains how she comes to her conclusions.

YouTube - ‪Casey Anthony: Murder Trial - Part 4 - 6/10/11‬‏
YouTube - ‪Casey Anthony: Murder Trial - Part 5 - 6/10/11‬‏

So why did she not base the COD on what she saw as well. Why did she use all the data an not continue to use the same exact method she used in the homicide ruling. Which still only leads to the likely hood of the manner of death and not fact. She could have continued to use her method of deduction to have listed the COD the same way and justifed doing so the same way she did on the homicide ruling . She did not.

Given that the duct tape is mentioned in the homicide ruling and the fact the the flordia courts have ruled on the presence of duct tape on a body in a case that was cited in this case. Dr G would have been able to support her ruling. Yet she didnt even attempt it. I feel like she stopped short. I would not feel that way had her homicide ruling not be based on the "indicators" and she came to her own conclusion and then she abandons her own indicators.
Her deducing - no reason for duct tape on a childs face.. could have went forward something like..
prevents a child from breathing, a child also cannot breath in a bag and one must appy the tape before putting on duct tape to the face so the bag would not be the cause of death etc.. it is unreasonable to think duct tape would need to be applied after death. (FL law)

So if Dr G thought the duct tape was on Caylee's face beyond a reasonable doubt we would have a COD and a conviction. IMO

I know people will disagree with me,but I believe DR G has doubts about the duct tape and that prevent her from listing the COD. AFTER she went out on her limb with non science and just using her "common sence" in making the homicide ruling which could NEVER be proven.

I will try to find who I named Dr snow in my head later..
I aparently have a name mixed up as well as posted W instead of G but I was half asleep ,so sorry about that.

 

[Solange82200]

Soulmagent, I could be wrong, but I think cause of death is a more exact determination, and she would only be able to use the body as proof. Since there was nothing left of the body, she couldnt say what killed caylee even if she was sure based on everything else that it was duct tape. I think the manner of death, which she said was homicide, allows her to use other information to conclude that (even dr. spitz agreed), like the fact that 911 wasnt called, body was dumped, etc. I hope that makes sense, its hard to explain but I think she can ONLY use scientific evidence on the body itself to say what the cause of death is, but she is allowed to use other information to rule manner of death

 

[denmock]

When I think of this verdict, my mind shoots off in so many directions. Each leaving me feeling frustrated and powerless. I accept that we can not go back in time. What I mean is there will be no retrying this case. That part is over. That was a pill I found so hard to swallow, but swallow it I did. But that is not where the crux of where my frustration lies. Let me explain.

First, I am frustrated that Jose Baez was able throw out LIES in his opening statement. I do NOT accept that he did that in good faith. For those who did not follow this case and did not know the background, there are some who now believe as gospel that George had something to do with Caylee's death and that he and Lee raped and molested KC. Futher more, there are some TH's that further that notion when they KNOW it to be false!!!!! How is it that an officer of the court can perpetrate lies and NEVER have ANY intention of bringing forth any evidence?

And Roy Kronk.... What did that poor man EVER do??? My goodness he called 3 times and no one cared. Thank God he went back and found Caylee. And for his good deed, Baez filets him in court?? Are there not laws, rules, etc, against this??? How can this go unpunished??? If no one stands up to this, will it become acceptable practice? ARGHHHHHHHH!!!!!

(On a sidenote, did it never occur to this braindead jury (yes, I said it) that JB NEVER asked RK about how he stole the body, took it home and then put it back with old, disintegrated duct tape? Did they never wonder why JB NEVER asked George what he did after he pulled Caylee from the pool??? Or why Lee was never asked about molestation? Did they not see that he took them for a ride??? Did they not see that he LIED to them, yet they trusted him??? I DO NOT GET IT!!!!!! )

Sorry, I had to let that out....

I am also frustrated, by this jury. I am frustrated by the lack of commen sense and logic in society as a whole.

I am frustrated that I am told by the TH's that I cannot question this verdict.

I am frustrated that we now have revisionist history on TV. Right before the verdict most TH's were talking about how KC might be able to appeal on grounds of ineffective counsel, and now we hear how JB is brilliant. They ALL thought the SA case was "overwhelmimgly strong". "One of the strongest they have ever seen" Now we hear that they, "over charged" (even though there were lesser charges) or they didn't do this or didn't do that. They do this to CYA because they are to afraid to say what they know is truth. This jury DID NOT DO THEIR JOB!!!!

I, like you am frustrated that I am being told that it is wrong for me to criticize this jury!!!!!

I am frustrated that I have NO power to change the jury system. I personally think that there needs to be a class taught by the presiding judge or a video that is played prior to deliberations and then a test MUST be passed by each juror BEFORE deliberations so they know to a tee what the instructions and charges are. That they understand they must use ONLY the EVIDENCE before them. That reasonable dout is NOT "beyond a shadow of a doubt". That motive and COD do NOT have to be proven. But I have NO power to enact this. It frustrates me because I think it is sorely needed.


These are the things that frustrate me more than the 2 things that most would say should upset me overall; No justice for Caylee and KC gets to walk!

Funny enough, these 2 things I have found peace with.

First, while I shutter to think what Caylee endured at the hands of her mother, I KNOW that she is free. Free to run and play and swing in the arms of Jesus. She will not live a life of torture under KC. Some may think this wrong, but all things considered she is much better off, IMO. She lives free of fear and never to be abused again.

Secondly, prison would have been a cake walk fo KC compaed to her life outside. She will be shunned and eventually pennyless and WILL reoffend and she will always have to look over her shoulder, as LE will be on her like a hawk. She will not go quietly, but will be hounded all the days of here life. The court of public opinion will speak loud and clear and will find her GUILTY each and every day of her miserable life. That I can live with.

This whole thing will take some time to get over, but eventually we will. I am one though who likes to see changes made when needed and when possible. I believe this case SCREAMS the system is BROKEN!!!! If progress on that front can be made then my frusration will subside and turn into satisfaction. Any suggestions on how WE can make that happen?

 

[okiedokietoo]

Perhaps the prosecutors didnt emphasize this enough, but the motive was not so much about partying as it was about being with Tony. In order to be with Tony, she had to keep up with his lifestyle. She couldnt do that with a child. Jesse told the cops that Casey changed her whole identity based onthe guy she was with. She would become a church girl with him, with another guy she changed (I forgot the details), and with Tony she became party animal girlfriend of the dj/club promoter. We have Diane Downs and Susan Smith who killed their children over a man, and thousands of women who let their husbands/boyfriends abuse and sometimes kill their kids, because they dont want to lose their man. It is quite prevalent from what I have seen, and it was so obviously the motive in this case. Remember her call from jail? ALL SHE WANTED WAS TONY'S NUMBER. That call was sickening, yet laughable at the same time. I couldnt even count how many times she asked for Tony's number.

The State was not allowed to bring up a lot of things because it was determined to be be too prejudicial

 

[technicalconfusion]

Here's a thought for ya - maybe JA objected so much because JB did not know how to ask a non-leading question of any witness. Maybe he objected because JB does not know the rules of evidence and discovery ... how many times did you hear the word 'sustained' when JA and/or LDB objected ? More than I could count ... and maybe you didn't hear all of the objections raised by JB ? IMO, the only ones hiding anything were the slimy defense team and their ridiculous opening statement conjectures.

The prosecutors objected several times when they saw JB heading into a pile of cr@p of his own doing! They tried to help him.

It's bs to say JA bullied. He did far less bullying than the defense side.

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

New Here, but in the aftermath of the Casey Anthony Trial and verdict, it has given me a great deal of comfort to find this website . I find many like-minded people , who are having a hard time accepting the verdict in this case.

The real problem I have with this jury, and their verdict is "what happened to Aggravated manslaughter. Ok, Ok, so they did not feel they could come in with First Degree---that would be acceptable , but to sit in the jury box, and listen to hours upon hours of testimony, and all of the evidence presented (even if Circumstantial)--How could they just dismiss all if it and acquit her of ANY culpability, it is BAZAAR. What angers me most is there was a 6/6 vote to convict on that charge and 6 seemingly intelligent people could not hold it together enough. They knew in their heart the right thing to do, but were so easily persuaded by the others against their BETTER judgement.

The justice system is concerned about jurors not having any preconceived ideas about the case.

How do you not know about the Casey Anthony Case--obviously you don't read, write,view T.V news, or have any type of discussion on world events.
Are these the type of people we trust as a jury of our peers?? Well I don't know about you, but I think this was exactly the kind of nitwits the defense team was looking for, and Guess What----they found them. It surely was not a jury favoring the prosecution, so then it must have favored the Defense,and how fair and balanced is that. Just listen to juror#3--A young women who's mother had to fill her in on what this case was about, and was so disappointed to only be allowed to look at the hotel pool from her window, but not be able to go for a swim--oh BOO HOO. She is certainly not the one to be speaking for the jury. We are just lucky they didn't convict the prosecution team of being" really mean" to Jose Baez......and furthermore how do you allow a juror who "does not like to make Judgements! Are You Kidding Me??
Yes Folks, I Think the defense won this case before it even started.

Forgive my Rant! I do fell so much better.

 

[cuppy199]

Are you implying that the jury should have came up with their verdict based on the fact that it was a high profile case and what the public thought the verdict should be? If that is the case, why have a trial at all...put all the "facts" out in the media and let the public cast a vote, like American Idol or something..it would sure save a lot of time and money. I am, of course, kidding. That would be ridiculous.

The jurors came up with the correct verdict, IMO, based on the evidence. The prosecutions case was very weak and JA and LDB were not very likeable. On the other side, the DT was able to show that it just as well could have been an accident, cast a lot of doubt on the scientific evidence and were much more personable with the witnesses and they jury. Every morning and afternoon JB greeted the jury with a smile. He was respectful to witnesses. JA and LDB were both very confrontational, even to their own witnesses. Jurors are only human and things like that can mean a lot. The jury, by law, can form their own opinions and disregard any evidence they want. That is the law based on our constitution. They are not ignorant and uneducated. They were not swayed by public opinion. Do you really want people sent away to prison for the rest of their lives or given the DP with such little evidence? The burden is high for the prosecution, as it should be, otherwise our prisons would be filled with innocent people.

Public opinion has nothing to do with it. You say the DT was able to show it could be a accident. What exactly was that evidence your referring to? There is no evidence that prove it was a accident other then DT spin. More points to murder then accident. By examining all of her lies, her failure to notify the authorities about her child’s disappearance, her unusual behavior, and even the body of Caylee, there is enough circumstantial evidence to convict. The jury isnt there to like the DT or the pros. so it shouldn't matter who is more respectful to them. They are there to hear the case not make friends. I keep seeing such little evidence when in fact there was plenty of evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. I suspect many jurors do not truly understand the meaning of beyond a reasonable doubt. Someone explain it from what a judge has told them and I think it makes it easier to understand. This is what the judge said. Suppose it is a clear, sunny day with the temperature about 36 degrees on a February afternoon. I go to bed that night and I wake up the next morning and discover there are six inches of snow on the ground.It would be safe to conclude that beyond a reasonable doubt it snowed last night, based on circumstantial evidence only. I did not observe it snowing, nor did I listen to any eyewitnesses of the alleged snowstorm. Even though I have no direct evidence that it snowed last night, I am still sure beyond a reasonably doubt that it snowed last night. Sure, it is possible that my neighbor bought a snow machine and he placed snow all around my house last night, but that notion is so highly improbable. And it would be laughable if a defense team made such a foolish suggestion. But in this the DT did the laughable thing and the jury bought it hook line and sinker.

 

[rbrnmw2]

The jurors were told in the instructions that the attorneys were not the ones on trial and that they were NOT to take into consideration their personal feelings about any of the attorneys. they were supposed to deliberate on evidence, not whether or not they were coddled by the attorneys. I also don't think that it's part of the Constitution that the attorneys have to be likeable.

If that happened then they reached decisions based on emotions. And the DP was NOT the only thing on the table! The more that gets repeated only reinforces that fact that it was all they looked at.

JMHO

If they had come out guilty with the same consideration given the not guilty verdict every civil rights and defense attorney in America would be screaming about due process

 

[rbrnmw2]

New Here, but in the aftermath of the Casey Anthony Trial and verdict, it has given me a great deal of comfort to find this website . I find many like-minded people , who are having a hard time accepting the verdict in this case.

The real problem I have with this jury, and their verdict is "what happened to Aggravated manslaughter. Ok, Ok, so they did not feel they could come in with First Degree---that would be acceptable , but to sit in the jury box, and listen to hours upon hours of testimony, and all of the evidence presented (even if Circumstantial)--How could they just dismiss all if it and acquit her of ANY culpability, it is BAZAAR. What angers me most is there was a 6/6 vote to convict on that charge and 6 seemingly intelligent people could not hold it together enough. They knew in their heart the right thing to do, but were so easily persuaded by the others against their BETTER judgement.

The justice system is concerned about jurors not having any preconceived ideas about the case.

How do you not know about the Casey Anthony Case--obviously you don't read, write,view T.V news, or have any type of discussion on world events.
Are these the type of people we trust as a jury of our peers?? Well I don't know about you, but I think this was exactly the kind of nitwits the defense team was looking for, and Guess What----they found them. It surely was not a jury favoring the prosecution, so then it must have favored the Defense,and how fair and balanced is that. Just listen to juror#3--A young women who's mother had to fill her in on what this case was about, and was so disappointed to only be allowed to look at the hotel pool from her window, but not be able to go for a swim--oh BOO HOO. She is certainly not the one to be speaking for the jury. We are just lucky they didn't convict the prosecution team of being" really mean" to Jose Baez......and furthermore how do you allow a juror who "does not like to make Judgements! Are You Kidding Me??
Yes Folks, I Think the defense won this case before it even started.

Forgive my Rant! I do fell so much better.

My husband said the same thing about what type of person they would get on the jury if they had heard nothing about this case, during jury selection, were going to be imbeciles, liars, or too young to quite get it. I told him he was a pessimist and I believed in the system but was concerned about eager to serve juror #3 Ms Jennifer Ford