Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[Velouria]

If some of the lawyers are reading this, please advise if I am being ridiculous, but can you ask questions in jury selection to determine if they are morons or not?

Questions I would like to ask a potential juror:

Do you think 911 was a government conspiracy?

What do you think about bigfoot?

Do you think we really walked on the moon?

Is global warming "junk science"?

What questions would you like to ask?

:floorlaugh:

Do you believe Elvis is still alive?

Have you ever been the victim of an alien abduction?

Do you think Geraldo Rivera is a journalist?

 

[cluciano63]

Who doesn't report their child missing for 31 days? What 22 year old makes up friends with so much detail? Makes up jobs? Makes up boyfriends and fiances with kids? That is why it so easy to buy the accident theory. If she does that, she very could make an accident look like a murder.

Especially since she had been doing so for years...if she had invented all these people on June 16, it would be one thing, but she had been talking about them for a while, it seems...plus telling the other lies.

I am curious as to what JA and LDB missed as far as reading the jurors so badly; they seemed to be as shocked as anyone when the verdict came in. Now we hear that supposedly the jury was not listening to them...if so, didn't they notice and think maybe they needed to try something else? Not sure what, but I wonder when they "lost" the jury and if it was early enough that they could have hammered more on certain points. Even when they impeached Cindy, they didn't really hammer on it, they just had a guy say "yeah she would have to log in to be on her computer and she was logged in." Just an example but I do wonder whether they thought they "had" the jury and we not worried, since they also never tried to dispute the accident theory as if that would make it go away...

 

[hpvdr]

Great article Mark NeJame just tweeted, he says a MUST READ:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/10/opinion/sunday/10bruni.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

 

[technicalconfusion]

Who doesn't report their child missing for 31 days?

Someone who kills their kid.

 

[JBean]

You know if you think about it this all comes back to one issue and that is the aggravated child abuse charge. Aggravated child abuse is the piece that holds the charges together and rules in or out lesser charges and felony murder.It was the gateway to everything the prosecution argued and once the jury did not find evidence of that everything else unraveled and fast.
No abuse means impossible to find guilty on:
felony murder
first degree murder
second degree murder
aggravated manslaughter of a child.
The prosecution could not argue both manslaughter thru negligence and manslaughter through aggravated child abuse and they opted for the latter.

There is only one remaining lesser charge, which is manslaughter through culpable negligence. But in order to convict on that, they would have had to buy into the accident theory 100% and that is a long shot at best. There was no proof of it at all because the prosecution did not present any. Obviously they didn't present it because it would be counter to their stance of premeditated murder and they would have been arguing against themselves. There was slim to no chance of a conviction on something that the state didn't even argue.

So,there was no where to go but "not guilty" once they determined there was no evidence of aggravated child abuse. This right here is the key to the verdict imo.


Jury Instructions for reference

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

:floorlaugh:

Do you believe Elvis is still alive?

Have you ever been the victim of an alien abduction?

Do you think Geraldo Rivera is a journalist?

"DO YOU THINK GERALDO IS A JOUNALIST?" :floorlaugh:

OOOHHHHH that was a great one--Velouria---still laughing!

 

[Americka]

Hi Americka,

Yes, I was aware they were allowed to read the newspaper during the trial. I was making a "snarky" comment about jurors, in general, being able to have more current event knowledge about a case prior to being selected for the jury. Seems the need for an impartial jury sometimes depends on a group of people with little knowledge of current events. How could you not know about some of the High profile cases--like this one. Seems strange to me.
JMO.

I was equally disturbed by their lack of knowledge, comprehension, and common sense. I say this without snark, but from the standpoint of an educator whose fundamental responsibility is to help develop young men and women who contribute positively to society AND take their civic responsibilities including jury duty seriously...

Anywho, thank you for the clarification and welcome to Websleuths!

 

[Velouria]

The answer is simple to all of your queries ... someone who is trying to cover something up ? Accidents don't need to be covered up. All of her lies were a result of trying to cover that she killed Caylee. Everyone testified to what a great Mom she was ... great Moms call 911 if there is an accident.

Amen to all of the above.

And speaking of great moms, that whole defense assertion about CA never forgiving Casey for an accident - puhleeeez. We all saw the video tapes, heard the audiotapes and watched the testimony. Did Casey seem like she for even a split second gave a d@mn about whether or not her mother would forgive her, or what her mother thought or felt, period?

 

[Sabrina2011]

Who doesn't report their child missing for 31 days? snip...

A Child Murderer

fftobed:

 

[nursebeeme]

:Welcome1::newbie::welcome::greetings:

welcome to websleuths R.U.Kidding! hope you are finding your way around this most awesome place! good to have you here!:rocker:

 

[AnaTeresa]

You know if you think about it this all comes back to one issue and that is the aggravated child abuse charge. Aggravated child abuse is the piece that holds the charges together and rules in or out lesser charges and felony murder.It was the gateway to everything the prosecution argued and once the jury did not find evidence of that everything else unraveled and fast.
No abuse means impossible to find guilty on:
felony murder
first degree murder
second degree murder
aggravated manslaughter of a child.
The prosecution could not argue both manslaughter thru negligence and manslaughter through aggravated child abuse and they opted for the latter.

There is only one remaining lesser charge, which is manslaughter through culpable negligence. But in order to convict on that, they would have had to buy into the accident theory 100% and that is a long shot at best. There was no proof of it at all because the prosecution did not present any. Obviously they didn't present it because it would be counter to their stance of premeditated murder and they would have been arguing against themselves. There was slim to no chance of a conviction on something that the state didn't even argue.

So,there was no where to go but "not guilty" once they determined there was no evidence of aggravated child abuse. This right here is the key to the verdict imo.


Jury Instructions for reference

I agree. I feel like this case could have gone the other way very easily, had the Prosecution emphasized things differently. Hindsight is 20/20. I do think your analysis that it all hinged on the abuse charge is right. I wonder how different things would have been if the State hadn't gone for the death penalty and instead went for a negligence-based case instead.

 

[PeteyGirl]

<<snip>>
The prosecution could not argue both manslaughter thru negligence and manslaughter through aggravated child abuse and they opted for the latter.

There is only one remaining lesser charge, which is manslaughter through culpable negligence. But in order to convict on that, they would have had to buy into the accident theory 100% and that is a long shot at best. There was no proof of it at all because the prosecution did not present any. Obviously they didn't present it because it would be counter to their stance of premeditated murder and they would have been arguing against themselves. There was slim to no chance of a conviction on something that the state didn't even argue.

So,there was no where to go but "not guilty" once they determined there was no evidence of aggravated child abuse. This right here is the key to the verdict imo.


Jury Instructions for reference

So let's see if I'm understanding you . . . the state's case would have been "neutralized" if they had also included culpable negligence. Culpable negligence was discarded in favor of aggravated manslaughter of a child, which obviously is a more logical lesser charge to murder one than culpable negligence.

If I'm getting it right, that makes sense. I lack the judicial savvy of most of you all out there, and did not realize culpable negligence was not a CHOICE the jury could have made? I thought it was :waitasec: but now it makes sense that it wasn't.

 

[JBean]

So let's see if I'm understanding you . . . the state's case would have been "neutralized" if they had also included culpable negligence. Culpable negligence was discarded in favor of aggravated manslaughter of a child, which obviously is a more logical lesser charge to murder one than culpable negligence.

If I'm getting it right, that makes sense. I lack the judicial savvy of most of you all out there, and did not realize culpable negligence was not a CHOICE the jury could have made? I thought it was :waitasec: but now it makes sense that it wasn't.

All the LIO's were open to the jurors.
The jury had the ability to opt for culpable negligence as a basis for a manslaughter conviction, but why would they when no one asked them to in arguments? If the prosecution had done so they would have been arguing against their premeditation position. It was only "discarded" in the sense that it was not presented as a theory, but it was available as an option to the jury.
IOW, the state did not offer any evidence to support negligence so from what would the jury draw the conclusion? It doesn't make sense. the ability to choose it was there for them, but there is no reason for them to have gone that route as no evidence was presented to support. KWIM?


ETA: want to clarify that I am trying to understand the verdict. I struggle with no conviction on LIO and am just trying to understand it in my mind.

 

[PeteyGirl]

All the LIO's were open to the jurors.
The jury had the ability to opt for culpable negligence as a basis for a manslaughter conviction, but why would they when no one asked them to in arguments? If the prosecution had done so they would have been arguing against their premeditation position. It was only "discarded" in the sense that it was not presented as a theory, but it was available as an option to the jury.
IOW, the state did not offer any evidence to support negligence so from what would the jury draw the conclusion? It doesn't make sense. the ability to choose it was there for them, but there is no reason for them to have gone that route as no evidence was presented to support. KWIM?


ETA: want to clarify that I am trying to understand the verdict. I struggle with no conviction on LIO and am just trying to understand it in my mind.

Thank you, me too, in trying to understand the verdict. Struggling mightily myself.

So, although culpable negligence was not offered by the prosecution to the jury, it follows (at least I think it does) that the jury could have concentrated their reasonable doubt about 1st degree murder onto the logical extension of culpable negligence.

Two jurors who've spoken out admit they believed Casey was "not innocent".

So if the jury had chosen the least serious of the charged against her, they would have had to recycle the evidence given for the more serious charges, in effect, re-apply the evidence to a different "case".

 

[cuppy199]

The DT did not have to prove an accident occurred, but just the notion of it makes a reasonable person conclude that it just as well could have been an accident covered up as well as a murder. Each individual juror is allowed to determine exactly what reasonable doubt means to them. There is no scientific calcualtion. If there was, we would not need a jury at all. The guilt or innocence of a person could be easily determined by plugging evidence into a computer and the computer could spit out the answer. We all know that the jury is not supposed to base any decision on whether they like the defendant, the attorneys etc, or what they have heard in the media, from friends or family etc, but we also know that it always plays into the verdict. That is why the defendant is not made to wear prison clothing, be in shackles, etc. It would predjudice them even further. Why is the jury even sequestered? Because everyone knows it is human nature to use these things in coming to a conclusion. It is called being human. That is how trials are. The jury is sequestered to eliminate as much subjective reasoning as possible, but it is always there. Our legal system is not infallible, but it is the best there is, as there is no better alternative.

I myself did not see enough evidence proven in the trial either. There are others on this board, although the minority, that feel the same way. Not only did I not see the evidence, I did not like some of the "fantasy evidence" the state provided, like Dr. Vass. I thought he was creepy and was pusing the envelope with his conclusions. When I found out his laboratory was a research laboratory as brought out by the defense, it gave his testimony even less credibility, IMO. I thought Dr. G was arrogant and I did not like her tone and condenscending attitude. I felt her manner of death statement was speculative and not based on science at all. I did not like the "manufactured video of Caylee with the duct tape". I did not like how they tried to say the heart sticker had anything to do with the case. It clearly did not. I felt like the state was severly lacking in real evidence and had to bring these things in to build their case. It is a jurors right to disregard any evidence, on either side, that they do not feel is true and it is up to them and them alone to decide what they want to consider and what they do not.

I respect what your saying but I totally disagree. You are right they didnt have to prove it and you hit it right on the money when you said notion of it. I remember a time when DNA was "fantasy evidence" and it is highly recognized. DNA was also introduced from a research laboratory among other great test known today. I dont know how someone looking creepy has anything to do with the evidence. Its not arrogant or condenscending to take the circumstance of the scene and the case to come to a conclusion on a manner of death which was homicide.

 

[katydid23]

Who doesn't report their child missing for 31 days? What 22 year old makes up friends with so much detail? Makes up jobs? Makes up boyfriends and fiances with kids? That is why it so easy to buy the accident theory. If she does that, she very could make an accident look like a murder.

Are you asking WHO DOES THAT? Because I think the state had a good answer for that. Someone with a guilty conscious who is trying to avoid being caught might do that.
Someone trying to cover their LIES might make up more lies like that in an attempt to buy more time.

You know, here is the bottom line for me. I would have a lot of compassion for a scared young mom whose child accidentally drowned---even if she covered it up. I understand that response.

But I would expect that if her child accidentally died that she would BE SAD.

You do understand that she was texting and calling friends within an hour of the supposed accident, right?

And she went out on a movie date that night. She was HAPPY and FLIRTY, not grieving or sad at all. So the accident theory does not fit with her behavior that night.

And I would have compassion if she tried to better her own life after such a horrid experience. BUT SHE IMMEDIATELY BEGAN TO ACCUSE OTHERS OF KIDNAPPING AND MURDER. Doesn't that bother you? Why should she get the benefit of the doubt, assuming she did nothing wrong, when you can see the evil things she did to try and protect herself?

She took donations for the search for Caylee. She berated LE for not searching for Zenaida in other countries. She tried to point the finger at Jesse Grund and his family. She promised her family that Caylee would be home for her birthday, and even suggested they throw her a party.

All of the above is evidence of Casey's maliciousness. Why assume it was an accident when her actions belie her malicious evil intentions.

Did you listen to the jailhouse tapes? ALL she cared about was Tony. She had no interest or concern for Caylee. I seriously do not understand how people, intelligent people, are still being fooled by Casey Marie Anthony. Just like Jooran Van Der Sloot she will show her true colors again soon.

 

[JBean]

Thank you, me too, in trying to understand the verdict. Struggling mightily myself.

So, although culpable negligence was not offered by the prosecution to the jury, it follows (at least I think it does) that the jury could have concentrated their reasonable doubt about 1st degree murder onto the logical extension of culpable negligence.

Two jurors who've spoken out admit they believed Casey was "not innocent".

So if the jury had chosen the least serious of the charged against her, they would have had to recycle the evidence given for the more serious charges, in effect, re-apply the evidence to a different "case".

I don't think that culpable negligence is the logical extension of first degree murder.
One says it was a premeditated, deliberate act to kill and one says harm befell someone when proper care was not taken to make sure they were safe or you were careless with them.(put them in the trunk to keep them quiet but they died as a result for example)
But, yes if the jury had concentrated on an 'accidental" theory they would have nothing and I mean zero evidence to support such a finding, because the state offered no evidence in that regard. I think most will agree that if by some chance it really was an accident, it sure isn't obvious through the facts and the only ones even remotely close to an accident theory was ---the defense! Rest assured they were not arguing manslaugter through cuplable negligence LOL.
So, you can see for the jury to arrive at manslaughter through culpable negligence would have been a very bizarre verdict-almost as bizarre as not guilty on all counts.

 

[Boytwnmom]

that's what a Medical Examiner does, everywhere, all the time. It's not simply a medical determination.

Perhaps this brief explanation will help those who think this is some crazy opinion she suddenly decided to render for no good reason.

The medical examiner (ME) is the person in charge of the forensic investigation of a death that has occurred in his or her area of jurisdiction, whether it is a homicide, suicide, accident, or other suspicious death. He or she has a number of tasks to carry out, chief of which is the determination of the cause and manner of the death through performing an autopsy. The medical examiner also takes charge of the analysis of evidence, works with the police investigating the scene of the crime, and presents evidence in court. In short, the ME is involved in both the medical and legal sides of a forensic investigation.

What??? Arrogance? Unprofessional? It was not speculation, it was her expert opinion based on her many years of experience... I give up, I dont get it.

 

[Solange82200]

Especially since she had been doing so for years...if she had invented all these people on June 16, it would be one thing, but she had been talking about them for a while, it seems...plus telling the other lies.

Did you see my post about why the lies were told? To get over on people and benefit from them. How does that in any way shape or form show this is an accident??????

 

[Solange82200]

Are you asking WHO DOES THAT? Because I think the state had a good answer for that. Someone with a guilty conscious who is trying to avoid being caught might do that.
Someone trying to cover their LIES might make up more lies like that in an attempt to buy more time.

You know, here is the bottom line for me. I would have a lot of compassion for a scared young mom whose child accidentally drowned---even if she covered it up. I understand that response.

But I would expect that if her child accidentally died that she would BE SAD.

You do understand that she was texting and calling friends within an hour of the supposed accident, right?

And she went out on a movie date that night. She was HAPPY and FLIRTY, not grieving or sad at all. So the accident theory does not fit with her behavior that night.

And I would have compassion if she tried to better her own life after such a horrid experience. BUT SHE IMMEDIATELY BEGAN TO ACCUSE OTHERS OF KIDNAPPING AND MURDER. Doesn't that bother you? Why should she get the benefit of the doubt, assuming she did nothing wrong, when you can see the evil things she did to try and protect herself?

She took donations for the search for Caylee. She berated LE for not searching for Zenaida in other countries. She tried to point the finger at Jesse Grund and his family. She promised her family that Caylee would be home for her birthday, and even suggested they throw her a party.

All of the above is evidence of Casey's maliciousness. Why assume it was an accident when her actions belie her malicious evil intentions.

Did you listen to the jailhouse tapes? ALL she cared about was Tony. She had no interest or concern for Caylee. I seriously do not understand how people, intelligent people, are still being fooled by Casey Marie Anthony. Just like Jooran Van Der Sloot she will show her true colors again soon.

Well said! I am astounded to find so many seemingly intelligent people who don't get it.