Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[Boytwnmom]

for a hung jury...

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.

 

[cuppy199]

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...

My guess is they didnt have a clue. Im sure they didnt realize they were looking at their character more then the evidence. What I have read from some of the jurors they pretty much IMO used Baez word for word in is opening and closing statement.

 

[Boytwnmom]

which is not a purely medical determination. Cause of death is. You can even have a homicide without a body. Cause of death is never proven where a body has decomposed and skeletonized or where it was so well hidden it couldn't be found. Our justice system has been able to successfully convict criminals in those types of cases time after time, SP being a famous example where no one knew how she was killed, where she was killed or when she was killed.

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

 

[DAWN TREADER]

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??????

It doesn't. It shows Casey lies even when she doesn't have to leading one to question whether she can even tell the truth or is she a pathological liar as I've heard others suggest.

 

[DAWN TREADER]

Plain and simple the jurors did not need a cause of death. They needed to use common sense -- something it appears all 12 and the alternate jurors apparently did not have.

 

[Solange82200]

Joran Van Der Sloot is a good example of someone who was pretty obviously guilty, but there wasnt enough evidence to convict. Because of that, another girl is dead.

In this case, there was more than enough evidence to convict under the law, yet she will still get out and kill again.

It sickens me that someone so evil and obviously guilty was able to get the best lawyers in the country behind her case (Mason, Lyon, Kenney Baden), all because of the fact that she was so atrocious and the media covered it (therefore making the lawyers want to represent her just for the fame). Think of all the people out there who may be truly innocent or truly insane (some seem to think someone "lying alot" should be a new insanity defense for murder, it seems) that really could use some legal representation, yet never get it. How anyone can say this verdict was good or great I just dont get.

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

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!

Thanks for the welcome , Americka. You and those like you , who truly find education a "calling", are so appreciated. Keep the faith, this was just a wacky group, not the norm----at least I hope!

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

: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:

WOW!! So nice to welcomed this way. Usually I just sneak up on people.

This is indeed "a most awesome place". So happy to have found this group, and enjoy reading all of your posts.

 

[technicalconfusion]

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.

I wouldn't call it speculation. In doing so, you're pretty much saying that the only reason for a medical examiner is if there is a whole body, without too much decompisiton, with a definitive hole proving a gunshot, or stab wound or toxins/drugs in the blood.

She deemed it homicide, well because, gee, how many dead kids do you find wrapped in duct tape in bags in a swamp? I feel sure if they had found Caylee in a pool, she may have determined cod as drowning. There was nothing to tell her what the cause was. She had to....connect the dots!

From the National Association of Medical Examiners

http://thename.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=42

How does the forensic pathologist determine the cause and manner of death?

In the case of drowning and suffocation the autopsy findings may not be specific and police investigation may be critical to the understanding of the death.

 

[Boytwnmom]

you!

Anyway, I think there are things that should be looked at, things that actually are studied like the effects of sequestration.

Sequestration occurs because of the defense in cases, just like change of venue. These things are to protect the rights of the defendant. However, they can also serve to deny essentially a jury of peers and remove the community where the crime occurred from the equation when a community has a compelling interest in a crime and trial that affects their community. Perhaps we have gone too far in accommodating defendants beyond what is really required under the constitution. Maybe communities through their state legislatures can curtail or eliminate some of these practices. There is no constitutional right to have a sequestered jury nor a jury which has zero knowledge of the crime.

Juror education classes could be required so people have some understanding going in what evidence is and isn't, what reasonable doubt is and isn't, what proper deliberations are and the system's reliance on the jurors to perform their service diligently, etc. Maybe the education should be tailored to the types of cases. Long, complex cases should have a somewhat different course than one day trials. Maybe prevent people from making money from jury service (may be problematic on first amendment grounds).

This isn't an area I have studied as of yet so I'm sure there are lots of other things that could be considered. I know that jury service and pay and eliminating hardship so more people have to serve is an issue that has been studied and discussed. How and why should people be excused and what are the limits of preemptory challenges. I bookmarked some resources to peruse later that I'll share.

http://www.crfc.org/americanjury/reform.html

http://www.tba.org/Journal_Tbarchives/jun03/TBJ-jun03-cover.html

http://www.atra.org/issues/index.php?issue=7490

http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/courtrv/cr-41-1/cr41-1dann.pdf

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?

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

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.[/QUOTE

Katydid23,

I very much share your outrage, and well said.

One thing I can not understand is this:

How does a person who behaves the way you just posted, not be deemed "CRAZY" seriously. SERIOUSLY! for the life of me , how does someone like that not have a "diagnosed mental defect". She Can't be normal!:maddening:

 

[kelian36]

Plain and simple the jurors did not need a cause of death. They needed to use common sense -- something it appears all 12 and the alternate jurors apparently did not have.

DT, Don't forget ears. The jurors needed common sense........... and they needed to listen to all the testimony and to all comments by the state.

 

[Boytwnmom]

little Miss Fabricator would have had no problem telling it, with the proper embellishments she would need to add, of course. She would have milked the "tragedy" for all she was worth and used it to further her aims of being lazy, unemployed and taken care of. She would have had a breakdown and been unable to work. She would have fashioned it so she herself was blameless, of course, but she would NOT have panicked and been "afraid" to tell about it. She would have LOVED to tell about it, in her own way, of course. Her pattern of behavior tells me this was no accident which is in accord with the finding of the ME who determined it was a homicide.

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?

 

[Katana]

When I listen to JF (juror #3), I almost feel like she is proud and egotistical about her lack of emotion regarding KC, Caylee, etc.

 

[JBean]

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.

It is customary for the ME to offer their professional opinion to the court based on their findings with regards to the body itself and the events surrounding the death. Manner of death almost had to be death at the hands of another because she was in a bag in the woods. She uses the facts surrounding the incident to determine a MOD and in this case it was relatively easy to determine it was not natural causes,suicide or an accident. For a child it would be expected that an accident would be reported by caretakers as such.
If, in the future she were supplied with facts that it was an accident there would be nothing to keep her from amending the MOD, but at this point homicide is the obvious MOD. Remember, homicide does not mean murder.

 

[magic-cat]

The Jury seems to be buying the accident Theory.....

If this were an accident I would still like to know how Caylee ended up in a Swamp with Duct tape around her mouth

As Jeff A. said during his closing arguments "Who makes an accident look like a murder"?

Where was the Jury's Common Sense............????????????????????

Missing in action...

 

[Tiki]

All I had to hear from any of the jurors was that the SA didn't prove COD or motive.
I am not a lawyer or a paralegal (or a chemist), but it was clear that HHBP instructed them that SA didn' t have to prove either.
They also seemed to have believed DT opening statement despite HHBP telling them opening statements were not evidence and were not to be considered without supporting evidence.

That's why I feel the jury can be criticized - they did not follow the jury instructions.

.

 

[JBean]

All I had to hear from any of the jurors was that the SA didn't prove COD or motive.
I am not a lawyer or a paralegal (or a chemist), but it was clear that HHBP instructed them that SA didn' t have to prove either.
They also seemed to have believed DT opening statement despite HHBP telling them opening statements were not evidence and were not to be considered without supporting evidence.

That's why I feel the jury can be criticized - they did not follow the jury instructions.

.

But I can understand that on a personal level in order to convict someone of first degree murder, the jurors needed to know a cause of death to support the evidence. Perhaps the SA was not legally required to prove it, but maybe that was the bar that the jurors needed to reach. IOW,they needed a COD to push them over the fence, but as it stood the SA,(in their opinion) did not prove it on its face.What it comes down to is without a COD, the jury did not think the state proved what they needed to.
I personally think this is reasonable. If there was other types of evidence that were stronger or indisputable, then the COD would not have been as critical to the jurors.
Agree or disagree,I don't think this was a violation of their duty at all.

 

[azwriter]

I have gone over and over how the jury could reach the decision they presented in court.

I do believe they bought Jose Baez's opening statement and never looked any further.

His opening very carefully kept Casey from having anything to do with a dead body. George desposed of it and Ray Kronk played tag team in order to become rich. Both men were presented as evil people who would take advanage of a child who died by accident.

Sprinkle in some good ole sexual abuse yadda by a father on a daughter and that clearly reflects Casey's long time need to lie - about everything.

But, none of Baez' opening claims was dealt with in court. And, for the defense to admit and present Casey's lies as her makeup actually was a great tatic to give the jury an easier time to come to its conclusion.

IF ONLY just one juror had stopped and asked: "How or why does a mother not report a drowning and then spend three years in jail if it was truly an accident?" Maybe, just maybe someone on the jury might have dug deeper for an explanation and pushed the other members to do the same. And the outcome could have been a hung jury or even guilty on one of the lesser charges.

I really believe the jury did not get it wrong. They took the easy way out.
This was not a jury of Casey's peers. This was a gang of people wisked away from their homes in another county who resented being held away from their families. To have reached a hung jury status they would have had to discussed the case longer and lingered on questions and speculation. But no, it was an easier and quicker task for them to just vote not guilty. That took less time and less discussion.

They didn't care about Caylee. They cared about their own well being.

JMO

 

[Solange82200]

When I listen to JF (juror #3), I almost feel like she is proud and egotistical about her lack of emotion regarding KC, Caylee, etc.

You know what, sometimes I wondered... It seems like as if you have a case with so much anger and emotion, the jurors may have a subconscious fear of being accused of convicting on "emotion", and therefore try to find unreasonable excuses or doubt to find someone not guilty. Maybe they think finding her not guilty is somehow the only way to prove they were "fair and impartial", and show that they were superior to everyone else who only judged Casey by emotion. On top of that, you have defense attorneys more or less telling you that there is no evidence, and convicting her would make you one of the "bad guys".

I think many of us can see past those accusations and find a fair verdict, but I wouldnt be surprised if some are too gullible and fall into that mindset.

Also, one of the things I havent seen discussed alot, but has always haunted me, is the jailhouse letter Casey wrote to Robyn saying she was almost glad Caylee was dead, so that she wouldnt have to see all the evil that is out there (and by evil, she meant people who were judging her and wanting her convicted).

I have never heard anyone say they are glad their child is dead for any reason. That just shows you how no matter how hard she tries to seem normal, the psycho in her creeps out every once in a while.