Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[Solange82200]

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.

You specifically said first degree murder. You realize there were other charges she could have been found guilty of? Or do you think it is ok for jurors to decide what they want in order to convict, even if it is contrary to what the law states? The jurors job is to apply the law, and I dont think doing that should entail people deciding they need one piece of information above all others to decide that.

In order to have justice, I think you need consistency. You need the same rules to apply to every suspect. How can that happen if every juror can decide what they personally would "feel" better about having?

 

[Solange82200]

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

The fact that you can go from having 2 people ready to convict on 1st degree murder to having her walk free in a week is bizarre. The fact that you can have 6 people want to vote guilty on manslaughter yet she walks free in a week is bizarre. I forgot who it was, but one of the legal expert guests on Dateline (i think) said it is VERY uncommon for a person to go from being charged with 1st degree murder to walking out of the courtroom completely free, and he is right.

I think the strategy here was that since it was half and half split, they would just choose the "safest" option, which was not guilty, so that they could get home and get the whole thing over with. My understanding is that it isn't really the way the process should work. Dont just choose the safest verdict, choose the one you believe in. And if the jury ends up hung, so be it.

And absolutely jurors should not be allowed to sell their story. I have no doubt in my mind that some on that jury said whatever it took to get on there and make easy money. If they couldnt sell their story, at least we could avoid part of the problem.

 

[JBean]

You specifically said first degree murder. You realize there were other charges she could have been found guilty of? Or do you think it is ok for jurors to decide what they want in order to convict, even if it is contrary to what the law states? The jurors job is to apply the law, and I dont think doing that should entail people deciding they need one piece of information above all others to decide that.

In order to have justice, I think you need consistency. You need the same rules to apply to every suspect. How can that happen if every juror can decide what they personally would "feel" better about having?

I was speaking specifically about first degree, because I think one has to break down each charge as they are so different.It is hard to lump them all into one category and discuss as equals because they aren't.
I do understand about LIO's and here are my thoughts on that:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6888119&postcount=1386"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Did the jury get it wrong, or...[/ame]

Maybe you misunderstood my post. IMO, as far as the jury was concerned the SA did not prove the charge as it stood. But maybe if they had a better understanding of what transpired,ie COD, they would have been able to convict on first degree. Of course they need to "feel" good about their decision, so not sure what you mean by that exactly.But,imo the real issue is in the post I linked for you.

 

[Tiki]

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.

Oh - I agree with you - that's what this jury needed, and they didn't find either in the SA presentation of the case - but IMO the jury instructions are there to be followed.

They were asked by the judge at jury selection if they could put aside certain elements to follow his instructions to them and they said they could...but then they didn't - at least as far as considering the opening statements as evidence.

I'm not normally a stickler for following rules, :crazy:
but during a trial, I think what the judge says should be considered the law.
I'm not saying the jury did anything devious or against common human nature.

I thank you for your post - it enlightened me as to how they may have been thinking, and it makes perfect sense. It just seems to me they followed some of the instructions but not all.

To be clear, I do not think they thought they were violating their duty.
I just wish they had been more thorough and checked that big fat pack of paper HHBP gave them before they gave the verdict.


.

 

[Solange82200]

I think I understand what you are saying, but let me know if Im wrong. My feeling is this, if they didnt buy the accident theory 100 percent, then the only other logical explanation is murder. So say they part believe it was an accident, part believe it was murder. There is no other logical explanation (personally i dont think accident is logical, but for the sake of argument) So even if they didnt buy the accident theory, and the only other logical explanation is murder, why not find her guilty of the lesser? That is not logical to say Im not convicting of murder because i think it may have been an accident, but part of me thinks it wasnt an accident it was murder, so I just wont convict of anything. There is no other alternative but those two that Ive heard (or that the defense has presented, I dont think we should speculate occurrences that not even the defense is claiming). So you find her guilty of what you know for sure she did at the least, which is child abuse or neglect.

To use the fact that you think it might have been an accident to not convict of murder, and then to use the fact that you think it might have been murder to find her not guilty of the lesser charge makes no sense, to me that is the epitome of a cop out. That is basically saying: Im too confused so I will just choose a ruling that will not cause any consequences (at least now, I think they have blood on their hands when Casey has her next child and kills it)

 

[Sustained]

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

If aggravated child abuse is indeed the key to the other charges, what would the jury expecting as evidence of that abuse ? A video of ICA holding a chloroform rag to Caylee's face or the same of her applying the duct tape to Caylee's nose and mouth ... or maybe someone that saw her put Caylee in the trunk ? Once again, this was a circumstantial case, and inferences have to be made as to someone's guilt. IMO, it is not a huge leap to assume aggravated child abuse, especially after the body was found and you connect it to all of the other presented circumstantial evidence. Where you go from aggravated child abuse is simply whether you believe premeditation or not.

 

[jjenny]

It was defense side of the story that the child drowned and the body was dumped. Since Casey was found not guilty of manslaughter or child abuse, can I assume that dumping a child body as if it were garbage is legal in FL? By the way if the child drowned in the pool, if 911 is called and CPR is performed, perhaps a child can be saved. How is that situation as proposed by the defense at least doesn't qualify as child abuse?

 

[JBean]

If aggravated child abuse is indeed the key to the other charges, what would the jury expecting as evidence of that abuse ? A video of ICA holding a chloroform rag to Caylee's face or the same of her applying the duct tape to Caylee's nose and mouth ... or maybe someone that saw her put Caylee in the trunk ? Once again, this was a circumstantial case, and inferences have to be made as to someone's guilt. IMO, it is not a huge leap to assume aggravated child abuse, especially after the body was found and you connect it to all of the other presented circumstantial evidence. Where you go from aggravated child abuse is simply whether you believe premeditation or not.

Exactly. If they could not see child abuse they would not be able to find for anything else.

 

[JBean]

It was defense side of the story that the child drowned and the body was dumped. Since Casey was found not guilty of manslaughter or child abuse, can I assume that dumping a child body as if it were garbage is legal in FL?

No, but they did not charge her with that and it is too late now.

 

[Baznme]

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.

Your point of view makes sense Bean but, the duct tape, the chloroform (however high or low the levels) matching the computer searches, the 31 days, the illegal disposal of a corpse, the decomp in the trunk, the lies, more lies and even more lies does not make an "accidental drowning". How the jury didn't see that leaves me astonished. They threw that in the pot along with the abuse and added a pinch of Kronk to totally cause the State's evidence to appear splattered with doubt. I don't know how much more the SA could have given them to show this was not an accident but I do know this much. The only dog the State had in this fight had a tag on its collar with Caylee's name on it. We can't say that for the defense naturally but, if the jury had truly listened to the sequential order of ICA's actions for the 16th, 17th of June, going off the cell pings, they would realize Caylee left the house alive on the 16th and ICA returned to the house on the 17th , went across the street to borrow a shovel (neighbor saw no Caylee). Cadaver dogs hit on spots in the back yard where I believe she laid her anticipating of burying her in the back yard. That alone would tell me that Caylee was dead in the trunk of that car when she got back to the house and nobody was going swimming. ICA had more important things to do like digging up some bamboo roots.

She was determined she was going back to TonE's that night without the "problem to deal with anymore". However the jury decided IMO was/is lacking greatly as they did not go into that deliberation room with as much as their notes (which they left on their chairs). No questions were asked (which is unheard of in a death penalty trial), no requests for videos, no transcripts, nothing. That's why I think they were arrogant to believe they could go off memory to make these serious decisions in such an important case. The outcome seems to be seen as Caylee was "insignificant" and that's the hardest part to understand.

 

[jjenny]

No, but they did not charge her with that and it is too late now.

You would not consider the situation as proposed by the defense to be at the very least child abuse? Considering the child could possibly be saved if 911 is called and CPR is preformed?

 

[JBean]

Your point of view makes sense Bean but, the duct tape, the chloroform (however high or low the levels) matching the computer searches, the 31 days, the illegal disposal of a corpse, the decomp in the trunk, the lies, more lies and even more lies does not make an "accidental drowning". How the jury didn't see that leaves me astonished. They threw that in the pot along with the abuse and added a pinch of Kronk to totally cause the State's evidence to appear splattered with doubt. I don't know how much more the SA could have given them to show this was not an accident but I do know this much. The only dog the State had in this fight had a tag on its collar with Caylee's name on it. We can't say that for the defense naturally but, if the jury had truly listened to the sequential order of ICA's actions for the 16th, 17th of June, going off the cell pings, they would realize Caylee left the house alive on the 16th and ICA returned to the house on the 17th , went across the street to borrow a shovel (neighbor saw no Caylee). Cadaver dogs hit on spots in the back yard. That alone would tell me that Caylee was dead in the trunk of that car and nobody was going swimming. ICA had more important things to do like digging up some bamboo roots.

She was determined she was going back to TonE's that night without the "problem to deal with anymore". However the jury decided IMO was/is lacking greatly as they did not go into that deliberation room with as much as their notes (which they left on their chairs). No questions were asked (which is unheard of in a death penalty trial), no requests for videos, no transcripts, nothing. That's why I think they were arrogant to believe they could go off memory to make these serious decisions in such an important case. The outcome seems to be seen as Caylee was "insignificant" and that's the hardest part to understand.

I am not justifying their verdict. I am only saying that if they could not see child abuse they would not be able to find on anything at all.
The child abuse was the crime, the underlying felony and the premeditation in this case. If they didn't see that, it would be impossible for them to have come back with a guilty verdict on any of the charges,unless they bought the entire accident theory.I think they considered the accidnet theory, as many of us have here. But utlimately they discarded it or they would have found her guilty of plain garden variety manslaughter-kwim?

 

[3doglady]

I don't understand why first degree wasn't proven. We saw and heard all the duct tape evidence. We know Dr Vass found extremely high levels of chloroform when he wasn't even looking for it. We know LE found "how to make chloroform" searches that were specifically deleted the night KC was arrested. Who the heck would duct tape a child, triple bag her and throw her in a swamp and lie about it if it was accident? Who would sit in jail for 3 years if it was an accident? What difference does it make whether the duct tape or chloroform was the COD? All they had to do is use common sense. They didn't take notes. They didn't follow HHJP's instructions. They didn't review any evidence. All the days of forensic and computer evidence and they didn't take notes or review it? WTH? There is no plausible excuse for the jurors actions. The jurors ,who have spoken, say there was no evidence? Yet their reasons for ng are total speculation based on JB's OS. JMO

 

[jjenny]

JBean, so what exactly do you think the jury believes happened? It's neither accident nor murder? What does that leave? Alien abduction?

 

[JBean]

You would not consider the situation as proposed by the defense to be at the very least child abuse? Considering the child could possibly be saved if 911 is called and CPR is preformed?

Of course I would if that was what the state was contending and they brought forth evidence to prove that is what happened.
But it is irrelevant because the state did not argue it. There was no proof at all that there was an accident. none-zip-zero-zilch. All the accident theory did was confuse the issue and muddy the waters.

 

[Darkprincess65]

my opinion on the jury might not be a very popular one but it WAS a random bunch of fleeting thoughts for a bit. I read a story on MSNBC about one of the jurors that has left her husband and gone into hiding. While I do not believe the jurors got it right on several levels? Now even I am becoming very concerned about the aftermath towards 12 people who really had NO choice but to go serve on this jury.

I remember watching the coverage of jury selection. During a lot of this selection process a major factor was brought up with each one on their economic status or situation. And the factor that stood out the most?

They couldn't afford to leave their lives.

I live in Pinellas County. And even with a population of just a little more than 100,000? Jobs are hard to get. Housing is expensive. Everything is expensive. For example? Regardless of whether you have a job or not? Did you know that there are over 7500 homeless people in this county alone? When census is taken during the winter months for the social service agencies? I can guarantee you that the answer given a lot of the time? "I have a job? But I AM homeless". Living in their vehicles. Living in what few shelters we have now. Living with family or friends. In motels. Or hopping from couch to couch.

If you're still with me this far? Good. Because my point is this: I believe and I'd like not to believe my gut feeling now as I had during jury selection when HHJP decided to have it here. He was having a hard time finding potential jurors remember? There is a 500 bed shelter right next door to the jail in the same complex as the Criminal Judicial Center. He was ready to go over there and start pooling people. At that time? The population in there? 350. AND a lot of them DO work. My son works for a bistro type place and he told me of several of his young, single parent, co workers that did not, could not make jury selection. He only told me because they told him "they saw HER".

I do believe and I hate to think it, but I live here and I see the "people" struggle in this county. Business's one after the other shutting down. I recently got laid off from a bankrupt business myself. I DO believe these people had NO other choice because financially? They were up against a proverbial wall. I won't speak for the alternates. Just the 12. I know what the going pay rate for any job in this county is. Very few people can afford to NOT have a roommate or live together.

HHJP put them up in a really nice hotel. Made sure they were occupied and entertained. They ate well. Had movies. Got to see the Lightening game. Were very well taken care of. Plus they got paid on top of it.

I betcha if they knew then? What they know now? Or had ever anticipated the affect as a result of their verdict? This case alone could make it very hard to pick another jury. Anywhere. But, because of the economics of the area? They took the alternative route to save themselves hardship as a result financially. And I'd hate to think they honestly believed they would cash in on this as well. But, I took a drive out to the court house during jury selection. It was a circus out there with lookey loo's. I was only out there myself because I had out of town company who would like to witness the news media trucks out there. I don't for a minute doubt that during that selection? Before any of those people who didn't go in first? Were informed by the ones not picked of WHOM the case was about.

OK I'm going to shut up. My head hurts from over analyzing this. :/

 

[jjenny]

Of course I would if that was what the state was contending and they brought forth evidence to prove that is what happened.
But it is irrelevant because the state did not argue it. There was no proof at all that there was an accident. none-zip-zero-zilch. All the accident theory did was confuse the issue and muddy the waters.

I am not sure what proof is needed. The child's body found in the swamp. Clearly the child is dead either by accident or murder. If jury doesn't believe the first degree murder is proven, what does that leave?
I mean, what other options are there?

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I know this is not the appropriate thread, but I just can't seem to find where it should go.
I am watching the Jaycee Dugard interview with Diane Sawyer, and I only wish the jurors would watch this. If they used the sexual abuse allegation in any way, shape or form to come to their verdict, they should be ashamed. The comparison between Casey's ALLEGED sexual abuse by GA and what Jaycee went through......makes my blood boil. This woman is so put together. She is an amazing woman. AND GUESS WHAT JURY....she didn't kill her daughters.
Also, JB and team should be ASHAMED. Sexual abuse does happen to people...just look at Jaycee's case. It is not something to be made up and USED in a courtroom to get a murderer off the hook.

My blood is boiling again and I had calmed down this weekend I THOUGHT. NOT.

 

[JBean]

JBean, so what exactly do you think the jury believes happened? It's neither accident nor murder? What does that leave? Alien abduction?

Personally, I think the jury has no idea what happened. Because they have no idea, they couldn't convict. The COD would have helped them get rid of the entire accident scenario or helped them to buy it. From there they might have been able to connect the dots and convict on something.
The experts were countered with other experts and people lied on the stand. This thing was a cluster of craziness!
These people tried to sort out in 30 days what we have spent 3 years debating LOL.
I do not agree with their verdict,but in 30 some days they did not get the full thrust of the evidence,imo.

 

[jjenny]

Personally, I think the jury has no idea what happened. Because they have no idea, they couldn't convict. The COD would have helped them get rid of the entire accident scenario or helped them to buy it. From there they might have been able to connect the dots and convict on something.
The experts were countered with other experts and people lied on the stand. This thing was a cluster of craziness!
These people tried to sort out in 30 days what we have spent 3 years debating LOL.
I do not agree with their verdict,but in 30 some days they did not get the full thrust of the evidence,imo.

The cause of death couldn't be gotten because the body became skeletal remains. What a good lesson to learn for anybody out there who is thinking of doing something wrong.