Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[catnron]

IMO: From what the jurys heard I can see why they said not guilty. The Jurys was out of the courtroom more than they were in. They did not even hear 1/4 of what really happened to Caylee. I don't understand why they were sent out so much, why they could only hear a little of the evidence, I am like so many otheres sick, sick over this. It was like the jurys were protected from hearing all the truth. The evidence was there, it just never got to the jurys ears so they could hear it.

 

[Annie]

The miserable postscript for a Casey Anthony juror

http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...iserable-postscript-for-a-casey-anthony-juror

is it wrong that I can't muster up even a little sympathy ?

I don't have any sympathy either. I have cried more than once, think about it many times a day, and have been sick to my stomach over it. My faith in our justice system has been seriously shaken. They didn't take their job seriously and wanted out of there in my opinion. I hope they think about what they have done for a long, long time. If just ONE of them had had the backbone to insist they keep going over the circumstantial evidence and considered her behavior. The more I hear them try to explain it, the more I am convinced they didn't really listen to instructions. I think probably there was a powerful persuader (or more) on there and the others just went along.

 

[yolorado]

I don't think threats would ever be appropriate. But doesn't sound like she was threatened. She's just afraid to face her co-workers. I'll reserve my sympathy.

Totally agree, from the article, no actual threats are apparent, just the idea that their might be, just discomfort at holding a minority opinion. Of course, I don't approve of threats. If they are ACTUALLY MADE, they should be investigated. If there's actual crime, there should be prosecution, but, as we have all seen recently, conviction may or may not follow. This woman appears to be afraid of people disagreeing with her. She's threatened by the potential that their MIGHT be threats, or even that there might be disapproval. Sorry, but if you're right, let people disapprove. After the KC trial, too many who seem threatened by just the idea of disagreement because it MIGHT lead to threats appear fine having someone on the streets who "had something to do" with REAL harm and real death.

 

[AsoldiersGrits]

---------snipped------
That's how I envisioned this jury......sitting tall, paying attention with lots of note taking. Instead they sat there and took no notes or took very little notes.

One of the th's made a remark about these jurors not writing anything down. I felt like that was a bad sign........

Also wasn't there a tweet about a juror covering the monitor with his/her jacket when there was a photo of Caylees
Skull on it?

 

[technicalconfusion]

as luck would have it I got my jury summons in the mail last week.

Do you vow to be a pain in the butt and not let anyone bully you into their way of thinking?

Do you vow to heed the judges' previous admonitions?

 

[technicalconfusion]

All that I can think to do is suggest that people arm themselves-lay in a supply of weapons and ammo, watch your children every second of every day, watch your back everywhere you go, do some research and learn how to identify sociopaths when they cross your path, be nervous, be suspicious, be alarmed and on edge at all times because if they let someone like this out? Then imagine what it is out there on our streets and we are unaware. Obviously the court system is not going to protect us or our children so we are going to have to do that ourselves. Be vigilant-you never know if the pretty girl you hire to babysit for the evening is Casey with a facelift. How can we ever hope to feel remotely safe knowing the justice system is so broken?

I never hired a sitter for my son when he was a baby. If he couldn't go, we didn't go. And that was 14 years ago.

Call me over protective! I still have issues letting him out of the house on his own. :floorlaugh:

 

[technicalconfusion]

IMO: From what the jurys heard I can see why they said not guilty. The Jurys was out of the courtroom more than they were in. They did not even hear 1/4 of what really happened to Caylee. I don't understand why they were sent out so much, why they could only hear a little of the evidence, I am like so many otheres sick, sick over this. It was like the jurys were protected from hearing all the truth. The evidence was there, it just never got to the jurys ears so they could hear it.

I disagree. The evidence was there. Some wasn't used. They did not look at it. They didn't ask for it to pick it apart. I don't believe they listened to the testimony when witnesses were testifying. They didn't want to have to connect the dots or do the work needed.

 

[Marple]

Also wasn't there a tweet about a juror covering the monitor with his/her jacket when there was a photo of Caylees
Skull on it?

There was and if I am not mistaken, it was during a sidebar that the juror covered the monitor.

 

[manatee]

I been giving this a lot of thought. Humans are social animals and we do not live independent of other humans. Unfortunately for this jury they will now have to face the consequences of their decisions, good or bad. Common sense is a hard thing to fight against. They WILL have to answer for their decision. ICA may not face time in jail but she will also have to answer for her actions and so will the rest of the Anthony clan. Unless they all move to an island eventually they will all face consequences.

 

[Salem]

The miserable postscript for a Casey Anthony juror

http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/_ne...iserable-postscript-for-a-casey-anthony-juror

is it wrong that I can't muster up even a little sympathy ?

This story bothers me, because (bbm):

"Juror number 12 left Florida. Her husband, fighting back tears, tells NBC News he’s not sure when she’ll return to her home in Florida.
Why? He says she fears half of her co-workers want her head on a platter.
The others may understand what she did, but she didn’t want to face them."

Why didn't she want to face them? If you do your honest best, you should be more than prepared to defend your actions, especially to folks that understand the difficult position you were in. Why wouldn't you want to face them? In my mind, only because you feel you didn't do your honest best. :waitasec:

Salem

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

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.

JBean,

I have a question---would the fact that Caylees death was not reported for 31 day's (even by accident) be enough evidence to prove "NEGLIGENCE" on the part of Casey the mother and caregiver of child? That pretty much proved it to me. Thus my reasoning for at least aggravated manslaughter. I do believe the State "reached " on the 1st degree--premeditation, but feel their was plenty of evidence of negligence.

I really do believe the jury was just LAZY. There was a 6/6 vote on manslaughter---could of gone either way. Guess the 6 FOR just wimped out---and to me, there is no excuse for that in a 1st degree, or any other jury verdict.

In fact i think it would be in the best interest of the jury members in this case to just "shut up". Their reasoning is what is making them look like fools. Would of been better if NO_ONE spoke out, at least we would of felt they MAY have used BRILLIANT deductive reasoning. :maddening:

 

[Lovejac]

JBean,

I have a question---would the fact that Caylees death was not reported for 31 day's (even by accident) be enough evidence to prove "NEGLIGENCE" on the part of Casey the mother and caregiver of child? That pretty much proved it to me. Thus my reasoning for at least aggravated manslaughter. I do believe the State "reached " on the 1st degree--premeditation, but feel their was plenty of evidence of negligence.

I really do believe the jury was just LAZY. There was a 6/6 vote on manslaughter---could of gone either way. Guess the 6 FOR just wimped out---and to me, there is no excuse for that in a 1st degree, or any other jury verdict.

In fact i think it would be in the best interest of the jury members in this case to just "shut up". Their reasoning is what is making them look like fools. Would of been better if NO_ONE spoke out, at least we would of felt they MAY have used BRILLIANT deductive reasoning. :maddening:

I agree! They felt sick to their stomachs? Should have listened to that, it was their body's way of telling them that they had not made the right decision.

They only time that I will listen to any member of that jury is when one or more come forward and admit they made a terrible mistake.

 

[Solange82200]

Now the jury foreman talked to Greta and says that since the prosecution didnt have the cause of death, the law required them to acquit her of all charges.

That is patently untrue. He is trying to convince people that they had no choice, and he is either lying or really stupid. I think everyone here knows you do not need an exact cause of death to convict of murder. I am mad that when jurors say completely untrue things, none of the reporters point it out. Why not?????? Greta was a lawyer right, she should know that is false. The interview hasnt aired yet, it airs tonight, but I have a feeling she will not call him out on it. The more I hear, the sicker I get.

A murder case should require people of at least average or above average intelligence. There has to be a way. How can we trust something as important as a human life (Casey's, and the one of her next murder victim) to people who don't understand the law? It was explained to them clearly, but let's face it, some people don;t have the capacity to learn, no matter how much it is explained to them.

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

IMO: From what the jurys heard I can see why they said not guilty. The Jurys was out of the courtroom more than they were in. They did not even hear 1/4 of what really happened to Caylee. I don't understand why they were sent out so much, why they could only hear a little of the evidence, I am like so many otheres sick, sick over this. It was like the jurys were protected from hearing all the truth. The evidence was there, it just never got to the jurys ears so they could hear it.

True, catnron, there was a great deal of evidence not allowed by Judge Perry, due to it being prejudicial. I would have loved to have seen the In jailhouse tape of Casey's reaction to the discovery of Caylee's body by Kronk.

If you remember Padilla found bones at Blanchard park, and Casey just smirked and walked off, but totally freaked out with Kronk's location of the bones..........MMMMMMMMMMM think she was the ONLY one who knew they were her Caylee!!! SHE HAS TO BE MENTALLY DEFECTIVE---another "Bad Seed".:crazy:

 

[Lovejac]

Now the jury foreman talked to Greta and says that since the prosecution didnt have the cause of death, the law required them to acquit her of all charges.

That is patently untrue. He is trying to convince people that they had no choice, and he is either lying or really stupid. I think everyone here knows you do not need an exact cause of death to convict of murder. I am mad that when jurors say completely untrue things, none of the reporters point it out. Why not?????? Greta was a lawyer right, she should know that is false. The interview hasnt aired yet, it airs tonight, but I have a feeling she will not call him out on it. The more I hear, the sicker I get.

A murder case should require people of at least average or above average intelligence. There has to be a way. How can we trust something as important as a human life (Casey's, and the one of her next murder victim) to people who don't understand the law? It was explained to them clearly, but let's face it, some people don;t have the capacity to learn, no matter how much it is explained to them.

Hope he enjoys the blood $$ he earned for that interview. I won't be watching it.

I take that back. I might watch an interview if any of the reporters actually have the balls to call these jurors on their excuses THAT ARE NOT VALID.

 

[Solange82200]

Hope he enjoys the blood $$ he earned for that interview. I won't be watching it.

I take that back. I might watch an interview if any of the reporters actually have the balls to call these jurors on their excuses THAT ARE NOT VALID.

Me neither, I hope everyone else doesn't either. That is blood money, any way you look at it. I am disgusted in the human race right now, is there anything we can do to make the law that jurors can profit off of murder cases?? Or make it so that any payment the tv stations are willing to make, goes to a charity related to the victim in the case. That would be awesome...

 

[simplesimon]

I disagree. The evidence was there. Some wasn't used. They did not look at it. They didn't ask for it to pick it apart. I don't believe they listened to the testimony when witnesses were testifying. They didn't want to have to connect the dots or do the work needed.

As I stated in a previous thread, these people wanted "proof" like a tv show.They wanted a story that not only showed who did it, but a neat little video of how it was done and exactly how the murder was commited! There should be NO NEED to connect dots!at least to these jurors! How can they say it was reasonable doubt? They did not even take the time to "reason"?

 

[Hisimage]

Now the jury foreman talked to Greta and says that since the prosecution didnt have the cause of death, the law required them to acquit her of all charges.
That is patently untrue. He is trying to convince people that they had no choice, and he is either lying or really stupid. I think everyone here knows you do not need an exact cause of death to convict of murder. I am mad that when jurors say completely untrue things, none of the reporters point it out. Why not?????? Greta was a lawyer right, she should know that is false. The interview hasnt aired yet, it airs tonight, but I have a feeling she will not call him out on it. The more I hear, the sicker I get.

A murder case should require people of at least average or above average intelligence. There has to be a way. How can we trust something as important as a human life (Casey's, and the one of her next murder victim) to people who don't understand the law? It was explained to them clearly, but let's face it, some people don;t have the capacity to learn, no matter how much it is explained to them.

Then my question is: who on the jury actually believed that and how did he/she convince the others that he/she was right and the law was wrong.
And why did the remaining jurors not read or question the judge themselves if this were true?

I could just imagine some of the jurors thinking "oh yeah, guilty-- no doubt about it" and someone on the jury explaining oh, no we don't know the cause. We may think its a murder but the state didn't tell us how. I'm not sure why they spent so much money and had us leave our families for so long, but, I think they forgot to tell us that part. Let's go everyone-- not guilty.

Maybe this sequesration does not really work.Maybe we should come up with something a little different, what I don't know. I think keeping people away from their families and lives to decide the fate of some selfish murderer doesn't do what it is suppose to do. I know that most here will say that it works ususally or most of the time, but this once is more that it should have been that it did NOT work. JMO

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

You are soooooo right.

Bye the eay, love your av---it looks just like I feel most days!

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

Sorry above comment meant for "TECH CON"