Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[Boytwnmom]

so the foreman tells the jury a completely incorrect statement of the law and convinces them they must acquit because no one told them precisely HOW she died. That this is completely wrong is, I assume, not even considered by him or by anyone who interviews him and then tells us this is our system and we must accept it and they did the best they could. NO, getting it completely and totally wrong in a child murder case is not OK!!!! Seriously, there was not ONE person there who understood what they were supposed to do? Or was Mr "Totally Wrong" Foreman so convincing or coercive that no one dared? I refuse to watch him so I don't know.

It seems that maybe was what they were told by the jury foreman, according to what the GVS interview is quoted as saying.

"But because the prosecution never showed how it happened, they were -- by the letter of the law -- forced to rule for acquittal on all murder charges."

http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/national/Jury-Foreman-Talks-About-Casey-Anthony-Trial-20110711-am-sd

.

 

[back2back19]

That's exactly how I feel. I was horrified at the verdict but I wasn't agnry at the jurors. Even though I thought there was plenty of evidence I thought that maybe it just wasn't enough for them. But now I keep seeing what they've been saying and it makes me so angry. In the end, they were just ignorant of the law and lazy!

I'd like to think some good could come from this mess, even if it's just a change to the jury system, but I really don't think anything will happen. Makes me so sad!

Yup. I disagreed wholeheartedly with their decision but I wasn't angry until the jurors started speaking out and it became clear how they did NOT do their job. It's NOT that hard either. Go through the evidence. Do something. Instead all they seemed to have done is yak about the fact that there was no cause of death, so evidently there couldn't be a conviction. Caylee was also cared for by her grandparents, so Casey couldn't even be convicted of manslaughter. It's so aggravating.

IA; I have to hope some good comes of this. Maybe they need to end sequestration. Maybe the jury instructions needs to be made easier. Clearly they needed a picture book in this case to explain the instructions. I mean I admit I got bored listening to the instructions and thought JP could have done better in the explination but they had a physical copy in their hands that they could have read, which they didn't, so I don't know...

 

[cityslick]

Personally I think the problem the jury had was they didn't have anything that Casey putting her in the trunk. They didn't have motive so where was the evidence that it was 'Casey' that put her there? The only thing they had left was the computer searches and CA muddied the water with that.

If a majority of them didn't believe GA (for whatever the reason), how do you know if he was telling the truth? What was the truth and what was lies?

 

[rbrnmw2]

Eh? Are you expecting me to connect the dots? Not sure I can today - I was in the er with my mom all nite.

I hope your Mom is OK

 

[1tasha]

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

And the press runs with it as a juror has to go into hiding. Martyrdom.

 

[Granna6]

I just can't get over the fact that they did not follow the judge's instructions. How is that not one of them heard when the judge clearly stated that the SA did not have to prove COD or motive? From what the Jury foreman has told GVS, it seems that's all they considered!

I would have hung the jury. .

I think the issues are intelligence and courage. Most people would comb over a bill from their phone company or credit card co. to make absolutely sure there were no questionable charges. Yet a jury can almost "blithely" sashay through this complicated mess in just hours? I agree with your statement about a hung jury. Would any of us have the courage to hang a jury? Would we be willing to stand against the mob? Could we resist intimidation? I'd like to think that I would've said, "I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt that this person at least is guilty of felonious child abuse, if not murder. Therefore, regardless of the other eleven jurors, I will NOT bow to intimidation to go for a verdict of not guilty." If I felt threatened, I'd also like to think that I would have informed the bailiff or someone. BTW, I have the best mom in the world. She trained us kids to stand alone against a thousand if we are in the right about something. It's called integrity.

Their 4th of July had already pretty much been ruined, so what would a day or two longer have mattered? I'd like to think I would have clarified the judge's orders.

When this woman reoffends, I wonder what the jurors will think?

 

[Cheewawa007]

I just can't get over the fact that they did not follow the judge's instructions. How is that not one of them heard when the judge clearly stated that the SA did not have to prove COD or motive? From what the Jury foreman has told GVS, it seems that's all they considered!

I would have hung the jury. HHPB would have instructed to try again, but, sorry, the state would have had to try the case over. I would not have been "convinced" or bullied into giving in to a verdict I felt was wrong.

Oh - and, in addition, I would have insisted that the jury instructions be read and reread until everyone understood. HHPB was available if questions needed to be answered.

[in addition to covering the monitor when evidence was being shown, some jurors appeared to be sleeping or at least close to it. Some of them took no notes at all.

.

BBM: RIGHT ON TIKI!!!! That would have made two of us!!

 

[1tasha]

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.

So he can't even be bothered to research this before he goes on national television with his claims? Well that's interesting.

 

[kaki]

so the foreman tells the jury a completely incorrect statement of the law and convinces them they must acquit because no one told them precisely HOW she died. That this is completely wrong is, I assume, not even considered by him or by anyone who interviews him and then tells us this is our system and we must accept it and they did the best they could. NO, getting it completely and totally wrong in a child murder case is not OK!!!! Seriously, there was not ONE person there who understood what they were supposed to do? Or was Mr "Totally Wrong" Foreman so convincing or coercive that no one dared? I refuse to watch him so I don't know.

I really wish someone would interview these jurors and stand up to them.. question what they are saying. I am not a Fox news or Bill O'reilly fan but I loved his interview with Geraldo.. he wasn't letting him get away with blathering on about cause of death etc. Maybe O'reilly would like to take a crack at interviewing these 'no cause of death' jurors?

 

[yolorado]

Personally I think the problem the jury had was they didn't have anything that Casey putting her in the trunk. They didn't have motive so where was the evidence that it was 'Casey' that put her there? The only thing they had left was the computer searches and CA muddied the water with that.

If a majority of them didn't believe GA (for whatever the reason), how do you know if he was telling the truth? What was the truth and what was lies?

How could anyone believe that there wasn't a body in the trunk?! The smell. The cadaver dogs. The hair with death bands. KC had access to her car. There is no evidence anywhere that George ever had anything to do with the car or the clothes that were found with Caylee. George and Cindy were unhappy that Caylee was missing. KC was happy! I just don't understand where this jury came from. Accident victims don't show up in trash bags in swamps! Where was this jury's common sense?!

 

[Hisimage]

Maybe after juries have discussed the case they should put their vote on a piece of paper individually. Then all file out to the court room and the judge count the votes. If hung send everyone back. Maybe they shouldn't come out as a whole anymore--- it seems that it just gives the others to bully or help change the mind of others. I believe that when there are a few that vote the opposite than the majority it then has the potential to become bully time. If you don't know who voted what in the first place you then might be able to stick to your decision.

Maybe NOBODY should know what you voted. Maybe it should all be secret and then discussion until the need is met.

 

[mydailyopinions]

How could anyone believe that there wasn't a body in the trunk?! The smell. The cadaver dogs. The hair with death bands. KC had access to her car. There is no evidence anywhere that George ever had anything to do with the car or the clothes that were found with Caylee. George and Cindy were unhappy that Caylee was missing. KC was happy! I just don't understand where this jury came from. Accident victims don't show up in trash bags in swamps! Where was this jury's common sense?!

This is what bother's me most about this verdict. It's bad enough that the jury did not understand the law, nor did they ask questions pertaining to understanding the law, but to totally disregard any common sense baffles me.
Why would anyone make such an effort to make an accident look like a crime?
Who could really believe this story of a drowning, George holding a lifeless Caylee, Casey crying????? And not one person in the neighborhood comes forward to say they were witness or heard any of this? BS!
What other reason would Casey ditch the car? She had money for Christ sakes, money that she stole! If there was NEVER a dead body in that car, she would have filled it back up with gas and went on her Merry Little Way!

The cadaver dogs, bless their 4 legged hearts. These jurors basically said they are worthless, and yes, this is exactly how I interpreted their decision that no body was in the car. I can bet you that if a tornado rips their little town apart and half the community is buried in the rubble, these animals would be considered hero's. They would be begging for these dogs to find their neighbors and loved ones.

6 days later, I am still very angry over this.

 

[theBritster]

Yup. I disagreed wholeheartedly with their decision but I wasn't angry until the jurors started speaking out and it became clear how they did NOT do their job. It's NOT that hard either. Go through the evidence. Do something. Instead all they seemed to have done is yak about the fact that there was no cause of death, so evidently there couldn't be a conviction. Caylee was also cared for by her grandparents, so Casey couldn't even be convicted of manslaughter. It's so aggravating.

IA; I have to hope some good comes of this. Maybe they need to end sequestration. Maybe the jury instructions needs to be made easier. Clearly they needed a picture book in this case to explain the instructions. I mean I admit I got bored listening to the instructions and thought JP could have done better in the explination but they had a physical copy in their hands that they could have read, which they didn't, so I don't know...

It's almost like the jury just WANTED to find her not guilty. They speculated all of the evidence away. Oh, well....it could have been George. That family lies. It was an accident. You're right. It is aggravating.

With that being said, I checked up on Caylee's Law to see how the petition is coming along, and saw that 16 states have now drafted versions. And PA is one of them! So proud of my state right now! Even though it's not jury related, there's some proof that good is coming from this!

http://articles.philly.com/2011-07-08/news/29750663_1_casey-anthony-trial-farnese-verdict

 

[cityslick]

How could anyone believe that there wasn't a body in the trunk?! The smell. The cadaver dogs. The hair with death bands. KC had access to her car. There is no evidence anywhere that George ever had anything to do with the car or the clothes that were found with Caylee. George and Cindy were unhappy that Caylee was missing. KC was happy! I just don't understand where this jury came from. Accident victims don't show up in trash bags in swamps! Where was this jury's common sense?!

I don't disagree there was a body in the trunk. I don't disagree about the duct tape being used to suffocate. But is your only evidence that Casey did these things was her partying and CA/GA being unhappy? Where is the evidence that Casey not only put her in the trunk but put duct tape on her?

I'm just trying to play devils advocate from the jurors perspective.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I don't disagree there was a body in the trunk. I don't disagree about the duct tape being used to suffocate. But is your only evidence that Casey did these things was her partying and CA/GA being unhappy? Where is the evidence that Casey not only put her in the trunk but put duct tape on her?

I'm just trying to play devils advocate from the jurors perspective.

It is not reasonable to doubt that the choloroform searches were performed by Casey Anthony. It is not reasonable to doubt that Casey had access to the duct tape located in her home. It is not reasonable to doubt Casey Anthony was the last person to see her daughter. It is not reasonable to doubt that Casey had full access and control of her car with the hair which had a DEATH BAND around it. All roads lead to Casey. Not George. George didn't have access to the trash from Tony's apartment. Casey did. The state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey was the person who killed her daughter. These jurors just did not want to do the work. They wanted to go home and go to Disney World. It is not reasonable to come to the conclusion they did. It was lazy.

So given that it was reasonable to conclude that the perpetrator was Casey...the jury failed. You can't have a videotape or a confession or an eyewitness to every murder. Wouldn't that be nice. The state gave enough evidence for these jurors to convict, they chose not to do the work.

All MHO, of course.

 

[Italy]

It's sad - if the jurors had read Lee's deposition, they would have come to a different conclusion. It is all there as to who had Caylee before her death. The smell in the car, Cindy not knowing anything, trying to hide, everything.

The circumstantial evidence supports the manner of death -- homicide -- and the failure to report and the non-existent nanny supports the charge of Casey being the murderer.

I hope they will read it (but I have my doubts)
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21310241/detail.html

Also, Jose Baez was there so he knows the truth too. He just obscured everything for a jury that didn't understand that the state did not have to prove cause of death - only that is wasn't a suicide or accident (Why not report a genuine accident? Why hide an accident for a month?). They were ignorant of their responsibilities of jurors and they bought - hook, line & sinker - the load of garbage Jose was peddling.

 

[cityslick]

It is not reasonable to doubt that the choloroform searches were performed by Casey Anthony. It is not reasonable to doubt that Casey had access to the duct tape located in her home. It is not reasonable to doubt Casey Anthony was the last person to see her daughter. It is not reasonable to doubt that Casey had full access and control of her car with the hair which had a DEATH BAND around it. All roads lead to Casey. Not George. George didn't have access to the trash from Tony's apartment. Casey did. The state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey was the person who killed her daughter. These jurors just did not want to do the work. They wanted to go home and go to Disney World. It is not reasonable to come to the conclusion they did. It was lazy.

So given that it was reasonable to conclude that the perpetrator was Casey...the jury failed. You can't have a videotape or a confession or an eyewitness to every murder. Wouldn't that be nice. The state gave enough evidence for these jurors to convict, they chose not to do the work.

All MHO, of course.

Is it not reasonable to doubt the computer searches? Didn't CA muddy the water with her testimony, no matter how untrue it was? Where is your evidence that Casey was the last one to see her daughter? Where is your evidence that only Casey had full access to her car?

This is what the state needed to prove. If the jury isn't buying what GA is selling, how do you treat his testimony then? Do you disregard it? Do you fault the jury for having doubts in him? Everyone else in that family seems to have no problem lying about something, what makes him the standout?

These questions go beyond motive and COD.

 

[LancelotLink]

I don't disagree there was a body in the trunk. I don't disagree about the duct tape being used to suffocate. But is your only evidence that Casey did these things was her partying and CA/GA being unhappy? Where is the evidence that Casey not only put her in the trunk but put duct tape on her?

I'm just trying to play devils advocate from the jurors perspective.

No! No no...
That is what the defense wanted to portray, that the SA's case was: she was a party girl, therefore she must be guilty. It wouldn't matter if she was partying at Fusion or clipping coupons for 31 days. The point is she hid out from her parents for 31 days, lying, telling them she was in Jax, Tampa, Caylee was at Busch Gardens, etc.

 

[Hisimage]

My lesson learned in all of this.

Accept when on bed rest when pregnant I have always showed up for my call to serve on jury duty. Each time I went I was a bit apprehensive but went anyway.
The one time I came very close it was to serve as a grand jury to indict gang members in a community.

I was raised to believe that it is my duty and privledge to serve on a jury as I would want someone like me who will be willing to give it a "fair go" .. HOWEVER,,,,,,

I now totally get,believe , understand and WILL promise to give -every-single-minute-of my attention to both parties and I will take-my-time to come to MY conclusion.

 

[cityslick]

No! No no...
That is what the defense wanted to portray, that the SA's case was: she was a party girl, therefore she must be guilty. It wouldn't matter if she was partying at Fusion or clipping coupons for 31 days. The point is she hid out from her parents for 31 days, lying, telling them she was in Jax, Tampa, Caylee was at Busch Gardens, etc.

Ok, I buy that but I guess my next question is can you really convict someone of 1st degree premed murder simply because she told lies and made up stories. Yea, there should be a reason why she did all that, but was that reason ever proven in court? Don't you have to actually have to connect her to crime somehow? And then don't you have to somehow show it was her and only her that did it?

The DT knew from the very beginning that the state didn't have something specific that pinpoints Casey, that's why they threw GA in there.