Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[cyberborg]

I still don't understand how George Anthony got dragged into this crazy defense theory.
The Jury just needed to ask themselves (I know that would have been stretching it with that bunch) why would GA spend all of his resources to look for Caylee and actually try to HELP his CA if he had anything to do with it? I honestly think CA drummed up the idea to get back at him for testifying against her during the Grand Jury.

I think GA was the target for many many reasons ... we heard CA get hysterical on the 911 tapes as well as take the lead on quizzing ICA in the jail videos. The reaction from GA was less clear, more neutral. Also, the statement from RC on the accident snowballing out of control was a gift to the Defense.

Given that, as well as implicating that GA had access and control of the duct tape ... even though every family member had equal access ... spooked GA. For that reason GA was quite deceptive about the gas can since they had duct tape on as well as the duct tape at the command center. The Defense played GA by making him think they were tying him to the crime via the duct tape -- so he made himself look bad out of panic.

The bottom-line is ... GA looked the most guilty and they had to target someone in the A family who had access to Caylee, the trash bags, laundry bag, duct tape, Pooh blanket, etc. They implicated GA in an accident cover-up but did not accuse him of murder to take the focus off ICA having any involvement in anything.

To accuse GA of sexual molestation to the degree that was graphically shared was a complete SHOCKER that the Jury could not get that picture out of their minds or move on from ... ever. The Jury was completely tainted by the picture of ICA being molested and then going to school and lying.

 

[magic-cat]

I should have clarified, they proved it was him and only him that did the dumpsite search because it was done on his work computer at his job. Meaning, it wasn't the family computer where multiple people could of had access to it.

The state says that ICA did those searches by ruling everyone else out by saying they were at work but then CA gets up there and lies about the searches. Why is everyone in that family lying? Who is the jury supposed to believe here, George?

Cindy got up there and lied about it and that was proven. She did NOT do the searches. She was, in fact, and verified by login information into a system that must maintain HIPPA regulations, at work at that time. It was proven she was at work, not just beyond a reasonable doubt, but beyond any doubt. Cindy was at work. George was at work. The OTHER searches and websites logged while the person who did that search were Facebook and My Space, and all were Casey's. Lee was at work and not even living there at that time. Casey did the searches. That was proven to be a fact.

Why are they lying? Uhm, because their daughter is on trial for her life or for a very long prison sentence, and they love their daughter (albeit in a MOST dysfuntional manner) and they do not want to see that happen to their only daughter? They are desperate to do anything and say anything they can to help her, especially since the 911 call from Cindy is SO damning. They have always lied as part of their daily life and they are just continuing to do what they know best? They are freaked out that anything they may have said to the police is going to help to put their only daughter away? Those are REASONABLE to assume...but thinking that loving supportive grandparents who babysat and paid all the expenses and obviously loved the child and provided for her in every manner had something to do with her death when ALL available evidence points to their daughter? That is UN reasonable to assume simply based on the fact that they have lied to try to protect their daughter from a potential death sentence or life in prison that they had a thing to do with it.

Who had the motive?
Casey did.
She wanted the Tony life-as evidenced.
Her ONLY concern upon being arrested?
Not her daughter-but TONY...
She wanted rid of Caylee so she could be free to be with Tony-ALL the time, whenever she wanted. Who goes to the movie store and rents movies hours after their child dies? And tells nobody? :banghead:

 

[natsound]

And if you go back in time, when it all was actually happening (KH and the duct tape "whose on first" depo)...it was all being created specifically for this defense.

I really don't believe that. You're giving them too much credit. This isn't a Hollywood movie, this is real life. GA and CA hadn't even talked to KC for years. CA had to be called in to find out what the defense was planning to say about GA. The defense did not think they would win, hence all their attempts at mistrial. If all of this had been calculated, the defense team would have been much more comfortable through the trial. The defense threw spaghetti at the wall, hoping something would stick. They got lucky with this particular jury.

 

[Ricki]

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

 

[annalia]

I recently just watched a case where a guy was convicted of murdering his wife. There wasn't a whole lot of evidence there, it was all circumstantial and in fact most were even questioning if he did it. There wasn't anything directly linking him to the crime, outside of being controlling and always fighting with each other.

Then toward the end of the states case they produced a google search which showed he was looked up the dump site the day before his wife disappeared. And there you had 1st degree, because that piece of evidence directly linked him and nobody to the crime.

If it were me, I'd need some sort of smoking gun to convict on 1st degree. It doesn't have to be anything big either. Before the verdict in this case, I []thought that smoking gun was probably Dr. Vass' testimony but yet I can someone see why jurors would question it. I'm not sure what to think of the shovel, she probably used it but the state never really went further into that other to say she asked for it.

So, to answer your question, I'd need some sort of proof to convict. In this case, I thought she was guilty as well but that doesn't mean I wouldn't be open to hear other opinions as to why they think it was NG. Would it had swayed me? I cannot say, hindsight is 20/20. Understandbly, most here are thinking with emotion, something which the jury did not (and should not) have

My bolding

Oh puhleaze, that's insulting and so wrong.

I think with what I saw with my own eyes and what i heard with my own ears and then heard afterwards from the jurors themselves. It was quite the opposite of thinking with emotion.

There were other choices besides capital murder. All someone would have needed to do is have the ability to put it all together. There aren't always smoking guns.
looks like that's part of the problem with the jury, they needed a smoking gun where none was needed. And they based much of it on emotion.

JMHO

 

[cityslick]

CA's lies and GA's lies aren't causally linked (so to speak).

You take the WHOLE picture presented, GA on the stand, from the beginning (forget the last three years). People are not cardboard cut outs, with only one mechanism of lying. It is NOT reasonable to believe that if GA lied about his affair with River Cruz (which I'm pretty sure he did) he lied about EVERYTHING else.

For one thing, that's IMPOSSIBLE. This is Planet Earth, things are messy down here. This isn't one of Plato's Ideals with strict rules of engagement.

Then, you have nonverbal/body language, and the complex way GA responded to the many DIFFERENT things he was examined over. I felt his anguish was genuine. I think many people made the "Othello Error" as Susan Constantine suggested on HLN, that a person under duress will "appear" to be deceitful because they are anxious, frightened or extremely pi$$ed off.

I hope it is clear I am not attacking YOU personally, I don't even know you I am taking exception to the validity of your logic, that is all.

Let me take it from a different point of view. You know nothing about this case. You hear the OS's. At that point you have the DT or SA version of events. The DT has the advantage they don't have to prove anything about their version of events. The key part of the DT's theory is GA.

Now fast foward a bit. The SA presents their case but there is no 'smoking gun' (in the eyes of the jury). You (the jury) think Casey had knowledge of her daughters death but ignored/refused to believe/etc. But did she kill her? Well, you have those computer searches. Did she do them? Did the state prove Casey was at home during that time in March (via cell phone records?). Now, you go through all that and then you refer back to the DT's version of events. Did GA know about the death of his granddaughter in June? Did you believe him when he said no? I don't think the jury did.

So, if the jury doesn't believe GA, and even to this day nobody here can say for 100% certain what actually happened to Caylee Anthony, how do you convict Casey Anthony of 1st degree murder? She's guilty of a ton of stuff, but how do we know it wasn't an accident? Remember, the DT didn't have to prove it was an accident, just bring doubt into the equation.

Before everyone jumps on my post, I do not believe she died via an accident, I believe she killed her daughter, but I wasn't on the jury either. I was also subject to more info than the jury was.

 

[yolorado]

I am wondering if being sequestered for that long created a bonding between them that made it harder to disagree when some started to put pressure on them. Just go along to get along.

Ding, ding. Winner here.

Sequestration takes people away from their normal lives and families and puts them in an artificial situation where they run the danger of operating under groupthink and of losing a sense of individuality that could actually make them more critical and rational INDIVIDUAL jurors. Since our system has led us down the garden path toward the belief that we have to let out anyone with almost any kind of excuse while only letting in those who are basically clueless about current event surrounding them, these individuals could very well be more likely to fall prey to groupthink and to one or two charismatic leaders. If we continue to select jurors because their brains are empty and imprison them in groups, we're going to get a lot more ridiculous verdicts. We've got to open up the jury process.

 

[Steve4Justice]

If no cause of death meant not guilty, we better contact Scott Peterson. No doubt he is tired of sitting on death row. The exact cause of death obviously isn't necessary for a conviction. In some cases, there was no body found at all, yet the jury would be able to come back with a guilty verdict.

I think this jury should be asked to petition that Scott Peterson be released from death row because there was no cause of death proven in that case. I'm still angry and frustrated by this verdict. :banghead:

 

[cityslick]

I think this jury should be asked to petition that Scott Peterson be released from death row because there was no cause of death proven in that case. I'm still angry and frustrated by this verdict. :banghead:

I didn't follow it but wasn't there evidence in that trial that basically put him at the scene?

 

[annalia]

I think this jury should be asked to petition that Scott Peterson be released from death row because there was no cause of death proven in that case. I'm still angry and frustrated by this verdict. :banghead:

I'm sure there are thousands of other convicted criminal in the same situation. Free them all.

 

[jjenny]

I didn't follow it but wasn't there evidence in that trial that basically put him at the scene?

But poor man had a perfectly reasonable explanation for why he was there-he was just sturgeon fishing. That doesn't mean he killed anyone and dropped their body over there!

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I really don't believe that. You're giving them too much credit. This isn't a Hollywood movie, this is real life. GA and CA hadn't even talked to KC for years. CA had to be called in to find out what the defense was planning to say about GA. The defense did not think they would win, hence all their attempts at mistrial. If all of this had been calculated, the defense team would have been much more comfortable through the trial. The defense threw spaghetti at the wall, hoping something would stick. They got lucky with this particular jury.

You seriously don't think JB passed letters to/from the A's and Casey? You don't think he let her communicate with them through his laptop which he got special permission to bring into the prison?

Well, you are probably right. The question is which came first the chicken or the egg? The defense theory or the theory born out of 3 years worth of real life drama that was EVIDENTLY crafted from record events. The whole Krystal Holloway thing was discussed here ad naseum. It was widely believed that was done for the media to garner sympathy for George. After all, he was in close contact with the defense team at that time, hell he even called JB from the motel.

 

[PeteyGirl]

Let me take it from a different point of view. You know nothing about this case. You hear the OS's. At that point you have the DT or SA version of events. The DT has the advantage they don't have to prove anything about their version of events. The key part of the DT's theory is GA.

Now fast foward a bit. The SA presents their case but there is no 'smoking gun' (in the eyes of the jury). You (the jury) think Casey had knowledge of her daughters death but ignored/refused to believe/etc. But did she kill her? Well, you have those computer searches. Did she do them? Did the state prove Casey was at home during that time in March (via cell phone records?). Now, you go through all that and then you refer back to the DT's version of events. Did GA know about the death of his granddaughter in June? Did you believe him when he said no? I don't think the jury did.

So, if the jury doesn't believe GA, and even to this day nobody here can say for 100% certain what actually happened to Caylee Anthony, how do you convict Casey Anthony of 1st degree murder? She's guilty of a ton of stuff, but how do we know it wasn't an accident? Remember, the DT didn't have to prove it was an accident, just bring doubt into the equation.

Before everyone jumps on my post, I do not believe she died via an accident, I believe she killed her daughter, but I wasn't on the jury either. I was also subject to more info than the jury was.

In spite of the many different points of view, only ONE THING happened.

That is called "losing the forest for the trees", which seems to be what the jury did during their deliberations.

I too can sort of see where the jury went in their deliberations.

I believe, very strongly, that the "meat" of their deliberations took off on a tangent that lead them AWAY from the "truth" (as close as we can get to it).

People are fallible, gullible, get things stuck in their heads, are unaware of biases due to lack of insight into themselves, and just act out obliviously, believing the whole time they are "onto something" while making a goal for the wrong team.

What deludes us is our own unexplored biases, unresolved regrets and errors. This jury seemed, to me, naive. Naive in that after both teams rested their cases, rebutted and surrebutted, they remained incapable (or unwilling) of extricating themselves from the details. They seemed (and if their spokespersons are any example of the group) to think they are flying like a five year old in a Superman suit, but they have never left the ground.

Sorry for going on and on lol. Cityslicker, I am pretty sure I understand where you're going in your attempt to "speak" for the jury, and I especially admire it because you don't agree with their verdict.

 

[Schu7]

Did the jury get it wrong, or did the state not prove their case, or did the DT create resonable doubt?

The jury created strong reasonable doubt about Darwin's human advancement theory of evoluation.:banghead::banghead::banghead:

 

[TotallyObsessed]

The jury created strong reasonable doubt about Darwin's human advancement theory of evoluation.:banghead::banghead::banghead:

I walk by faith alone!

 

[TotallyObsessed]

You know what I would like to see....I would like a poll that shows a demographic of NG people vs. Guilty people.
Liberal?
Conservative?
Middle of the road?
I think it would show alot.

 

[cluciano63]

You know what I would like to see....I would like a poll that shows a demographic of NG people vs. Guilty people.
Liberal?
Conservative?
Middle of the road?
I think it would show alot.

I think that is not a fair way to look at this particular case. From what I can tell, the majority of people in general are outraged that no one is paying for Caylee's death and 2/3 of those polled believe she is guilty, according to some news sites. Not just "red" states, IMO...

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

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.

You are soooooo right.

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

Sorry above comment meant for "TECH CON"

???????:waitasec::waitasec: technicalconfusion, now I am technically confused.LOL

The above is the way my response to your comment about --THE JURY--not wanting to connect the dots----wasn't asking you to connect dots.

But by the way, sorry about your mom, hope she is better. I know how that can be , been there myself many times.

 

[strawberry]

@bobkealing bob kealing
At 6pm on @WESH former #CaseyAnthony trial judge Stan Strickland: "i don't think there was reasonable doubt."

 

[strawberry]

@bobkealing bob kealing
At 6pm on @WESH former #CaseyAnthony trial judge Stan Strickland: "i don't think there was reasonable doubt."