tiredblondy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2004
- Messages
- 5,666
- Reaction score
- 155
Will the jury's verdict have any consequence on Judge Perry's sanctions on JB?
Did the jury get it wrong, or...
- Thread starter wvjules
- Start date
New Posts
-
NY NY - Bijan Razzaghy, 28, South Huntington, 25 July 1991- Latest: TheArtfulDetective
-
GUILTY CA - Blaze Bernstein, 19, Lake Forest, 2 Jan 2018 #8 *Arrest*
- Latest: imstilla.grandma
- Status
Emma Peel
an unexpected turn of events
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2008
- Messages
- 11,314
- Reaction score
- 10,029
Jury was there a bit more than a month. Many here have been reviewing this case, with lots more information that the jury had, for 3+ years.
And don't get me wrong, I think the prosecution's case was great, and their closings were brilliant.
I just think they pushed too hard for M1 & DP, when they could have settled for something the evidence more readily supported.
So, I'm just wondering if ...:couch:
Perhaps the prosecution just asked for too much, with forensic evidence that was just too complicated for a jury that is not of scientific ilk. With evidence from methods never used to convict anyone of anything before, they were asked to convict Casey of murder 1.
Perhaps the jury looked at this new science and wondered how they, the jury, were qualified to judge & rely upon new scientific method? They heard another expert de-bunk the method - and that's all they needed to hear.
Perhaps the easiest thing for an unsophisticated group of Casey's peers to relate to was - her family's dysfunction junction. They could relate to that. Dysfunction breeds dysfunction. Got it, heck, many can say they've experienced it.
Perhaps the jury more readily saw the family cover-up. They saw a guilty family, IMO, and were not going to put 100% of the blame on one member of that family if forensics didn't support it. They saw the family - the victims - sobbing uncontrollably, and then lying on the witness stand. They saw the State rely upon testimony from witnesses who do nothing but lie.
Perhaps they were astonished that LE ignored Kronk's find in August & beyond. Perhaps they saw prosecutors did not call Kronk as a witness and wondered why. They saw a young man, in US armed service, determined to testify and impeach his own father's voracity. They saw Kronk fail to strongly advocate for a dead child's remains to be found. They saw psychics and Cindy and Dom Casey knowing where to search for the remains. Perhaps they see conspiracy...
Perhaps they remembered JB's opening statements regarding an abused Casey & a sketchy meter man & a family that blew smoke & mirrors.
Perhaps that accident/cover-up theory of JB's rung true.
Perhaps they saw the state laugh at JB who was arguing passionately against the forensics - as if JB's defense was laughable. If the jury felt overwhelmed - and consequently, underwhelmed with the forensic evidence - and they agreed with JB's take on it ... then guess what? In that moment, JA was laughing at the jury, not just at JB.
Had the prosecution accepted that it's forensics may be too challenging for a jury, and lacked Casey's DNA evidence, they may have gone for severe child neglect/abuse charges rather than murder. IMO, that case would have been a slam dunk.
But they went for broke. And now, Casey's the one that's rich.
It's really very sad.
"Everyone Lies. Everyone Dies."
- Casey Anthony myspace quote.
And don't get me wrong, I think the prosecution's case was great, and their closings were brilliant.
I just think they pushed too hard for M1 & DP, when they could have settled for something the evidence more readily supported.
So, I'm just wondering if ...:couch:
Perhaps the prosecution just asked for too much, with forensic evidence that was just too complicated for a jury that is not of scientific ilk. With evidence from methods never used to convict anyone of anything before, they were asked to convict Casey of murder 1.
Perhaps the jury looked at this new science and wondered how they, the jury, were qualified to judge & rely upon new scientific method? They heard another expert de-bunk the method - and that's all they needed to hear.
Perhaps the easiest thing for an unsophisticated group of Casey's peers to relate to was - her family's dysfunction junction. They could relate to that. Dysfunction breeds dysfunction. Got it, heck, many can say they've experienced it.
Perhaps the jury more readily saw the family cover-up. They saw a guilty family, IMO, and were not going to put 100% of the blame on one member of that family if forensics didn't support it. They saw the family - the victims - sobbing uncontrollably, and then lying on the witness stand. They saw the State rely upon testimony from witnesses who do nothing but lie.
Perhaps they were astonished that LE ignored Kronk's find in August & beyond. Perhaps they saw prosecutors did not call Kronk as a witness and wondered why. They saw a young man, in US armed service, determined to testify and impeach his own father's voracity. They saw Kronk fail to strongly advocate for a dead child's remains to be found. They saw psychics and Cindy and Dom Casey knowing where to search for the remains. Perhaps they see conspiracy...
Perhaps they remembered JB's opening statements regarding an abused Casey & a sketchy meter man & a family that blew smoke & mirrors.
Perhaps that accident/cover-up theory of JB's rung true.
Perhaps they saw the state laugh at JB who was arguing passionately against the forensics - as if JB's defense was laughable. If the jury felt overwhelmed - and consequently, underwhelmed with the forensic evidence - and they agreed with JB's take on it ... then guess what? In that moment, JA was laughing at the jury, not just at JB.
Had the prosecution accepted that it's forensics may be too challenging for a jury, and lacked Casey's DNA evidence, they may have gone for severe child neglect/abuse charges rather than murder. IMO, that case would have been a slam dunk.
But they went for broke. And now, Casey's the one that's rich.
It's really very sad.
"Everyone Lies. Everyone Dies."
- Casey Anthony myspace quote.
The jury got it wrong. My opinion as to why:
They did not understand the motive because a sociopath killed Caylee for no real reason. They couldn't wrap their minds around this because Casey was portrayed as an innocent victim of sexual abuse.
They did not believe George.
They did not believe Kronk.
For some reason our justice system allows attorneys to accuse people who are not on trial of the most evil things without a shred of proof. They can do so with impunity and can't even be charged with slander afterwards.
The case was high profile. The defense team should be on their knees thanking the media instead of defaming them. Jurors who were informed about the case and used common sense knew Casey was guilty. They were honest and said so and were excluded.
Finally, the demeanor of Dr. G as she was leaving the stand grinning and giving a huge nod to the prosecutors and Mr. Ashton's demeanor was unprofessional and hurt the case. (love him, but I bet he would tell you himself he wants to know what might have hurt his case so it won't happen again)
They did not understand the motive because a sociopath killed Caylee for no real reason. They couldn't wrap their minds around this because Casey was portrayed as an innocent victim of sexual abuse.
They did not believe George.
They did not believe Kronk.
For some reason our justice system allows attorneys to accuse people who are not on trial of the most evil things without a shred of proof. They can do so with impunity and can't even be charged with slander afterwards.
The case was high profile. The defense team should be on their knees thanking the media instead of defaming them. Jurors who were informed about the case and used common sense knew Casey was guilty. They were honest and said so and were excluded.
Finally, the demeanor of Dr. G as she was leaving the stand grinning and giving a huge nod to the prosecutors and Mr. Ashton's demeanor was unprofessional and hurt the case. (love him, but I bet he would tell you himself he wants to know what might have hurt his case so it won't happen again)
LimeCola
New Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2009
- Messages
- 304
- Reaction score
- 1
I am surprised by the verdict; but I don't want to judge the jurors.
The people of the jury made a commitment to see this case through, despite being sequestered for weeks on end.
They were not privy to the details that almost all of us here are familiar with. They were not allowed to hear any prejudicial information.
I think that they did the best they could with what was presented and that they should be treated respectfully.
The people of the jury made a commitment to see this case through, despite being sequestered for weeks on end.
They were not privy to the details that almost all of us here are familiar with. They were not allowed to hear any prejudicial information.
I think that they did the best they could with what was presented and that they should be treated respectfully.
tiredblondy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2004
- Messages
- 5,666
- Reaction score
- 155
kathyn2
Active Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 3,031
- Reaction score
- 26
This is a difficult question for me. I could have and would have voted 1st degree. Thats how strongly I felt that she committed 1st degree murder.
However, I felt the prosecution case was full of holes and the forensics were very iffy. The cans of air was a new science that was unproven. The hair banding was iffy. Everything was iffy.
I can see why it would be hard to have 1st degree murder in this case. But definitely the aggravated child abuse should have come into play. I don't think the State should have pushed the death penalty in this case with this type of forensics. However, I don't see how 12 TWELVE jurors could come to the completely not guilty on every charge. The child was dead and she was the one caring for the child. Their decision makes no sense at all. Who do they think killed the child and left her like trash? They should have outrage.
However, I felt the prosecution case was full of holes and the forensics were very iffy. The cans of air was a new science that was unproven. The hair banding was iffy. Everything was iffy.
I can see why it would be hard to have 1st degree murder in this case. But definitely the aggravated child abuse should have come into play. I don't think the State should have pushed the death penalty in this case with this type of forensics. However, I don't see how 12 TWELVE jurors could come to the completely not guilty on every charge. The child was dead and she was the one caring for the child. Their decision makes no sense at all. Who do they think killed the child and left her like trash? They should have outrage.
gypsychild
Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2011
- Messages
- 82
- Reaction score
- 1
I will try to sum up how this travesty happened IMO: The State should have never gone for a Murder One conviction with a death penalty. The State gets to choose which charges they charge the defendants with. For a Murder One conviction you need to prove premeditation, and pretty much have a smoking gun. To ask jurors to send someone to the possibility of death without hard physical proof of not only the murder, but of premediation is simply asking for an acquittal.
In this case the State had a few fatal flaws in their evidence. 1) they had no true cause of death. This was a skeletal remains case, so unless a head bash, bullet hole or broken bones were found, there was no way to prove how this death occurred. 2) They had no real physical evidence linking the defendant to the crime. There was no DNA left at the site, on the duct tape, on the bag the child was found in. 3) The scientific evidence they entered regarding the hairs found in the trunk, the chemical composition of the stains in the trunk, etc. was a relatively new science that the defense could poke holes in. 4) The computer search evidence (with which the State unfortunately tried to use for premeditation) is in all likelihood over the jury's heads and also subject to interpretation...
In our criminal justice system, the Defense does not have to PROVE anything. The burden of proof is on the State. So in reality all the Defense has to do is poke holes in the States case, create doubt in the State's intepretation of evidence. And though the Defense Team was essentially a circus-freak-clown defense, they created enough spin, enough bafflement to poke those holes in the State's weakest part - the actual physical evidence.
But no reasonable jury is going to look at the weak physical evidence and give a Murder One conviction. For that charge, the State shot it's own case down. So, in a nutshell, the ONLY things they convicted her for were for 'lying to the police' because those were the only ones of the States charges that were proven bby evidence WITHOUT A DOUBT.
Sucks doesn't it??????
In this case the State had a few fatal flaws in their evidence. 1) they had no true cause of death. This was a skeletal remains case, so unless a head bash, bullet hole or broken bones were found, there was no way to prove how this death occurred. 2) They had no real physical evidence linking the defendant to the crime. There was no DNA left at the site, on the duct tape, on the bag the child was found in. 3) The scientific evidence they entered regarding the hairs found in the trunk, the chemical composition of the stains in the trunk, etc. was a relatively new science that the defense could poke holes in. 4) The computer search evidence (with which the State unfortunately tried to use for premeditation) is in all likelihood over the jury's heads and also subject to interpretation...
In our criminal justice system, the Defense does not have to PROVE anything. The burden of proof is on the State. So in reality all the Defense has to do is poke holes in the States case, create doubt in the State's intepretation of evidence. And though the Defense Team was essentially a circus-freak-clown defense, they created enough spin, enough bafflement to poke those holes in the State's weakest part - the actual physical evidence.
But no reasonable jury is going to look at the weak physical evidence and give a Murder One conviction. For that charge, the State shot it's own case down. So, in a nutshell, the ONLY things they convicted her for were for 'lying to the police' because those were the only ones of the States charges that were proven bby evidence WITHOUT A DOUBT.
Sucks doesn't it??????
I am surprized but not shocked the jury acquitted her on first degree murder.
I am shocked that they had the options of convictions on manslaughter and child abuse, and did not return guilty verdicts on either charge!
Even if you buy the theory of the defense, this is a mother who let her unsupervised child drown in a pool through her neglect, than rather than call an ambulance to try to save her live, buried the child without medical attention! People have been revived who have drowned and stopped breathing. Incredible.
Don't get me wrong, there was NO evidence to support the defense theory. How could the jury ignore the searches for "neck breaking" and "chloroform"? But even so, why did they not find her guilty of manslaughter?
I am shocked that they had the options of convictions on manslaughter and child abuse, and did not return guilty verdicts on either charge!
Even if you buy the theory of the defense, this is a mother who let her unsupervised child drown in a pool through her neglect, than rather than call an ambulance to try to save her live, buried the child without medical attention! People have been revived who have drowned and stopped breathing. Incredible.
Don't get me wrong, there was NO evidence to support the defense theory. How could the jury ignore the searches for "neck breaking" and "chloroform"? But even so, why did they not find her guilty of manslaughter?
kathyn2
Active Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 3,031
- Reaction score
- 26
Also, to add to my comment above, I heard the jurors loved Baez. She didn't dislike him like a lot here do. They didn't have preconceived thoughts about KC or Baez. Maybe they didn't like Jeff Ashton. I also don't think those jurors have much upstairs. I thought the prosecution did so much better and made so much better sense that the defense so I am stumped.
Nikki 01
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2004
- Messages
- 1,232
- Reaction score
- 1
This is a possibility. If you read their juror profiles there were very few on the jurors that were pro death penalty. Some said they did not believe it in and most were indifferent which was strange to me.
I think most people don't have the backbone to hold out especially when they all want to go home. It reminds me of one of the Michael Jackson jurors. He was interviewed after the verdict and made it clear he thought he was guilty, but he said he voted NG because the boy could have been lying (note he didn't say he believed he was, just that he could have been). Then later he and two others basically claimed they were pushed into voting NG even though they thought he was guilty.
I thought that earlier as well. Maybe. A not guilty verdict is far more sensational, IMO. If they vote G we all think they were just doing their job, but if they get it wrong then everyone is dying to hear what they have to say.
BuzzieCat
Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2008
- Messages
- 882
- Reaction score
- 17
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/05/meet-jurors-casey-anthony-trial/
We dont know how she (Caylee) died, the alternate juror told Fox News. It just comes down to probably an accident that the family didnt know how to cope with the prosecution failed to show motive.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/05/meet-jurors-casey-anthony-trial/#ixzz1RGqhu700
Not knowing how she died, thinking it was an accident, motive not shown... Wow. I don't understand them. Probably an accident. LOL.
We dont know how she (Caylee) died, the alternate juror told Fox News. It just comes down to probably an accident that the family didnt know how to cope with the prosecution failed to show motive.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/05/meet-jurors-casey-anthony-trial/#ixzz1RGqhu700
Not knowing how she died, thinking it was an accident, motive not shown... Wow. I don't understand them. Probably an accident. LOL.
cluciano63
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 41,198
- Reaction score
- 27,312
But they couldn't convict Casey if they did not know whether or not she was the one who killed her and put her there...I think that George came off as completely unbelievable, sadly...argumentative and not trustworthy. Mostly, I think the jury just did not accept the state's case at all...they may well feel Casey did it but that it was not proven.
QueenD
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2009
- Messages
- 5,297
- Reaction score
- 150
I just want someone to please tell me how do you find her guilty of lying to LE for the disapearance of your child but could not find her guilty of even child neglect? I can not grasp my head around that. Makes no sense to me.
kathyn2
Active Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2004
- Messages
- 3,031
- Reaction score
- 26
Yes, I also forgot to comment on the death qualified jury. This was NOT a death qualified jury. I don't know why Judge Perry left these people on the jury that he had to practically beg to give a death sentence to. half of them said they could not give the death penalty and could not vote for it yet he finally got them to admit they could 'consider it' whatever that means.
The judge made several pro defense mistakes in this case. The state also made mistakes letting felons and family members of felons on their jury. There were several like this. DUIs, druggies, beatings, robberies etc.
The judge made several pro defense mistakes in this case. The state also made mistakes letting felons and family members of felons on their jury. There were several like this. DUIs, druggies, beatings, robberies etc.
JimEverett
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2011
- Messages
- 25
- Reaction score
- 0
I am not trying to pick on you, its just that I have seen and heard this quite a lot today and it makes little sense to me.
The jury is not concerned with this issue. They were charged with determining whether the prosecution proved that the defendant murdered her daughter beyond a reasonable doubt. They do not have to have an alternate theory if they believe she is innocent. They do not even have to think she is innocent.
This same exact jury, with the same exact case presented to them, could logically and consistently find Casey civilly liable for Caylee's death.
QueenD
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2009
- Messages
- 5,297
- Reaction score
- 150
I agree Magic cat.
I didn't even hear that the jury even ask to look at any evidence. This is wrong, so wrong.
Bon
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,577
- Reaction score
- 1
Vinnie P is losing it...he is extremely upset with the verdict. He hashed it out with LKB and threw his pencil down..he was truly upset....
Like he said, Caylee left the baby in the swamp to rot.............and she is just going to walk away a free woman..............
Like he said, Caylee left the baby in the swamp to rot.............and she is just going to walk away a free woman..............
- Status