Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[ladylurker]

They were at 6-6 for manslaughter and the ones who felt she was guilty basically just gave up without fighting it! I don't feel bad for them to have to live with this decision. They fell into JB's ridiculous trap and accusations of abuse without evidence, but didn't see the ACTUAL evidence for what it was. This article makes me even more angry.

http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/article1179177.ece

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:
:sick::sick::sick::sick:

 

[Jstc4caylee]

Listening to juror #3 just amazes me. She even said, there was lots of condemning circumstantial evidence....argggh..

 

[Nikki 01]

All Juror 3 was worried about was not being able to do what she wanted and that she was tired and stressed. Sickening comments from a juror. Hardly any significant and dedicated comments in this interview. Sounds like it was one big PIA for her. She says she did her civil duty and now she wants to get on with her life. Really??? No wonder people take plea deals even when they're innocent?? Imagine depending on someone like this? (Yes, it worked for ICA but she is GUILTY!!)
http://www.wftv.com/video/28471955/index.html

Wow they sound dumber and dumber each time one of them speaks out. She says the circumstantial evidence was strong, but she needed more. Doesn't she realize most cases are built on circumstantial evidence? :banghead:

 

[Rail_Tracer]

I'm not sure where to put this, but can I say- I think a lot of the problem lies with looking for a jury that has never heard of this case. It makes for a strange population. Why can't more effort be put to finding fair jurors who will look at the evidence and make a rational decision based on the law. When you have to weed out everyone who doesn't want to participate (which I think is a bad thing in and of itself) and then you cut out all the people who have actual knowledge of the world (i.e. who actually pick up a newspaper and pay attention to the world around them once in a while) - who are you left with. Really?

And we're surprised that this happened?

Honestly. I'm ashamed that I didn't see it coming sooner.

 

[samhunt]

Juror #3 was not credible IMHO--no surprise though.

http://www.pcsoweb.com/InmateBooking/SubjectResults.aspx?id=1410423

Wow! I know a few people in another thread (if I'm remembering that correctly) thought that wasn't her, but it sure looks like her to me! Looks like she's gained some weight, but I think it's the same facial structure. Surely she should have been dismissed during jury selection. Did those charges not come up?

 

[dogperson]

I don't think they really listened to the scientific evidence. There have been murder convictions with less evidence, even convictions where no body was ever found. In those cases, the jury couldn't possibly have known EXACTLY how the person died but they still convicted the defendant. If the defendant is the last person seen with the deceased, they hid the fact that the person is missing for 31 days, and the body is later found hidden & discarded, who else could possibly be responsible?
I was surprised people disliked George so much and found him unbelievable. The only thing I didn't believe him about was "River Cruz". He looked like he was lying when he denied the affair. Obviously Cindy lied about the chloroform searches but I can't realistically say I wouldn't lie for my child if she was facing the death penalty. I discounted everything Lee said because I've never thought he came across as believable about anything. Sad to say, but I think jurors can be influenced based on whether they like a witness or not. They seem to have taken a dislike to George and that made them suspect everything he said.
I tried to watch the trial while imagining what I would be thinking if I was a juror. I know I could not have voted for 1st degree murder, even though I believe that's what it was, because not knowing the actual cause of death would have bothered me. But I fully expected a manslaughter conviction.
Well, the escapades Casey gets up to in the coming years will probably give them all the proof they ever needed that she is a homicidal sociopath.

 

[com n sense]

I don't think they really listened to the scientific evidence. There have been murder convictions with less evidence, even convictions where no body was ever found. In those cases, the jury couldn't possibly have known EXACTLY how the person died but they still convicted the defendant. If the defendant is the last person seen with the deceased, they hid the fact that the person is missing for 31 days, and the body is later found hidden & discarded, who else could possibly be responsible?
I was surprised people disliked George so much and found him unbelievable. The only thing I didn't believe him about was "River Cruz". He looked like he was lying when he denied the affair. Obviously Cindy lied about the chloroform searches but I can't realistically say I wouldn't lie for my child if she was facing the death penalty. I discounted everything Lee said because I've never thought he came across as believable about anything. Sad to say, but I think jurors can be influenced based on whether they like a witness or not. They seem to have taken a dislike to George and that made them suspect everything he said.
I tried to watch the trial while imagining what I would be thinking if I was a juror. I know I could not have voted for 1st degree murder, even though I believe that's what it was, because not knowing the actual cause of death would have bothered me. But I fully expected a manslaughter conviction.
Well, the escapades Casey gets up to in the coming years will probably give them all the proof they ever needed that she is a homicidal sociopath.

I'm sure they didn't believe anything Goerge said because they completely fell for a defence that didn't make any sense. For some unknown reason the liked Baez so were bias against anything the state had to say.
Seems they totally shut their ears & minds off to the state.
Birds of a feather.....

 

[drip~drop]

I used to love Florida, have family there.
Never going there again.:maddening:
moo

 

[sorrell skye]

I had concerns about this jury early on (day 3 of the trial) when they sent the note to HHJP asking to know who the alternates were and who the actual jurors were, and wanted to know if the alternates could go home when deliberations began.

I had concerns when some of the media members tweeted that a few of the jurors were covering their monitors during the publishing of photo evidence.

I had concerns when I read that one of the jurors was repeatedly seen resting his head against the wall and closing his eyes.

I had concerns about juror #4 when it was tweeted by a reporter that she didn't take any notes until the DT presented their case.

Many posters here had concerns when the jury sent a note to HHJP saying they hadn't seen a particular piece of photo evidence, and many here wondered if the jury may have been discussing the case before deliberations.

IMO, there were red flags throughout this trial.

 

[Mia]

I believe the jurors got it wrong. From all that i've read, the main reason the jurors (who have spoken publicly) have said they could not convict is because the prosecution was unable to say the cause of death. I thought the ME ruled the cause of death was homicide? Is that not enough? Little Caylee's body was thrown in a swamp and left to rot for six months...when they found it, she was nothing but bones. Unless she was shot or bludgeoned to death how COULD they determine the exact cause of death? Poisoned, suffocated, chloroformed - none of these methods would be detectable from only bones. So I don't see the jury's point at all. Basically, then, they're saying that if you murder your child through suffocation, and manage to hide the body until only bones remain, then you, too, can be acquitted of murder! I'm sorry to say it, but I just don't think these twelve jurors are all that bright.

 

[rose222]

How I wish these jurors were forced to talk to Judge Judy.

btw in the words of Judge Judy " if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it's a duck!"

 

[PhillygirlToo]

I'm not sure where to put this, but can I say- I think a lot of the problem lies with looking for a jury that has never heard of this case. It makes for a strange population. Why can't more effort be put to finding fair jurors who will look at the evidence and make a rational decision based on the law. When you have to weed out everyone who doesn't want to participate (which I think is a bad thing in and of itself) and then you cut out all the people who have actual knowledge of the world (i.e. who actually pick up a newspaper and pay attention to the world around them once in a while) - who are you left with. Really?

And we're surprised that this happened?

Honestly. I'm ashamed that I didn't see it coming sooner.

Thank Nancy Grace. 'Nuff said.

http://news.yahoo.com/did-nancy-grace-cause-casey-anthony-case-bad-215600986.html

 

[rose222]

If Nancy Grace is responsible for this mess then we all are too.

 

[Solange82200]

Unbelievable. For once, I have no words:

But more importantly to the jurors who opposed the manslaughter charge, no one could say who was Caylee's caretaker — the mother or the grandparents — when the child actually died.

 

[sorrell skye]

Motion to release juror's names is being heard by HHJP now.

http://www.live-news-stream.com/hln-live-stream-feed/

 

[Solange82200]

I had concerns about this jury early on (day 3 of the trial) when they sent the note to HHJP asking to know who the alternates were and who the actual jurors were, and wanted to know if the alternates could go home when deliberations began.

I had concerns when some of the media members tweeted that a few of the jurors were covering their monitors during the publishing of photo evidence.

I had concerns when I read that one of the jurors was repeatedly seen resting his head against the wall and closing his eyes.

I had concerns about juror #4 when it was tweeted by a reporter that she didn't take any notes until the DT presented their case.

Many posters here had concerns when the jury sent a note to HHJP saying they hadn't seen a particular piece of photo evidence, and many here wondered if the jury may have been discussing the case before deliberations.

IMO, there were red flags throughout this trial.

You are so right. I had concerns too, all the ones you had. Even with those concerns, the most I feared was a hung jury. Never, ever, ever, did it cross my mind it would end like this. I felt a little weird when they started making the special requests for food, I felt like maybe they weren't there for the right reasons. This is wrong, just wrong.

And another problem, in order to find people who are willing to be away from family and their work for two months and who havent formed an opinion on a story that is all over the news and internet, you end up with people who are not professionals, who arent very technology proficient, you end up with people who are not representative of society as a whole. Basically, the more heinous your crime and actions, the more media attention it gets, and therefore the more likely it is you will get great lawyers for free (who want the publicity) and jurors who can easily be confused and manipulated by those lawyers. So the more horrific the crime and actions, the more likely you are to get off. How can that be just?

 

[PhillygirlToo]

If Nancy Grace is responsible for this mess then we all are too.

No, I disagree. We didn't influence the citizens of Orlando. Quite frankly, besides my mother and I, I don't personally know ANYONE who followed this story like we did.

 

[Starshine28]

I don't think they really listened to the scientific evidence. There have been murder convictions with less evidence, even convictions where no body was ever found. In those cases, the jury couldn't possibly have known EXACTLY how the person died but they still convicted the defendant. If the defendant is the last person seen with the deceased, they hid the fact that the person is missing for 31 days, and the body is later found hidden & discarded, who else could possibly be responsible?

This is what gets me the most. I'm not sure how many of you guys followed the Bradly Cooper Trial, but there was hardly ANY circumstantial evidence, and he was convicted of first degree murder and LWOP. I was shocked because, even though I felt in my gut that he was guilty, there was reasonable doubt. However, the jurors used common sense to come to the verdict-without a shred of direct (and only a little bit of circumstantial) evidence.

I don't see how they could have readily dismissed all the circumstantial evidence in this case. Does that mean that all 12 jurors believed that it was garbage/trash in the trunk? Not one believed the smell of human decomposition and the death banded hair to be that from Caylee?

Just because you cannot prove exactly how something happened doesn't mean you can readily dismiss all of the evidence that points to one individual.

I simply cannot understand how she was found not guilty of child neglect. If they believed the drowning (which is the most innocent accident that could have occurred), shouldn't she have been watching over her child?

Sorry for the rant.

 

[denmock]

I don't think they really listened to the scientific evidence. There have been murder convictions with less evidence, even convictions where no body was ever found. In those cases, the jury couldn't possibly have known EXACTLY how the person died but they still convicted the defendant. If the defendant is the last person seen with the deceased, they hid the fact that the person is missing for 31 days, and the body is later found hidden & discarded, who else could possibly be responsible?
I was surprised people disliked George so much and found him unbelievable. The only thing I didn't believe him about was "River Cruz". He looked like he was lying when he denied the affair. Obviously Cindy lied about the chloroform searches but I can't realistically say I wouldn't lie for my child if she was facing the death penalty. I discounted everything Lee said because I've never thought he came across as believable about anything. Sad to say, but I think jurors can be influenced based on whether they like a witness or not. They seem to have taken a dislike to George and that made them suspect everything he said.
I tried to watch the trial while imagining what I would be thinking if I was a juror. I know I could not have voted for 1st degree murder, even though I believe that's what it was, because not knowing the actual cause of death would have bothered me. But I fully expected a manslaughter conviction.
Well, the escapades Casey gets up to in the coming years will probably give them all the proof they ever needed that she is a homicidal sociopath.

This is my msg. to the jurors...

It appears you based your decision on the impression that George was not "credible" because he was "combative" with JB. (BTW, that seems hinky as it appears to be group think...)


Did you EVER use critical thinking skills to think that Casey sat in jail for 3yrs and NOT once brought this new "truth" forward???? Hmmmmm??? Wow you never thought that this was just another one of her stories to cover her rear???

Did you use your critical thinking skills to EVER think that George was "combative" beacuse his daughter had just, on national TV, accused him of dumping his precious grandaughter in a swamp with duct tape on her face, and that she never came forward with this news because he sexually abused her???

Did you think he might be "combative" because JB was taunting him for not commiting suicide properly????

Do you realize that you took the word over a self-admitted lia,r beyond anything you had probably ever seen, over a loving grandfather that LE NEVER suspected, because NONE of the evidence led them there?

Did you BOTHER to understand that Cindy lied about the pool ladder incident, as was proved via phone records, and that the theory about the drowning was debunked???

HOLY crap!!!! Did you check your brains at the door??? It appears you did, IMO

:banghead:

 

[YellowSubmarine]

I am in shock, as everyone else. I don't understand how you can have decompostion in your trunk and be said to be innocent. It's not like the defense gave a good explanation to that (i.e GA took the car on such and such day). They DID NOT explain how RK could have gotten Caylee's body and they definitely DID NOT prove any molestation. They didn't even explain that IF Caylee did drown, what did they do with her body after that???

I saw the video of the alternate juror saying they didn't prove how she died. WHAT? She was duct taped, triple bagged and thrown in the woods. Her mother was the last known person she was with. No evidence otherwise.

I am so so disgusted. I don't understand what they were thinking.