Did the jury get it wrong, or...

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

Did the jury get it wrong?

  • The jury got it wrong

    Votes: 1,051 81.9%

  • The state didn't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt

    Votes: 179 14.0%

  • The Defense provided reasonable doubt and the jury got it right

    Votes: 55 4.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 31 2.4%
  • Total voters
    1,283
  • Poll closed .

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
"If they charged her with other things, we probably could have gotten a guilty verdict, absolutely," Ford said today on "Good Morning America." "But not for death, not for first-degree murder. That's a very substantial charge."
link http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anth...uilty-verdict-lesser-charge/story?id=14017505


I'm floored. Did this jury not even understand what the charges were? Did they not understand that punishment was NOT to be a consideration during the guilt phase? It sounds like she thought KC would get death if she was found guilty of any of the charges. Obviously this jury did not have the intelligence to understand even the basics of what their job was.
 
I believe juror # 3's statement to GMA this morning proves they got it wrong....

Casey Anthony juror Jennifer Ford believes that prosecutors could have won a guilty verdict if they had brought a lesser charge than first degree murder, which carried the possibility of the death penalty, for the death of 2-year-old Caylee Anthony.

"If they charged her with other things, we probably could have gotten a guilty verdict, absolutely," Ford said today on "Good Morning America." "But not for death, not for first-degree murder. That's a very substantial charge."

What!! If they charged her with lesser things we probably would of gotten a guilty verdict!! So they didn't know about the lesser charges? Plus, their concern was the death penalty. Were they not instructed to not consider the punishment? They got it all wrong?
 
Dcstew said:
I believe juror # 3's statement to GMA this morning proves they got it wrong....

Casey Anthony juror Jennifer Ford believes that prosecutors could have won a guilty verdict if they had brought a lesser charge than first degree murder, which carried the possibility of the death penalty, for the death of 2-year-old Caylee Anthony.

"If they charged her with other things, we probably could have gotten a guilty verdict, absolutely," Ford said today on "Good Morning America." "But not for death, not for first-degree murder. That's a very substantial charge."

What!! If they charged her with lesser things we probably would of gotten a guilty verdict!! So they didn't know about the lesser charges? Plus, their concern was the death penalty. Were they not instructed to not consider the punishment? They got it all wrong?
Click to expand...


I know, I know. I've been watching all of the coverage and have come to realize there seem to be a lot of things these jurors did not understand. JA said on Dr. Drew that yes, they were instructed about reasonable doubt. I felt they used more of a no doubt stance. I do know that COD and motive were given as reasons for their doubt but by law those are not elements the state needs to prove. Then there is the dude that said they thought it was a terrible drowning accident. Again, I know they were instructed that opening statements are not to be considered as evidence yet they must have because no evidence of a drowning or any other kind of accident was presented. There were lesser charges for them to consider. Sigh.
 
For reasons we may never know, the jury did not think they heard a scenario that would tell them what would be a manslaughter charge or another type of homicide other than first degree. Clearly the prosecution did not outline anything other than premeditated murder to them, and they did not buy it. The defense argued accident. No one said anything about what if she killed Caylee by mistake somehow, or indirectly by something she did, because the state wanted 1st-degree and nothing else.

I guess they did not work through various scenarios and try to see where they might fit. But I also think the instructions were too complicated, hate to say it, but the average person is not overly smart...I cringe when I see the grammar and spelling on various letters to editors, etc...
 
farrahrani said:
common sense. she denied and accident and she said she was the last existing person with her child. so did her family. george denied the pool accident. Casey never testified to it. So how did they find her not guilty?

This was a shameful travesty and it breaks my heart.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your post....the jury didn't think there was enough evidence to convict but thought there was enough evidence that they believed it was an accident? There was no evidence of that at all.:banghead::banghead:
 
From what I am hearing the Jury took what Jose said in the opening statements as evidence. Also what River said was used as evidence.....REALLY? Those were the things that were NOT evidence.
 
Mia said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yet the same motive and no COD was enough to send Scott Peterson to death row. But not good enough for these jurors even though they had lesser charges to consider. Maybe Robbi Ludwig wants to weigh in on COD in this case and suggest a suicide as she suggested about Laci. Yeah, that's it. That's what happened.
 
I voted the Jury got it wrong. I really believe they confused reasonable doubt with imagined or some doubt.
 
The Jury got it wrong. It is my right to have that opinion, just like they had theirs.

And I am right and they are not
 
Dcstew said:
I believe juror # 3's statement to GMA this morning proves they got it wrong....

Casey Anthony juror Jennifer Ford believes that prosecutors could have won a guilty verdict if they had brought a lesser charge than first degree murder, which carried the possibility of the death penalty, for the death of 2-year-old Caylee Anthony.

"If they charged her with other things, we probably could have gotten a guilty verdict, absolutely," Ford said today on "Good Morning America." "But not for death, not for first-degree murder. That's a very substantial charge."

What!! If they charged her with lesser things we probably would of gotten a guilty verdict!! So they didn't know about the lesser charges? Plus, their concern was the death penalty. Were they not instructed to not consider the punishment? They got it all wrong?
Click to expand...
Sounds like they Misunderstood the forms . I clearly heard 2nd degree murder or even manslaughter charges . Now I want to see the verdict forms my sleff
 
strach304 said:
I know, I know. I've been watching all of the coverage and have come to realize there seem to be a lot of things these jurors did not understand. JA said on Dr. Drew that yes, they were instructed about reasonable doubt. I felt they used more of a no doubt stance. I do know that COD and motive were given as reasons for their doubt but by law those are not elements the state needs to prove. Then there is the dude that said they thought it was a terrible drowning accident. Again, I know they were instructed that opening statements are not to be considered as evidence yet they must have because no evidence of a drowning or any other kind of accident was presented. There were lesser charges for them to consider. Sigh.
Click to expand...

That guy's statement has bugged me ever since I heard it. He was SPECULATING based on the opening statement, which he was told was NOT evidence, and he used the term "snowballing." Didn't that come from River Cruise and didn't the judge say that River's statements weren't to be used as fact? To me, he expressed purely SPECULATIVE doubt. Isn't that exactly what REASONABLE doubt is not supposed to be and what juries are told not to use?
 
strach304 said:
Yet the same motive and no COD was enough to send Scott Peterson to death row. But not good enough for these jurors even though they had lesser charges to consider. Maybe Robbi Ludwig wants to weigh in on COD in this case and suggest a suicide as she suggested about Laci. Yeah, that's it. That's what happened.
Click to expand...
Cause of death was not required to convict ICA. For a juror to sit there for 6+ weeks listening to detailed scientific testimony and only deliberate for 10 hours and not requested any rereads of testimony or evidence displays says it all. I believe juror #3 stated that they couldn't convict because the death penalty was on the table. Didn't they know that they were not to consider the punishment in arriving at a verdict ? And at one point they were 6-6 on the manslaughter charge ... 6 jurors just abruptly changed their mind or did they want to go home. And if any of these jurors based their verdict on the testimony of River Cruz, they ought to go to jail for contempt. Man, I'll bet Scott Petersen wishes he got this jury ...
 
Mysterious said:
Cause of death was not required to convict ICA. For a juror to sit there for 6+ weeks listening to detailed scientific testimony and only deliberate for 10 hours and not requested any rereads of testimony or evidence displays says it all. I believe juror #3 stated that they couldn't convict because the death penalty was on the table. Didn't they know that they were not to consider the punishment in arriving at a verdict ? And at one point they were 6-6 on the manslaughter charge ... 6 jurors just abruptly changed their mind or did they want to go home. And if any of these jurors based their verdict on the testimony of River Cruz, they ought to go to jail for contempt. Man, I'll bet Scott Petersen wishes he got this jury ...
Click to expand...

Dear Lord Jesus...I just cannot for the life of me believe that 6 more spineless decisions have been made in history. If you believe that someone has committed manslaughter enough to vote for it and are not willing to stand up for your convictions...well I don't want to know you...and I wish you wouldleave my country. Not the least, who wre the two that voted for guilty murder one...you couldn't stand up and make that jury examine each and every piece of evidence in the case???? I am dazed and cinfused and may never get over this. My bioMom who followed the case called me on verdict day and I could not even talk to her about it. My DH told me to take two xanax and call him in the morning. God forbid i was on that jury...those people would have beaten me...because I would not have changed my vote.
 
Mysterious said:
Cause of death was not required to convict ICA. For a juror to sit there for 6+ weeks listening to detailed scientific testimony and only deliberate for 10 hours and not requested any rereads of testimony or evidence displays says it all. I believe juror #3 stated that they couldn't convict because the death penalty was on the table. Didn't they know that they were not to consider the punishment in arriving at a verdict ? And at one point they were 6-6 on the manslaughter charge ... 6 jurors just abruptly changed their mind or did they want to go home. And if any of these jurors based their verdict on the testimony of River Cruz, they ought to go to jail for contempt. Man, I'll bet Scott Petersen wishes he got this jury ...
Click to expand...


DJ out here even made a JOKE saying SP first words was DANG why did I not get them
 
It is now July 7 and I am STILL disgusted by this travesty of a verdict.
 
strach304 said:
They had aggravated child abuse too.
Click to expand...

Face it they wanted out ASAP . Now that I hear 1st vote was 6-6 . I know they wanted to close shop and go home. What still bugs me is hearing the ALT jurist say we and then correcting himself by saying I feel I can speak for all 17 pf us. Fishy they were talking during the trail sounds like jury misconduct
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 91 more.
Total: 330 (members: 92, guests: 238)

Online statistics

Members online
92
Guests online
238
Total visitors
330
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,395
Messages
18,253,628
Members
234,648
Latest member
sharag
Back
Top