Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[February]

I'm sure this has been discussed by someone in last 24 or so but I didn't see it.. It's something very troubling to me..

At some point during deliberations they took a vote and it was 2 jurors voted first degree murder and
10 voted Not Guilty..


I really don't get it!!!!!!

snipped for space...

seriously, i expected a hung jury

 

[Cher352]

I was just watching Piers Morgan (Thursday July 7).

I wasn't listening close, but they were talking about the jurors. Piers said one of them said today that they didn't want to go thru the work of going thru the evidence, or they said they didn't think they should have to go thru the trouble of going thru the evidence.

Piers was talking to a lawyer - don't know who.

Anyone else hear this?

I hadn't heard this but find it very believable, in fact I have thought that since the verdict was announced.

11 hours of deliberation was not enough time to do much of anything when you include lunch, breaks and going over the jury instructions especially for a trial of that length.

Think I have changed my mind about jury sequestration for this length of time. Would have been better to try and find a local jury and trust them not to watch the news. I think is jury was too tired of being imprisoned and just wanted to get back to their lives to bother.

 

[SmoothOperator]

Arrggggh!! That makes me ill ^above^ post..

I heard juror #3 in her interview say," well... We started to go thru the evidence but we immediately decided why do that if we were not even given a why was she killed or how she was killed..".. And with that they decided against going thru the evidence..

It is so sad to me..
I am not a juror basher.. I would love to believe our system worked EVERYTIME for ALL VICTIMS.. but I realize that is just not possible with the way the present system is run, especially where jury selection is involved. Jmo, tho!

I am saddened and disheartened but am not wanting to take out revenge on any juror but rather I would like to see these type flaws and imperfections repaired and improved..

It truly seems as tho atleast some of the jurors were not clear at all on what exactly the judge said or the paperwork that was sent back with them to help further explain.. From what is being said in public it is so scary to know the reality of just how many juries are made up with people like this that seem as tho they've watched one way too many CSI type shows by what they are stating was the problem..

It is being accused that theSA should have had all of the dots connected for us.. We should not have to connect any of the dots that should be laid out and told to us.. Stating it wasn't done for them and that wasn't their fault that they had no choice to vote Not Guilty..

The SA certainly does not contact every dot for a jury.. I realize they must present a case without reasonable but for someone serving to clearly, clearly not under stand what a circumstantial case is, even.. Nor what exactly REASONABLE doubt means.. They just know what needs to be shown. To them..

Thoughts of this is so very upsetting and troubling

 

[February]

I was just watching Piers Morgan (Thursday July 7).

I wasn't listening close, but they were talking about the jurors. Piers said one of them said today that they didn't want to go thru the work of going thru the evidence, or they said they didn't think they should have to go thru the trouble of going thru the evidence.

Piers was talking to a lawyer - don't know who.

Anyone else hear this?

They don't care about the evidence because in the first place, they never understood all the evidences IMO...

 

[Cher352]

I'm sure this has been discussed by someone in last 24 or so but I didn't see it.. It's something very troubling to me..

At some point during deliberations they took a vote and it was 2 jurors voted first degree murder and
10 voted Not Guilty..

It is troublesome to me that there were 2 separate jurors who seemed as tho they really did listen, applied common sense, and was able to discern what reasonable doubt is..

I do not understand even a tad bit(unless I believe that the duty was not taken as seriously as it truly warranted.. And I really hope it is nothing even remotely similar to that).. But in my mind I cannot understand what went on with their having been 2 first degree murder votes in favor(they weren't deciding the sentencing phase but they were aware that 1st degree could result in DP sentence)..

IMO that is absolutely a huge thing that one juror, not to mention two jurors had come to believe and arrived at their being for the 1st degree murder..

How can it be that 10 hour total deliberation and they(the 10 other jurors)had not only successfully convinced one, but had convinced both of these jurors that felt that Casey Anthony was Guilty of First Degree Murder.. To now vote the complete and total opposite.. Abandoning their choice they had voted to convict of Murder in the 1st..and instead the both of them along with the other 10 jurors now unitedly, just a few hours later they hand over their unanimous verdict of Not Guilty!!

I really don't get it!!!!!!

Also heard that after that it was 6 to 6 vote for manslaughter. One of the TH's said that when it is tied like that it is usually the guilty voters that sway the non-guilty voters. If only they had at least one of those guilty voters refuse to change their vote to not guilty.

I would rather had a hung jury than to see her walk free.

 

[February]

“How can you punish someone for something if you don’t know what they did?.... Per Miss Ford..

Miss Ford, i wish you can sleep at night with your statement....

 

[AsoldiersGrits]

:goodpost:

They got it wrong - there's no way if any man in America can be convicted without a **** body - that these people shouldn't have convicted this chick on what I consider a MOUNTAIN of circumstantial evidence. A MOUNTAIN !!!!!

Speaking of her....where's MKat?

:goodpost:
Couldn't. Agree more!

 

[2goldfish]

I was just watching Piers Morgan (Thursday July 7).

I wasn't listening close, but they were talking about the jurors. Piers said one of them said today that they didn't want to go thru the work of going thru the evidence, or they said they didn't think they should have to go thru the trouble of going thru the evidence.

Piers was talking to a lawyer - don't know who.

Anyone else hear this?

BBM

can someone back this up as to whether a juror actually said that or whether the THs were opining?

dont get me wrong, it's crystal clear they didnt bother looking at anything at all, but if one of them actually ADMITS it? I am SICK. SICK to my very soul.

how, how did they ever find 18 such clueless <modsnips>?

 

[rose222]

"money, money, money"
"mind-less"
"unreasonable doubt"
"lack of conscience"

That about sums it up.

 

[natsound]

Oh yeah, it was so orchestrated with the Anthony's and so apparent. The defense was suprised it worked, and they were able to confuse the jury enough they did not even know what was evidence or lesser charges. They listened to Baez subliminally plant what he wanted in their brains, with NO basis in FACTS, and they fell for it. Also they asked for those millions of mistrials as part of their strategy to, to disrupt the proceedings and to get certain things on the record in case they needed to appeal, not because they thought they wouldn't win. That is just another defense ploy, and it worked out pretty daggone good for them this time I'd say. lol

What: Caylee Anthony is dead. Where-in the woods on Suburban Drive-a hop skip and a jump from where she lived her entire life. When-June 16th is the evident death date as she was never seen again.

How was the ONLY thing that was not answered explicitly but it was answered in general terms.

We know where the skeleton was found, but we don't know where Caylee died. Yes, the defense asked for all the mistrials knowing they wouldn't get them, but for the sake of appeal at a later date. Also, all of their standard, canned objections were for the sake of appeal. Because they didn't think they'd win!

We give the defense too much credit when we say this was orchestrated perfectly. JB is a relatively new attorney... how can he orchestrate something like this perfectly? He got lucky.

 

[Serjen]

I've watched Juror 3 in a few interviews now and I don't like her at all. Not just because of the way she voted, but because of her demeanor, attitude and explanations. She says stuff and is so matter-of-fact in her belief, but it MAKES NO SENSE. She said on Greta last night that the SA did a great job and provided enormous circumstantial evidence, just no solid proof. Really? If all murder cases had 100% solid proof, would they really need a trial like this? Of course there is not 100% solid proof in this case BECAUSE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES. It was their job, their DUTY, to look beyond that and to look at the bigger picture. To view the evidence. But they just said "well, there's no solid proof, why bother?" and said not guilty. I just don't get it at all. I never will. The more they talk, the more I want to bang my head on a wall. They all say they could tell she wasn't innocent, they had circumstantial evidence, they felt it was manslaughter (even voting for it 6-6), etc...so what did they do? Let her walk a free woman in a week!

I've always said I felt uneasy about a sequestered jury and this proved it to me. They were restless and lazy and wanted out. They admitted they saw no reason to look through the evidence in front of their faces, that all those men and women worked so hard to put together in vain, for a jury who didn't want to bother. So so sad

 

[rose222]

Thank GOD these jurors did not decide the Scott Peterson case. If they had Scott Peterson would be hopping and skipping down the streets of California.

 

[pip]

They obviously took the opening statement and the closing argument from the DT as evidence and skipped everything in between. 10 hours later, without reviewing any REAL evidence they had a verdict.

 

[QB.]

I was just watching Piers Morgan (Thursday July 7).

I wasn't listening close, but they were talking about the jurors. Piers said one of them said today that they didn't want to go thru the work of going thru the evidence, or they said they didn't think they should have to go thru the trouble of going thru the evidence.

Piers was talking to a lawyer - don't know who.

Anyone else hear this?

I watched Piers last night too and that is also what I heard. Did you catch when he was speaking with the 2 female prosecutors and they said how the jury expected the prosecution to answer all the questions for them? They essentially said that it was a jury's job to connect the dots and listen to all the evidence to do that. They talked about the misconception of circumstantial evidence in these cases as though it weakens it.
If I can find a clip of it I will post it here. I have been trying to respect the jury's verdict but I just can't when they apparently did not understand all the facts of the case or what their job was.

 

[Solange82200]

I am enjoying our conversation, Solange. You are stretching my brain cells!



I do not watch reality TV, and have not watched Nancy Grace, Jane, or Greta since before Caylee's body was found. My opinions and interpretations come from reading document "dumps" and watching the trial.



The only reason the question of where comes into play in this case is because the prosecutor stated that the body was kept in the trunk for a period of time. Jurors apparently felt the evidence did not back him up.



I did say the tape was not adhered to the skull. I was trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to point out that the tape had enough slack to have shifted position when Mr. Kronk moved the skull.



Blow flies were found in the bags, weren't they? My only question is why they were not found in the TRUNK. Here is my train of thought: If no blowflies were in the trunk, it is reasonable to believe the body was never in the trunk. If the body was never in the trunk, then that directly contradicts the prosecution's theory.



I am not a Jose fan. I do think he made good arguments. His ONLY burden in the trial was to introduce reasonable doubt, and apparently he was successful.



The fact that anyone has to sit here and come up with alternatives to so much (like the smell was rotting pork although none was found, etc.) is proof enough that she is guilty

The above quote is why I said I had not pulled the facts about pork out of the air. I didn't sit here and come up with anything, it was testimony.

Thank you for the compliment, the feeling is mutual, and thank you for answering my posts, I really am trying to see the other side of it. I just have to ask you, if you don't believe the body was in the car, can you explain how rotten pork was there? Did Casey and Jose just decide not to tell us what she did with the rotten pork? if it was there, why and when? Its funny how they explained so much but left that out.

Also, you heard the training the cadaver dogs got to distinguish animal from human decomp. We have to assume that the dog was wrong, as well as the other people who are trained to smell human decomp and did. I just dont think that is reasonable. You are willing to say it is unreasonable to not have blowflies, but you dont think its unreasonable to believe all these people and cadaver dogs are wrong? As well as Dr Vass? That seems farfetched to me. What about the cadaver dogs in the backyard? Did casey take the rotten pork and try to bury it in the yard?

 

[~n/t~]

They obviously took the opening statement and the closing argument from the DT as evidence and skipped everything in between. 10 hours later, without reviewing any REAL evidence they had a verdict.

I agree. The more of them come out, the more we see their mindset, imo. Jeff Ashton was on JVM last night and he basically said there was nothing that would've changed these jurors minds.

Here's his direct quote and people can interpret it the way they want. IMO, Jeff thinks the jury was oblvious to the overwhelming evidence and that was proven by not one juror wanting to review anything that was presented to them by the prosecution.

Jeff Ashton:

But I`m not sure -- from what I`ve understood, I just don`t think anything was going to change the jurors` minds in this case, that we could -- nothing that we could give them, you know, without manufacturing evidence.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1107/07/ijvm.01.html

 

[Nosee_Parker]

This article was very thought provoking. I particularly enjoy reading this journalists articles:

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...comments/juries_fear_can_be_death_to_justice/

The story of Casey Anthony has made headlines in our major newspapers also.

Something to think about.

 

[Solange82200]

Nobody took a paternity test, this was explained in trial. What the dna expert for the FBI was able to do is discount both Lee AND George as fathers based on the dna samples they had. They are not Caylee's father.

If George and Cindy acted weird during the verdict, its because they obviously know their daughter is guilty and the defense theory is ridiculous

 

[keeponsearching]

I wonder if she was not arrested so quickly if this would of played out differently. I feel LE could of held out, gather the evidence needed, not rush into this as quickly as they did. No wonder the state couldn't get the pieces connected for the jury to understand. I am not in any way bashing, I love LE. But as we have seen in other cases, arrest are not made for many years and those people go to jail for many years. Did the Jury get it wrong? They did the job with the evidence they had. I know its been three years. Just my thoughts.

 

[Katana]

“How can you punish someone for something if you don’t know what they did?.... Per Miss Ford..

Miss Ford, i wish you can sleep at night with your statement....

JF says she is sleeping fine and chuckles at the question when asked in an interview.