Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[technicalconfusion]

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>?

Like I said, I wasn't listening closely at all, so I didn't hear which juror, and if Piers Morgan said it word for word or paraphrased, and I probably paraphrased him badly.

I'm wondering now if he was referring to this (this is post 666 lol) which I have heard before, about connecting the dots:

It is being accused that the SA 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..

 

[technicalconfusion]

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.

I looked last nite for a transcript or a clip, and one wasn't up yet. I'm glad I'm not the only one who heard it.

 

[technicalconfusion]

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

Give it time.

 

[Peepers]

Based upon this "standard" you propose here, if the police raid the home of a suspected serial killer and unearth the skeletal remains of a couple victims in his yard, they should not charge him with murder, nor should a jury convict.

After all, they don't know exactly how he killed them unless the skeleton shows trauma. They don't even know for an absolute fact that he killed them at all. It doesn't matter how many skeletons there are. One, two, twenty-two, it could be a coincidence. Perhaps they all drowned, right? Even if our maniac was the last person seen with every one of them, still not "proof." He is, at worst, only guilty of undertaking without a license perhaps, or improper disposal.

In this case though, we know that Casey made statements indicating that she KNEW Caylee would be out of the way. We know that she was not only responsible for her daughter, she was the last person seen with her. We know that she lied to conceal the kids whereabouts from friends and family. We have every reason to believe that there was a dead body in the car trunk. We know that the cause of death was a rare duct tape that Casey had access to. We know the body was found in a special laundry bag which Casey was only able to secure from grandma's home. We know that Casey lied about her job, boyfriends, babysitter, location, and pretty much everything else. We know that she attempted to sidetrack, delay, and derail police investigation into this murder. We know that Casey got a tat celebrating her new wonderful post Caylee life. We know that she spent the 31 days before her child was discovered missing partying hard. We know that when the car was found it reaked like a dead body.

These are all facts and none of them have been seriously challenged. Nor do any of defense theories amount to anything more than "maybe" and "possibly" and "theoretically, it's vaguely possible."

The prosecution offered a solid motive, they showed how Caylee died, they showed that the only person who could have possibly done the crime was Casey -- she was the only person with access to all the pieces. We know all this. Was there a reasonable doubt? Were reasonable questions left unanswered?

Not if you review the evidence in the case.

Statements are not proof in a court of law...How exactly did the prosecution show how Caylee died?? was it the duct tape or the chloroform? Or did she drown? there is no solid proof either way. Its not a court of public opinion.

 

[~n/t~]

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.

Therein lies one of the problems with this jury. They were not DP qualified jurors and as much as people want to believe Judge Perry did an excellent job, imo he is the one to fault for the rushed jury selection. It takes months to find a DP qualified jury. Judge Perry told these jurors they would be done by July 4th. Huh? Was it because he had some personal stuff he needed to do as mentioned in yesterday's hearing? I wonder

 

[Solange82200]

You can deduce how she died based on many other factors. Hiding the death, Casey's actions, the fact she told her parents she would be at Zanny's but was staying with tony alone (where did she think Caylee was going to be?). Even the medical examiner explained that you can sometimes come to the cause of death based on those factors.

 

[Baznme]

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.

BBM - If only they had done just that. I don't believe that to be the case here. As the jurors are speaking out, it's becoming more obvious to me that reviewing the evidence did not occur. If only we could all be that intelligent to remember all that testimony that took six weeks to give them that I wouldn't even have to refer back to the written record.

 

[natsound]

Statements are not proof in a court of law...How exactly did the prosecution show how Caylee died?? was it the duct tape or the chloroform? Or did she drown? there is no solid proof either way. Its not a court of public opinion.

Listen y'all... when a skull is found with duct tape around it, stuck to the hair, you know there's been a murder and that's how death came about. Physical evidence. Proof. End of story.

Those jurors were looking for surveillance video of KC putting the duct tape around Caylee and throwing her in the woods. They didn't have that surveillance video, so they voted not guilty.

 

[Sabrina2011]

Ok I slept on it and changed my mind, I want their names released

 

[Marple]

“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....

Really, she should have just said, "Where is the video tape of the murder?"

 

[Lovejac]

Give it time.

Yep. Once she cashes all those checks for her interviews.

 

[Tennessean]

[snip]

FWIW: My 28 year old granddaughter was murdered on Memorial Day weekend and her body thrown off a bridge. She had her 4 month old baby, my great-granddaughter, with her at the time and the baby and the murderer have never been found.

I told you I was senile. And in shock. My granddaughter and great-granddaughter went missing on or about 5/1/2011, not 'memorial day weekend'. My great-granddaughter was named Zaylee. Caylee with a Z.

 

[yolorado]

Statements are not proof in a court of law...How exactly did the prosecution show how Caylee died?? was it the duct tape or the chloroform? Or did she drown? there is no solid proof either way. Its not a court of public opinion.

The Orange county medical examiner testified that the manner of death was homicide. She further testified that because she only had skeletal remains, it was impossible to be any more specific that HOMICIDE generally. This is a reasonable believable FACT. If it wasn't homicide, there is no rational reason, the little remains would have been thrown in the swamp. It was not necessary for the prosecution to prove EXACT cause of death, the time, place, exact method, any of that. That was explained in the judge's instructions of circumstantial evident, reasonable doubt and in the listed elements of the crime. What is the REASONABLE doubt that homicide was not proven? There was speculation that this was an accident, SPECULATIVE doubt, but there was no proof of an accident and, in fact, there was substantial proof against an accident. 911 was not called. The baby was not taken to paramedics or a hospital for resuscitation. Her little body was abandoned in a swamp, not buried in a grave in a cemetery or cremated in a funeral home. Her mother never acknowledged her death, claimed an accident (until trial). I still don't understand what reasonable doubt the jury had. Even the defense attorneys seemed shocked when the jury acquitted her. We don't want innocent people in jail for crimes they didn't commit, but our system should be able to convict the guilty. It sure failed us this time. There was massive evidence in this case. Somehow, this jury seemed to want to see the killing on video.

 

[technicalconfusion]

I looked last nite for a transcript or a clip, and one wasn't up yet. I'm glad I'm not the only one who heard it.

Found the transcript. It was the connect the dots thing, paraphrased.

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

And that juror number three that you had on earlier today also made the comment she didn't think that she would have to go through the work -- or the jury didn't feel like they should have to go through the work of connecting the dots.

That's exactly what they're supposed to do. If they don't know what they're supposed to do, then there is a problem with our jurors.

MORGAN: Yeah, I mean, what I found baffling was that they seem to be reacting very emotionally, these jurors, as if to say, hey, don't blame us, this was a terrible ordeal. And yet after the whole trial, they just spend 11 or 12 hours deliberating. They don't ask a single follow-up question about anything on a case of a lot of complexity, a lot of unanswered questions.

Not one question do they come back with in their deliberations? I found that extraordinary.

 

[2goldfish]

Statements are not proof in a court of law...How exactly did the prosecution show how Caylee died?? was it the duct tape or the chloroform? Or did she drown? there is no solid proof either way. Its not a court of public opinion.

the state never had to prove HOW. they only had to prove caylee was dead. which they did.

I will with-hold my commentary on my OH-so-humble opinion of any person who cannot understand this simple fact.

 

[2goldfish]

Really, she should have just said, "Where is the video tape of the murder?"

then she could follow with "well, I didnt like GA and maybe he edited the video tape, we REALLY DONT KNOW."

 

[Baznme]

Therein lies one of the problems with this jury. They were not DP qualified jurors and as much as people want to believe Judge Perry did an excellent job, imo he is the one to fault for the rushed jury selection. It takes months to find a DP qualified jury. Judge Perry told these jurors they would be done by July 4th. Huh? Was it because he had some personal stuff he needed to do as mentioned in yesterday's hearing? I wonder

Let's take the issue of having to deal with the DP off the table. That seemed to be the paramount deterrant if I'm hearing the jurors right that are talking to the media. They had the lesser charges they could have opted for. They admittedly DID NOT review the evidence. Had they done so, the likelihood of all 12 arriving at the decision they did within 11 hours would not have been possible. Let's face it, if the jury didn't feel they needed to refer to the court records, they failed to do their job correctly. They also did not heed the judge's instructions. Review the evidence and use common sense. IMO, neither happened with this jury. If they didn't understand the scientific evidence, all they had to do was ask questions. They did not.

That being said, in all fairness, I doubt the Judge EVER thought he would end up with 12 not guilty votes. As time goes on and they see and hear all the dirty details of everything that transpired with the 31 days embedded in the history of that, there's not much doubt in my mind they will at some point regret their method of arriving at their decision. That's something I wouldn't want to live with but, on the other hand, I have to face the fact our system is not perfect. I'm just so sad that no one has had to answer for this horrible crime.

 

[QB.]

From the transcript of the Piers Morgan show last night:

ROBIN SAX, ATTORNEY:

"But I think the key problem here is that this is the case for professional juries, if I've ever seen it. That same sick feeling that they don't get the law. Circumstantial evidence is as good of evidence as any.

Short of having a video camera, we have to put things together based on stringing evidence, connecting dots. And that juror number three that you had on earlier today also made the comment she didn't think that she would have to go through the work -- or the jury didn't feel like they should have to go through the work of connecting the dots.

That's exactly what they're supposed to do. If they don't know what they're supposed to do, then there is a problem with our jurors. "

Just unbelievable isn't it! In my opinion they underestimated the importance & value of circumstantial evidence.

 

[Quiche]

A dangerous jury is one that's lazy and self indulgent. These people wanted to go home, period, and that was the most important thing for them. Well, I hope they're enjoying it. MOO

:furious:

 

[ijam]

I told you I was senile. And in shock. My granddaughter and great-granddaughter went missing on or about 5/1/2011, not 'memorial day weekend'. My great-granddaughter was named Zaylee. Caylee with a Z.

I'm so sorry for your loss..I remember reading the story at the time...maybe WS can start a topic for her..