Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[Solange82200]

the jury did not get it wrong....the prosecution team DID NOT do their job, IMO! The anger and derogatory statements directed towards the jurors is mis-directed. And, knowing now that Jeff Ashton postponed retirement to handle this case and seeing him on the Today show the morning after the verdict was handed down, it is now my opinion that his motivation was not finding justice for Caylee but to make a name for himself to help his career endevors after retirement.

Wow, I think that is so unfair. This man was a public servant for 25 years. Getting paid a heck of a lot less than Mason and Baez and every other defense attorney. I think that is a baseless accusation, and completely unfair

 

[Kelroy]

Sensationalism!!!!!!!!!!
the jury gets big money if they vote the opposite of what everyone wants, money talks...

Eh. Look, I have problems with the jury's vote on the manslaughter charge, but I think it's reaching to conclude that they voted "not guilty" for money. So far, only three actual jurors have come forward--one of them anonymously, and he spoke to only one newspaper. Juror 6 is asking for money and no one seems to have taken him up on the offer, while there are rumors that Juror 3 was paid with a Disney trip.

I find it hard to believe that all 12 jurors would agree to change their votes because they had a slight suspicion that they would make more money that way. First, I don't think that's something anybody would risk or logically conclude; if they knew little about the case beforehand and were sequestered, they couldn't be sure which verdict would cause an outrage. They were not watching Nancy Grace or reading this forum. And, further, even if they did have an inkling that "not guilty" would be an unpopular verdict, I can't imagine that they'd risk such hostility and outrage simply for the uncertain possibility that they could make a few more dollars in interviews.

Finally, and most importantly, only three of 12 jurors have come forward, and only one of them is rumored to have been paid so far. If their vote was solely for money, why on earth wouldn't more of them be selling their stories?

I think there's room for a lot of rational discussion about why the jury voted the way they did, but I think the "greed" angle is a distraction. JMO.

 

[Solange82200]

You make a good point Kelroy. One thing I do have a suspicion of, but obviously no evidence of, is that some deliberately gave answers at voir dire so that they would get on, knowing money was to be made. I remember when they were picking a jury, one of the reporters made a comment that one of the jurors' answers seemed almost too perfect.

Also, it seems that many on this jury were not death qualified as they said they were. Also, I dont think we can conclude much yet on those that have not come forward. Its still soon, they may be scared to come forward right now. Doesnt mean they dont plan to make money a couple weeks down the line

 

[TigerBalm]

Eh. Look, I have problems with the jury's vote on the manslaughter charge, but I think it's reaching to conclude that they voted "not guilty" for money. So far, only three actual jurors have come forward--one of them anonymously, and he spoke to only one newspaper. Juror 6 is asking for money and no one seems to have taken him up on the offer, while there are rumors that Juror 3 was paid with a Disney trip.

I find it hard to believe that all 12 jurors would agree to change their votes because they had a slight suspicion that they would make more money that way. First, I don't think that's something anybody would risk or logically conclude; if they knew little about the case beforehand and were sequestered, they couldn't be sure which verdict would cause an outrage. They were not watching Nancy Grace or reading this forum. And, further, even if they did have an inkling that "not guilty" would be an unpopular verdict, I can't imagine that they'd risk such hostility and outrage simply for the uncertain possibility that they could make a few more dollars in interviews.

Finally, and most importantly, only three of 12 jurors have come forward, and only one of them is rumored to have been paid so far. If their vote was solely for money, why on earth wouldn't more of them be selling their stories?

I think there's room for a lot of rational discussion about why the jury voted the way they did, but I think the "greed" angle is a distraction. JMO.

Make that four (4), there are two alternate jurors giving interviews on Dateline.
One was the first juror to speak the night the verdict was read.



And Anthony isn't the only one who has the opportunity to cash in on the trial.

“The members of the jury perhaps have the most incredible story to tell because they haven’t said anything. Their story is worth more now than it would be if Casey was found guilty,” said Glenn Selig, founder of The Publicity Agency, which specializes in crisis management. “If big money comes from anywhere, it will be from the entertainment world – movies and books – where payment is commonplace. And the less of the story that is told now, the more valuable a book or movie deal will be.”

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2011/07/06/casey-anthony-can-earn-millions-from-media-hollywood/?test=latestnews

 

[Kelroy]

Make that four (4), there are two alternate jurors giving interviews on Dateline.
One was the first juror to speak the night the verdict was read.

I was referring only to the jurors who participated in deliberations and gave the verdict; AFAIK, that's only jurors 2, 3, and 6 (and #2 was anonymous, while no one has taken #6 up on his offer so far).

And Anthony isn't the only one who has the opportunity to cash in on the trial.

“The members of the jury perhaps have the most incredible story to tell because they haven’t said anything. Their story is worth more now than it would be if Casey was found guilty,” said Glenn Selig, founder of The Publicity Agency, which specializes in crisis management. “If big money comes from anywhere, it will be from the entertainment world – movies and books – where payment is commonplace. And the less of the story that is told now, the more valuable a book or movie deal will be.”

Right, I just find it highly doubtful that they based their verdict on this (rather slight) possibility, that all 12 of them decided to change their votes based on this possibility, or that all 12 of them even had an inkling that this was a possibility.

I'm not saying they can't or won't make money from this; I'm saying it's totally illogical, to me, to conclude that they voted "not guilty" because they could make more money that way.

Also, I dont think we can conclude much yet on those that have not come forward. Its still soon, they may be scared to come forward right now. Doesnt mean they dont plan to make money a couple weeks down the line

That's true. However, again, I just can't imagine all 12 of them deciding to completely shirk their duties as jurors for the remote chance that a "not guilty" verdict would net more cash than a "guilty" one. It's a reach, IMO. We can debate how they shirked their duties in other ways (I do not understand the "not guilty" on manslaughter), but there is absolutely no evidence that they reached their verdict simply by speculating how much the media would pay for their stories.

 

[Bainbridge]

There WAS DNA on the tape! It just didn't belong to Caylee or Casey. That really does open up some reasonable doubt, IMO.

I'm pretty sure the DNA on the tape was eventually found to be from one of the FBI forensic people. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[magnolia]

I'm pretty sure the DNA on the tape was eventually found to be from one of the FBI forensic people. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong.

That is correct. The DNA belonged to Lab Tech.,Lorie Gotteman.

 

[Mare10]

I posted this in the Did the Jury talk thread but I think this article fits better here. I apologize if this has already be posted but I think it's a very interesting article by Marcia Clark about the jury.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...red-jury-fell-prey-to-idiotic-groupthink.html

 

[Peepers]

Juror 3 is on Greta, she makes a lot of sense. i dont blame her fro trying to get out there and explain the verdict with all this backlash..although she doesnt have to. If shes getting paid..good for her..

 

[Peepers]

I posted this in the Did the Jury talk thread but I think this article fits better here. I apologize if this has already be posted but I think it's a very interesting article by Marcia Clark about the jury.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...red-jury-fell-prey-to-idiotic-groupthink.html

Thank you! Good article. I really like Marcia Clark.

 

[Katana]

#3 said she watched Investigative Discovery, 48 Hours, and Dr. G. I don't believe her claim that she never heard about this case when she shows an interest in criminal cases.

On her facebook page she likes Dr G, Forensic Files, and several other investigative reality shows.

 

[Nikki 01]

Eh. Look, I have problems with the jury's vote on the manslaughter charge, but I think it's reaching to conclude that they voted "not guilty" for money. So far, only three actual jurors have come forward--one of them anonymously, and he spoke to only one newspaper. Juror 6 is asking for money and no one seems to have taken him up on the offer, while there are rumors that Juror 3 was paid with a Disney trip.

I find it hard to believe that all 12 jurors would agree to change their votes because they had a slight suspicion that they would make more money that way. First, I don't think that's something anybody would risk or logically conclude; if they knew little about the case beforehand and were sequestered, they couldn't be sure which verdict would cause an outrage. They were not watching Nancy Grace or reading this forum. And, further, even if they did have an inkling that "not guilty" would be an unpopular verdict, I can't imagine that they'd risk such hostility and outrage simply for the uncertain possibility that they could make a few more dollars in interviews.

Finally, and most importantly, only three of 12 jurors have come forward, and only one of them is rumored to have been paid so far. If their vote was solely for money, why on earth wouldn't more of them be selling their stories?

I think there's room for a lot of rational discussion about why the jury voted the way they did, but I think the "greed" angle is a distraction. JMO.

Well you're operating from the assumption that these jurors were being honest by saying they knew little about this case beforehand. This is a high profile case and most people realize sitting on the jury of a high profile case have the opportunity to cash in by selling their story. So there is a good chance potential jurors out there would want on a high profile case to cash in and would tell the attorneys what they think they want to hear so they can get on this jury.

So I think there is a good chance at least some of them were fibbing about how much they knew about the case from the beginning. Take juror number three for example. She mentioned she likes to watch Investigative Discovery, 48 Hours, and Dr. G. So this is a person who clearly has an interest in watching crime related programming. I have a hard time believing someone who takes an interest in this type of programming would have never heard of this case. In fact during jury selection they were talking about her on In Session and Casey Jordan essentially accused this woman of lying and claimed she was a stealth juror.

My opinion is there were some jurors on this case who had an agenda from the start. Not all, but some. They knew not guilty was going to be the controversial verdict and everyone would be dying to know how in the world they came to that conclusion. Not only that, but then they could later claim they felt she was guilty but were bullied into voting NG or something along those lines. This is what some Michael Jackson jurors did. They could get a lot of mileage out of a NG verdict IMO.

Anyway I think these jurors were discussing the case long before they got to deliberate on it and had their minds made up. I think it's clear that some of them tried to rationalize everything away in favor of a NG verdict. I mean they wouldn't even vote for aggravated manslaughter because they claimed they didn't know who Caylee's caretaker was even though Casey was her mother. :waitasec:

So I think you had some ready to convict, and some with their agendas doing everything they can to rationalize it all away. I think they got the rest to cave because they just wanted to go home. I also think they convinced the others it was better to be safe than sorry and vote NG. Group think prevailed and this is the debacle we are left with.

Also, while only 3 has come forward so far, I posted a video earlier in this thread where #16 was asked if he thought some would try to profit with book deals and the like. He said oh yes and smiled like he knew their plans. He said he heard of some trying to sell their story and of book deals.

 

[magnolia]

But what more could he have done? Some say if they had just charged her with manslaughter, that would have stuck....but they had that option, and discarded it. Just curious, not being snarky, what could Ashton have done differently?

Jeff and Linda did an awesome job. They were there to try a case..not to entertain the Jury with theatrical fantasies.

 

[yolorado]

My son never followed the case prior to the trial but caught a lot of it while I was watching. He was as dumbfounded at the jury verdict as I. His opinion is since so many of people on the jury were folks who seemed to have been selected because, even though they lived close to Orlando, they'd learned virtually nothing about a huge case with massive local & nationwide publicity in three years before the trial, they probably weren't the kind of people to pick up much on the evidence DURING the trial either. He thinks jurors who are aware of current events shouldn't be excluded from service and that prospective jurors should pass tests on reasonable doubt, all of the the jury instructions and, most important, on basic logic before they can serve. I like his ideas.

 

[Solange82200]

Juror 3 is on Greta, she makes a lot of sense. i dont blame her fro trying to get out there and explain the verdict with all this backlash..although she doesnt have to. If shes getting paid..good for her..

ISnt the same one who has been all over the place NOT making sense? If she makes sense she must have changed her answers

 

[magnolia]

Well you're operating from the assumption that these jurors were being honest by saying they knew little about this case beforehand. This is a high profile case and most people realize sitting on the jury of a high profile case have the opportunity to cash in by selling their story. So there is a good chance potential jurors out there would want on a high profile case to cash in and would tell the attorneys what they think they want to hear so they can get on this jury.

So I think there is a good chance at least some of them were fibbing about how much they knew about the case from the beginning. Take juror number three for example. She mentioned she likes to watch Investigative Discovery, 48 Hours, and Dr. G. So this is a person who clearly has an interest in watching crime related programming. I have a hard time believing someone who takes an interest in this type of programming would have never heard of this case. In fact during jury selection they were talking about her on In Session and Casey Jordan essentially accused this woman of lying and claimed she was a stealth juror.

My opinion is there were some jurors on this case who had an agenda from the start. Not all, but some. They knew not guilty was going to be the controversial verdict and everyone would be dying to know how in the world they came to that conclusion. Not only that, but then they could later claim they felt she was guilty but were bullied into voting NG or something along those lines. This is what some Michael Jackson jurors did. They could get a lot of mileage out of a NG verdict IMO.

Anyway I think these jurors were discussing the case long before they got to deliberate on it and had their minds made up. I think it's clear that some of them tried to rationalize everything away in favor of a NG verdict. I mean they wouldn't even vote for aggravated manslaughter because they claimed they didn't know who Caylee's caretaker was even though Casey was her mother. :waitasec:

So I think you had some ready to convict, and some with their agendas doing everything they can to rationalize it all away. I think they got the rest to cave because they just wanted to go home. I also think they convinced the others it was better to be safe than sorry and vote NG. Group think prevailed and this is the debacle we are left with.

Also, while only 3 has come forward so far, I posted a video earlier in this thread where #16 was asked if he thought some would try to profit with book deals and the like. He said oh yes and smiled like he knew their plans. He said he heard of some trying to sell their story and of book deals.

I also remember Jean C. saying she was concerned a couple were stealth Jurors.

 

[magnolia]

My son never followed the case prior to the trial but caught a lot of it while I was watching. He was as dumbfounded at the jury verdict. His opinion is since so many of people on the jury were folks who were selected because, even though they lived close to Orlando, they'd learned virtually nothing about the case in three years before the trial...they probably aren't the kind of people to pick up much on the evidence during the trial either.He thinks jurors need to pass a test on reasonable doubt, the jury instructions and, most important, on basic logic before they can serve. I like his ideas.

I like your son's idea too. This trial had opened my eyes. Something needs fixing.

 

[french75]

I feel like I would be more likely to believe that people knew about the case and tried to get on so they could find her guilty, not the other way around. And I do understand trying to make sense of things by saying they wanted a pay day but THAT many of them?

 

[Lovejac]

There WAS DNA on the tape! It just didn't belong to Caylee or Casey. That really does open up some reasonable doubt, IMO.

Ummmmm no.

There was testimony from a woman in the lab, whose DNA it turned out to be.

So the only way a juror could claim reasonable doubt is if they didn't listen to the testimony.......................and if one of the other jurors did listen maybe they took notes and could refresh their memory with those note...............but, strangely, none of the jurors asked for their notes :waitasec:................

 

[Peepers]

ISnt the same one who has been all over the place NOT making sense? If she makes sense she must have changed her answers

i dont know what she said before, this is the first Ive seen her interviewed. Shes making sense tonight. Described how KC behavior was very disturbing, they discussed it, it did NOT prove how or when Caylee died. She clarified that its not that the jury thinks KC is innocent, they took the job seriously and did NOT think they could convict when they dont even know for sure what the murder weapon was..was it chloroform or was it duct tape?? Or was it an accident.KC is the one who knows and obviously she aint tellin.
Again...no conspiracy ..so what of they get paid for their troubles, time and interviews..thats how it works in the USA.. NOT innocent, just NOT PROVEN beyond reasonable doubt.