Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[dilbert]

I didn't know what thread to ask this is in but I was wondering if anyone knows if this was later to be disproved or the time was not accurate? If it's true, why didn't the prosecution call this guy as a witness? It would have disproved the defense theory that Caylee drowned in the morning/early afternoon that day and that George helped to cover it up. George worked from 3pm to 11pm that day.

June 16, 2008 (Mon)
04:00pm estimate
James Thompson:
07/22/09 Statement
James Thompson seen Casey exiting Casselberry Walmarts. He recognized her because Casey and Caylee had been to his TechbayUSA store the week before. Thompson said Caylee seemed angry and was about 10 feet behind Casey exiting the store.

http://www.acandyrose.com/casey_anthony_31days-061608.htm

 

[3doglady]

Excellent post.
Good point about a stealth juror. I didn't consider that but I bet you're right. One strong juror who persuaded and ultimately controled the group.


The trial wasn't a game. The trial nor the states evidence was given the respect it deserved.

One thing that really bothers me is that the foreman didn't take the time to read and make sure the others understood the jury instructions. Since he's working on his masters, I'm assuming he had the intelligence to understand the instructions, but the jury members who have spoken out, don't seem to understand even the basics. When I hear them speak, it sounds like they all drank the same koolaid. Who fed them that koolaid? #2 said they had disagreements and the foreman calmed them down. Why didn't the foreman ask to review evidence to settle disputes? Why didn't he explain that the state didn't have to prove when or where she died? Why didn't he explain reasonable doubt or send the judge a note stating the jury's confusion about it. Was it because those things wouldn't have served his agenda? His brother is an FBI agent which makes me think he should be even more aware of what the law is. So WTH? JMO

 

[Sharai]

I don't believe your were wrong, I believe the jury got it wrong. The evidence was there. I believe a jury capable of making reasonable inference would have got it right. They would have been able to look at the evidence and make an inference as to culpability. The jury got it wrong. I don't believe twelve people could have deliberated over 300 pieces of evidence in 10 1/2 hours and arrived at this verdict. I question whether there was any significant deliberation. I believe their understanding of reasonable doubt was misconstued to mean no doubt. I don't understand how they could find her guilty of lying without inferring her reason for her lying was her guilt. I don't believe they had the ability and/or motivation to do the job they were asked to do. I believe the jury got it wrong. I believe it is time for court reform. I believe a trial by a jury of one's peers has outlived its affectiveness. I think it is time to develop a position of legal jurors who have an understanding of the courts, an ability to discern evidence, and the ability to deliberate with concerted effort to discover truth, dispense justice, and protect society.

 

[February]

Let's do some brainstorming here... If you agree with the juror's decision... does it mean you also agree with the scenario that a parent who killed a child, can throw the child in a pool to come up with an accidental drowning with the presence of chloroform, put the child in a swamp, duct tape the mouth, party hard, drink hard, steal hard and when the child was found, that parent is not guilty of any crime other than "lying"?...

 

[Saffron]

RE: What the jurors want, above^

A juror takes an oath to deliberate and to reach their verdict based upon the evidence presented. This is not about their personal wants. There is a reason why those elements aren't required BY LAW in order to reach a guilty verdict - that's why they're included in the juror's instructions. I'm sure the jurors wanted alot of things (don't we all) but you cannot simply inject your own "wants", and thereby your own standards, when taking an oath to serve on a jury.

Well said. I heard Juror #3 say it didn't bother them that Casey didn't testify (something most juries actually do want), because they understood the law and that she didn't have to testify. Why, or why, couldn't they have taken the time to understand the law about cause of death?

 

[Lovejac]

The state never said she accidentally drown..never..they said it was murder with duct tape or chloroform. The jury was not asked to decide if she drown, they were asked to decide if she was murdered with duct tape or chloroform at the hands of KC. It does not matter at all that Jose said she drown, she was charged with murder. Maybe thats why some of you are so upset, you dont understand what the trial purpose is. the state has to prove their theory..period.. Hate to tell ya folks, a trial is not the search for the truth..its did the state prove their accusations. nothing more, nothing less.

Alrighty then, I think I now understand.

Peace out :wink:

 

[Robinez]

There is a difference between reasonable doubt and suspending all doubt. If my head get's pooped on, I can reasonably assume that it was a bird.

TC, Robin

 

[TexasLori]

I don't believe your were wrong, I believe the jury got it wrong. The evidence was there. I believe a jury capable of making reasonable inference would have got it right. They would have been able to look at the evidence and make an inference as to culpability. The jury got it wrong. I don't believe twelve people could have deliberated over 300 pieces of evidence in 10 1/2 hours and arrived at this verdict. I question whether there was any significant deliberation. I believe their understanding of reasonable doubt was misconstued to mean no doubt. I don't understand how they could find her guilty of lying without inferring her reason for her lying was her guilt. I don't believe they had the ability and/or motivation to do the job they were asked to do. I believe the jury got it wrong. I believe it is time for court reform. I believe a trial by a jury of one's peers has outlived its affectiveness. I think it is time to develop a position of legal jurors who have an understanding of the courts, an ability to discern evidence, and the ability to deliberate with concerted effort to discover truth, dispense justice, and protect society.

BBM. I think you are right, and I think this is more common than it should be. The more I am talking to people about this, the more I am getting the "smoking gun" theory. No DNA, no fingerprints, no conviction. When I explain reasonable doubt they blow me off, like I don't know what I am talking about. It's unfortunate and it demeans the system.

 

[3doglady]

There is a difference between reasonable doubt and suspending all doubt. If my head get's pooped on, I can reasonably assume that it was a bird.

TC, Robin

Or if I go outside and the ground is wet and I don't have sprinklers. I didn't see it rain, but I can reasonable assume it rained. These jurors are saying I need to know when or where the rain came from to know it rained.

 

[Sharai]

I am surprised by the verdict; but I don't want to judge the jurors.

The people of the jury made a commitment to see this case through, despite being sequestered for weeks on end.

They were not privy to the details that almost all of us here are familiar with. They were not allowed to hear any prejudicial information.

I think that they did the best they could with what was presented and that they should be treated respectfully.

With all due respect, as an American citizen I believe it is my responsibility to make a judgment concerning the competency of any jury's decision. What takes place within a courtroom directly influences the forthcoming behavior of society as well as future court cases. Case law is based upon previous court cases. Society has and will be impacted by the results of this jury's decision. How American citizens incorporate this jury's not guilty verdict into their day to day lives is yet to be seen.

 

[Lovejac]

Off topic, sort of

Does anyone know if any of the jurors have registered here and been verified by Tricia?

 

[Sharai]

I just want someone to please tell me how do you find her guilty of lying to LE for the disapearance of your child but could not find her guilty of even child neglect? I can not grasp my head around that. Makes no sense to me.

I agree, it's totally illogical.

 

[annalia]

You need to take the emotion out of it. the state had the burden of proving she was murdered with duct tape or chloroform, thats what they said, they needed to prove that part. They didnt prove that part. Most everyone agrees KC got away with murder, its two different things. The state did not charge her with covering up a drowning, they charged her with murder but the pieces were not there to say how or when she died.

Using that logic, it's saying that Caylee could have accidently had duct tape placed over her mouth and nose.
Reasonable conclusions can be reached that one doesn't place duct tape over a child's mouth and nose after accidently drowning in the backyard pool.

 

[robmom]

Well said. I heard Juror #3 say it didn't bother them that Casey didn't testify (something most juries actually do want), because they understood the law and that she didn't have to testify. Why, or why, couldn't they have taken the time to understand the law about cause of death?

I wondered why that was seemingly the only instruction they seemed to understand as well.

I think I have Jennifer Ford pegged, much like many of you do. She was a stealth juror. For what reason, I don't know. But someone that in to true crime was blissfully unaware of the biggest murder case in recent memory as it was unfolding basically next door? Right. And she's the first one out to get her trips to DisneyWorld and get her face all over TV.

 

[kelian36]

One thing that really bothers me is that the foreman didn't take the time to read and make sure the others understood the jury instructions. Since he's working on his masters, I'm assuming he had the intelligence to understand the instructions, but the jury members who have spoken out, don't seem to understand even the basics. When I hear them speak, it sounds like they all drank the same koolaid. Who fed them that koolaid? #2 said they had disagreements and the foreman calmed them down. Why didn't the foreman ask to review evidence to settle disputes? Why didn't he explain that the state didn't have to prove when or where she died? Why didn't he explain reasonable doubt or send the judge a note stating the jury's confusion about it. Was it because those things wouldn't have served his agenda? His brother is an FBI agent which makes me think he should be even more aware of what the law is. So WTH? JMO

Lots of koolaid with the WTH stirred in for me as well.

The jurors spent weeks listening to opening statements, testimonies, watching videos and listening to closing arguments.

So why not take a little extra time to ask the foreman a few questions, go over instructions again, etc.

Heck it took us more than 10 hours to decide what kind of computer to buy!

 

[cluciano63]

Jean C. sure got it wrong...all we ever heard from her was how serious, how dedicated, how on the edge of the seat this jury was, taking it all in, not missing a word, etc...she did say they didn't take a lot of notes, but she made it sound like a good thing, somehow, as though they were so riveted they couldn't pause long enough to do so.

 

[Lovejac]

Using that logic, it's saying that Caylee could have accidently had duct tape placed over her mouth and nose.

after she jumped into 2 garbage bags and a laundry bag and rolled on down Suburban Drive.

But, hey, what do I know?

 

[kelian36]

And yet one of the jurors interviewed parroted and used what JB said in his OS as evidence for acquittal. They used defense theories as evidence in their decision which they were not suppsed to do.

As for the bolded, insults don't make your argument any more credible.

Yep and Judge Perry said OS are not to be used. :banghead:

 

[miss plum]

Someone should ask the jurors what 'Did you heed my previous admonitions?' means, it seems quite possible they thought the Judge hoped they'd had a nice breakfast.

 

[kelian36]

Jean C. sure got it wrong...all we ever heard from her was how serious, how dedicated, how on the edge of the seat this jury was, taking it all in, not missing a word, etc...she did say they didn't take a lot of notes, but she made it sound like a good thing, somehow, as though they were so riveted they couldn't pause long enough to do so.

They didn't take notes because they already made up their mind, from very early on. imo