SaltyTexan
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2011
- Messages
- 74
- Reaction score
- 0
In the end I think it just came down to an academy award performance (by KC without saying a word) versus boring old forensic pathologists. Reality TV. Sad, sad, sad.
The jury should have asked for clarification.When Judge Perry read the definition of reasonable doubt it was very clear it was different than what the defense presented to the jury. I guess he did not emphasize it enough.
I agree they were talking about it before deliberation there is no doubt in my mind.
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.
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.
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.
I respectfully disagree with your estimation of the jury's adherance to the judge's instructions as laid out in the posted document. I believe this jury did not seriously consider the circumstanial evidence nor make reasonable inferences. The fact that within the 10 1/2 hours of deliberation they did not ask for clarification of any evidence and/or instructions and have since expressed a lack of clarity causes me concern regarding the quality of deliberations and the subsequent verdict.The judge read the jury instructions to them. They're not difficult to follow, and not excruciatingly long even though some have criticized this jury for not taking hours to reread them. They're maybe 10 pages of text spread out over 26 sheets of paper. If any juror had a question about any of them after the judge read them, it would only take a minute or two to refresh their memories by looking at the printed version.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/59297005/Jury-Instructions-Casey-Anthony
It sounds to me like this jury not only understood the judge's instructions very well but followed them.
And as to the use of opening/closing arguments by the jury... the 'accidental' thing is even part of the jury instructions, so there's nothing wrong with them addressing that in their deliberations (page 3 of the instructions).
Which makes what I head juror #3 tell Greta last night all the more disappointing. She said that she could tell that Casey was deliberately keeping her face without expression, and that's what they as jurors were doing also, so that no one could read them. Maybe I'm reaching on this one but that sounds a bit too self-aware to me and as if those jurors who thought like this had a strange hostility toward something, perhaps the media or even the prosecution.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.
If they couldnt find her guilty of first degree why didnt they ask questions about the other charges not one of them did NOT A ONE. IM not buying it i think this jury was tampered with ..... JMO
Saffron,Which makes what I head juror #3 tell Greta last night all the more disappointing. She said that she could tell that Casey was deliberately keeping her face without expression, and that's what they as jurors were doing also, so that no one could read them. Maybe I'm reaching on this one but that sounds a bit too self-aware to me and as if those that thought like this had a strange hostility toward something, perhaps the media or even the prosecution.
Which makes what I head juror #3 tell Greta last night all the more disappointing. She said that she could tell that Casey was deliberately keeping her face without expression, and that's what they as jurors were doing also, so that no one could read them. Maybe I'm reaching on this one but that sounds a bit too self-aware to me and as if those that thought like this had a strange hostility toward something, perhaps the media or even the prosecution.
The judge read the jury instructions to them. They're not difficult to follow, and not excruciatingly long even though some have criticized this jury for not taking hours to reread them. They're maybe 10 pages of text spread out over 26 sheets of paper. If any juror had a question about any of them after the judge read them, it would only take a minute or two to refresh their memories by looking at the printed version.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/59297005/Jury-Instructions-Casey-Anthony
It sounds to me like this jury not only understood the judge's instructions very well but followed them.
And as to the use of opening/closing arguments by the jury... the 'accidental' thing is even part of the jury instructions, so there's nothing wrong with them addressing that in their deliberations (page 3 of the instructions).
Which makes what I head juror #3 tell Greta last night all the more disappointing. She said that she could tell that Casey was deliberately keeping her face without expression, and that's what they as jurors were doing also, so that no one could read them. Maybe I'm reaching on this one but that sounds a bit too self-aware to me and as if those jurors who thought like this had a strange hostility toward something, perhaps the media or even the prosecution.
I didn't realize the jury was included under those rules. I thought those rules were for the sake of the jury, but probably didn't apply to the jury. I'm not saying the jury would be allowed loud sighing and outbursts, but I wouldn't have thought they were obligated to have poker faces. Casey was certainly allowed to cry, laugh, shake her head, mouth words, etc., throughout the trial. But, like I said, perhaps I was reaching on that criticism. There's so much more to criticize with this jury than that anyway. Unfortunately.The court room rules explain why everyone was keeping their expressions under control. It was expressed the whole trial..No gestures of any kind by anyone. I am sure they were instructed as to the rule and they may have even been given that reason as an explaination as to why they were not to make them.
Off topic, sort of
Does anyone know if any of the jurors have registered here and been verified by Tricia?
Which makes what I head juror #3 tell Greta last night all the more disappointing. She said that she could tell that Casey was deliberately keeping her face without expression, and that's what they as jurors were doing also, so that no one could read them. Maybe I'm reaching on this one but that sounds a bit too self-aware to me and as if those jurors who thought like this had a strange hostility toward something, perhaps the media or even the prosecution.
Do you thinks it's possible for the local DA to charge her?
I didn't realize the jury was included under those rules. I thought those rules were for the sake of the jury, but probably didn't apply to the jury. I'm not saying the jury would be allowed loud sighing and outbursts, but I wouldn't have thought they were obligated to have poker faces. Casey was certainly allowed to cry, laugh, shake her head, mouth words, etc., throughout the trial. But, like I said, perhaps I was reaching on that criticism. There's so much more to criticize with this jury than that anyway. Unfortunately.
I respectfully disagree, it is the responsibility of the jury to examine the evidence and make an inference as to guilt or innocence of the defendent. Discovering the truth is an aspect of this process. The jury seemed to understand this or else they would not have found Casey Anthony guilty of lying. I find it incomprehensible as to how they were unable to ascertain that the reason she lied had to to with her culpability.Alrighty then, I think I now understand.
Peace out :wink: