Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[Saffron]

Saffron,
Thanks for sharing what you heard. I had not heard that........what will we all do months or years from now, if that type of thinking by the jurors is confirmed?
I have no trust in the judicial system after this trial. :waitasec:

I know. It's difficult to see a blatant travesty of justice, and for reasons few understand.

 

[back2back19]

It is possible they did not like the SA's, I know I didn't. But I thought Casey's expressions in court were so inappropriate that she was doing herself more harm than good, if they were watching her. And yet, apparently they "bonded" with her in some way. These things should NOT matter, just saying that people are human and base their decisions on wrong data or using the wrong reasons all the time.

I guess the expression "you never know what a jury will do" has taken on an entirely new meaning. No prosecutors will ever feel quite so confident for a long time to come, IMO.

Anything is possible I guess but I just don't get that impression. This case was lost at the end of the defense's opening. JA and LDB being more like Baez or whatever wouldn't have done a thing. Maybe they should have handled the opening differently or complained about the defense arranging their table to be opposite the jury.

 

[TexasLori]

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.

Furthermore, the manner in which the defense team approached this trial including their behavior within the courtroom and their continual courtship of the media while they criticized and blamed them for the "media circus" they created is deplorable. I believe Jose Baez disrespected the court, the members of the court, the American judicial system, and the American public by fabricating lies, making accusations, and prostituting the adversal nature of the criminal justice system to his own advantage. I seriously believe his behavior is evidence of a serious lapse in character and personality.

The American judicial system is the foundation upon which society is established. How is this verdict going to affect society standards of behavior from this day forth?

They had her on tape lying to LE. I guess the jury wanted to see the tape of her killing Caylee too.

 

[robmom]

Anything is possible I guess but I just don't get that impression. This case was lost at the end of the defense's opening.

I agree because the jury themselves are indicating that. That is one of the instructions I think they ignored or didn't understand. Ford herself spouts lines from Jose as if they were God's truth and up to the State to disprove. Jose's opening was theory, the sex abuse was theory, the drowning was theory, and the jury seems to have latched on to those at the start and argued them like they were evidence.

They also ignored the fact that punishment was not being decided at that point- only guilt or innocence was. But Ford herself has said more than once "I couldn't kill somebody without evidence" or words similar. None of the interviews I saw have the person say "Yes, but were you aware the death penalty wasn't the only option and you weren't supposed to be arguing it at that point, anyway? And besides that, if you found her guilty of murder one, you then didn't have to vote for death?" All she talks about is death penalty, which leads me to believe she didn't even consider the lesser charges. Plus, I think she lied and knew a lot about this case before it started.

If they sincerely thought there was no evidence, then fine. I don't agree and think it would have taken longer than 10 hours to review stuff, especially if it was 6-6 for manslaughter at one point, but whatever. I also find it really odd that on the second day it was still 6-6, and yet at least some showed up all dressed up and ready to leave.

 

[Sharai]

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 for posting Marcia Clark's article, my thoughts were validated by her's.

 

[kelian36]

I know. It's difficult to see a blatant travesty of justice, and for reasons few understand.

I'm sitting on the couch beside you Saffron. It is the worst blantant travesty of justice I've seen in my 40 plus years.

 

[kelian36]

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.

Furthermore, the manner in which the defense team approached this trial including their behavior within the courtroom and their continual courtship of the media while they criticized and blamed them for the "media circus" they created is deplorable. I believe Jose Baez disrespected the court, the members of the court, the American judicial system, and the American public by fabricating lies, making accusations, and prostituting the adversal nature of the criminal justice system to his own advantage. I seriously believe his behavior is evidence of a serious lapse in character and personality.

The American judicial system is the foundation upon which society is established. How is this verdict going to affect society standards of behavior from this day forth?

Wish you could send this to Fla newspapers.
You made excellent points.

 

[Soulmagent]

:waitasec::waitasec:Just something I was reflecting on. Since there is already this thread and poll, cannot make a new one, but just an informal poll of my own. The way I see it, there are really only 3 possibilities with this verdict, and was wondering which one seems strongest to others: ( I know these have all been discussed, just trying to synopsize here)

1. There really was not enough evidence , and the Defense created enough reasonable doubt to render this verdict valid, though shocking.
2. There really WAS enough evidence, if not for pre-meditated murder, than at least for child abuse and manslaughter of a child. BUT the defense caused enough doubt with Kronk and George, and shows like CSI have made people feel that forensics must be perfect, so that the jury was thrown into confusion, and rendered a faulty verdict honestly.
3. A few jurors wanted to "deliver a shocker" for the sensationalism and the subsequent money-making potential, and craftily persuaded the others to go for NG on all counts.

IMO the evidence of a homicide at all is in question. Not because of the drowning theory although it does aide in the reasonable doubt but because of the ME's statements and Roy kronk.

The ME says homicide based on her opinion on photos from the scene. She give us 3 reasons she listed homicide on the death certificate.

Other then the 3 reasons to list as a homicide which make sence but dont PROVE anything along come RK who has all these conflicting statements and depos. Completely renders the photos from the scene useless in the ME standpoint because the body has been moved and NO ONE can say where the duct tape was EVER, before the body was moved or AFTER except RK who wont or didnt or cant be believed. So the very foundation of which the homicide was built on is not soild.

Yet this ME is either not aware of the movement of the skull or decided not to take that into account on her ruling of homicide ,which I think should be looked into ,in my personal opinion.
She KNOWS there is no way for a skull to land in the position it was said to have landed in after the conditions of the enviroment. She knows she cannot hold that duct tape to that scene. IMO.

 

[Lovejac]

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.

Furthermore, the manner in which the defense team approached this trial including their behavior within the courtroom and their continual courtship of the media while they criticized and blamed them for the "media circus" they created is deplorable. I believe Jose Baez disrespected the court, the members of the court, the American judicial system, and the American public by fabricating lies, making accusations, and prostituting the adversal nature of the criminal justice system to his own advantage. I seriously believe his behavior is evidence of a serious lapse in character and personality.

The American judicial system is the foundation upon which society is established. How is this verdict going to affect society standards of behavior from this day forth?

No Sharai, you have no reason to disagree with me at all. :blowkiss:

My post that you quoted was me bowing out of debate with another poster that really wasn't a debate at all. I was trying to stop myself from getting a time out!

Trust me, you and I are on the same page :wink:

 

[back2back19]

I agree because the jury themselves are indicating that. That is one of the instructions I think they ignored or didn't understand. Ford herself spouts lines from Jose as if they were God's truth and up to the State to disprove. Jose's opening was theory, the sex abuse was theory, the drowning was theory, and the jury seems to have latched on to those at the start and argued them like they were evidence.

They also ignored the fact that punishment was not being decided at that point- only guilt or innocence was. But Ford herself has said more than once "I couldn't kill somebody without evidence" or words similar. None of the interviews I saw have the person say "Yes, but were you aware the death penalty wasn't the only option and you weren't supposed to be arguing it at that point, anyway? And besides that, if you found her guilty of murder one, you then didn't have to vote for death?" All she talks about is death penalty, which leads me to believe she didn't even consider the lesser charges. Plus, I think she lied and knew a lot about this case before it started.

If they sincerely thought there was no evidence, then fine. I don't agree and think it would have taken longer than 10 hours to review stuff, especially if it was 6-6 for manslaughter at one point, but whatever. I also find it really odd that on the second day it was still 6-6, and yet at least some showed up all dressed up and ready to leave.

I don't even know if it would have been possible but I wish LDB or JA had objected to Baez's opening. I saw a TH say today that they should have called for a sidebar and demanded to know if the defense had a good faith basis to base their theory on and if they didn't end up proving it, they could have asked for a mistrial or something like that.

I think Ford knew about the case too and I think she had her mind made up from the beginning. I don't even get why they even focused on the punishment anyways. I would think it was common knowledge that their only duty during those deliberations were whether she was guilty or not, not whether she should die or live. But their minds were made up before they went to deliberate anyways. The State was punished for not disproving the defense's theory, instead of the defense being punished for not being able to prove it. It astounds me.

I don't think it was 6-6 on the second day. I don't know what they did on the second day for those few hours before they said they had a verdict but I don't think they were deliberating. No way would 6 people cave that quickly, unless someone spent those hours badgering and bullying the others. Maybe that's why the chef wants his 5 figures... he wants to blow the lid off things.

 

[Saffron]

Thank you for posting Marcia Clark's article, my thoughts were validated by her's.

After reading Marcia Clark's article, I don't understand why it's lawful to sequester a jury. If it's been scientifically proven that sequestered juries form a tribe mentality and would rather compromise to get along than use critical thinking, even being prone to brainwashing by the stronger personalities, how is that a fair trial? What we're slowly learning from this case is so frustrating.

 

[Nikki 01]

The state didnt have to prove how she died, but they needed to narrow it down, was it chloroform or was it the duct tape? were the jurors supposed to just pick one because they thought she was guilty? There was nothing brought in to evidence on that courtroom that put KC with Caylee when she died..no matter what her cause of death was.
I dont like the verdict, but I can see why they came to this conclusion. Its a court of law not a tea party. they took the instructions very seriously; more seriously than other juries?? maybe..but they did do what they were asked to do. 12 people agreed on it, they were not all stupid or lazy or corrupt as portrayed here.

I don't even know if it would have been possible but I wish LDB or JA had objected to Baez's opening. I saw a TH say today that they should have called for a sidebar and demanded to know if the defense had a good faith basis to base their theory on and if they didn't end up proving it, they could have asked for a mistrial or something like that.

I think Ford knew about the case too and I think she had her mind made up from the beginning. I don't even get why they even focused on the punishment anyways. I would think it was common knowledge that their only duty during those deliberations were whether she was guilty or not, not whether she should die or live. But their minds were made up before they went to deliberate anyways. The State was punished for not disproving the defense's theory, instead of the defense being punished for not being able to prove it. It astounds me.

I don't think it was 6-6 on the second day. I don't know what they did on the second day for those few hours before they said they had a verdict but I don't think they were deliberating. No way would 6 people cave that quickly, unless someone spent those hours badgering and bullying the others. Maybe that's why the chef wants his 5 figures... he wants to blow the lid off things.

Good point. They were dressed up that day like they knew they were going to go home. I guarantee at least one of them will eventually come out with some sensational story of what went on in the jury room.

 

[cluciano63]

Anything is possible I guess but I just don't get that impression. This case was lost at the end of the defense's opening. JA and LDB being more like Baez or whatever wouldn't have done a thing. Maybe they should have handled the opening differently or complained about the defense arranging their table to be opposite the jury.

I really don't think the defense picked where the jury would be seated. The defense is always on the left in every case I've seen and the state on the right, when you are in the back of the room looking toward the judge. I thought the fact that the jury could see her so well would be a big negative anyway.

 

[Nikki 01]

Well, I certainly knew very little about it before the trial, though I don't live in Florida. The news sources I read and listen to don't often report on stuff like this. I remember Dr. G saying she didn't know much about the case because she listens to NPR; same here.

I think there's a ton of room to criticize whether the jurors read and understood the instructions--the instructions about disregarding the penalty during the guilt phase, about reasonable doubt, about culpable negligence. I simply think a conspiracy theory about the jury voting not guilty on a quest for money--well, it strikes me as a distraction from the very real issues with the verdict. JMO.



I don't know if they were deliberating beforehand, and I know there has been a push (including in FL) to remove that part of jury instructions; some judges say it would be helpful for jurors to be able to discuss the trial as it progresses. However, I totally agree that the acquittal for manslaughter makes no sense, at least not according to what the jurors have said so far.

Well I'm not trying to say it is impossible they didn't know much about the case. I'm saying it's possible some may not be truthful when they claim they don't. That's the unfortunate side of high profile cases. There will always be people in the jury pool that have an agenda to get on the jury panel and will attempt to say all of the right things.

I go back to #3. She mentions she is into watching true crime programming, but yet she never heard of this case? That doesn't add up to me. If one believes she may be lying, then the next question becomes why if she lying about that? What is her agenda? She just happens to be the one who benefited from her jury service the day of the verdict with the free access to Disney.

You're right, those are certainly more worthy of criticism, but I think the monetary benefit jurors may receive is really a discussion society should be having. The fact that jurors can profit from their service can be severely problematic as potential jurors may base their vote on what they stand to gain in their minds. None of us can say with certainty that it has, but it is certainly a possibility. When you have one juror getting access to Disney after the verdict and one trying to sell his interview to the media it makes one wonder if this was their goal all along.

So far they haven't removed the part of jury instructions where they cannot discuss a case prior to deliberating so I think it is an issue of whether they had or not. If she was convicted their discussing the case when they were admonished not to could cause a reversal on appeal. Unfortunately the state has no recourse if this happened, but it doesn't make it any less wrong.

 

[back2back19]

I really don't think the defense picked where the jury would be seated. The defense is always on the left in every case I've seen and the state on the right, when you are in the back of the room looking toward the judge. I thought the fact that the jury could see her so well would be a big negative anyway.

I know they didn't pick where the jury sat; they moved their position. It was stated that they didn't want anyone to see their computers or something to that effect, so they moved across from the jury. You'd think that seeing Casey seething or fake crying would have affected the jury in a negative way but instead, it bonded them to her.

 

[askfornina]

i thought they were across from the jury because they needed a bigger table than the one the DT would usually sit at.

 

[technicalconfusion]

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 believe she's the one who said they felt they shouldn't have to connect the dots....in other words....look at the freakin evidence! :banghead:

 

[technicalconfusion]

Interesting article but I find it hard to believe Jennifer Ford a was a leader. If the others saw her as a leader, they had big problems before they were put on this jury. Jennifer Ford parroted JB's explanations which made no logical sense to the majority of people who followed the trial. None of the jurors have been able to logically explain the verdict. Jennifer Ford shows her complete lack of knowledge every time she's on TV. I don't think she has a clue how clueless she sounds. So someone influenced them to vote in a way even they can't explain. I have a hard time believing that it was all JB. It's much more likely that person was with them every day and got to know them on a personal level.

I tend to think there was one intelligent person on this jury with an agenda. I think that person started immediately persuading people. Maybe he began by using his good looks and charm. (someone who looks like George Clooney?) Some of the jury were probably already leaning his way. The others may have submitted because that person presented himself as an intelligent, know more than anyone else, leader. (someone working on his Masters?) According to #2 they all followed along like sheep even when some of them thought it was wrong. Why?

I agree with the intelligent part. Not sure about the good looking part.

 

[technicalconfusion]

I was on a jury, it wasnt murder, it was sexual molestation. It was daunting and heartbreaking. We found him guilty and he will spend the rest of his life in prison. When you are on a jury and someones life (prison or death) is on the line, you take the orders seriously. We all took it very seriously, "evidence" and reasonable doubt" take on a new meaning. I cannot imagine being harassed and ostracized after sitting my time on a jury, inconveniencing my family and tossing and turning about the details. I did my civic duty just like these people did.
It was 12 people, not 1. They deserve to be respected for their time, effort and ability to take the emotion out of their verdict.

I'm curious.

How long did yall deliberate?
Did you look at the evidence presented to you?
Did you ask questions if something was unclear?
Did you take notes?
Did you discuss the evidence?

"You" in this context is not *you* all by your lonesome, but everyone on the jury.

 

[askfornina]

I'm curious.

How long did yall deliberate?
Did you look at the evidence presented to you?
Did you ask questions if something was unclear?
Did you take notes?
Did you discuss the evidence?

"You" in this context is not *you* all by your lonesome, but everyone on the jury.

I also have a question for you Peepers, was all of the evidence in the deliberation room with you?