Mistakes made that led to Casey being aquitted...

[LetThemEatCake]

Here's juror # 3's explanation of how they got around the duct tape: "In our country unfortunately we have to prove it...it smells bad, looks bad, yeah I get that. But it's someone else's life, and if Im wrong, I can't live with that." In other words, they completely disregarded the duct tape.

His explanation makes no sense.

 

[RANCH]

She was acquitted because her attorney introduced reasonable doubt with his accidental drowning story. The fact that there is no reason to put duck tape over the mouth and nose of a dead child as stated by Dr. G. was forgotten.

I agree that the jury bought into JB's story of an accidental drowning. The problem I have with that is he never provided any evidence for the jury to consider if this indeed happened.

The jury used a defense attorney's statements as evidence to acquit the defendant.

That's not right. JMO

 

[jkly]

Here's juror # 3's explanation of how they got around the duct tape: "In our country unfortunately we have to prove it...it smells bad, looks bad, yeah I get that. But it's someone else's life, and if Im wrong, I can't live with that." In other words, they completely disregarded the duct tape.

Juror # 3 was the only one ridiculous enough to show her face after that verdict. Says a lot about her.

 

[jkly]

I agree that the jury bought into JB's story of an accidental drowning. The problem I have with that is he never provided any evidence for the jury to consider if this indeed happened.

The jury used a defense attorney's statements as evidence to acquit the defendant.

That's not right. JMO

The jury said "we don't have an exact cause of death" and washed their hands of it. Too complicated for them.

Poor Jennifer Ford was lost in a maze because Casey told more stupid lies and she believed them. Oh and she was distracted by the fact that there was this big shiny pool that she could see from her hotel room window that she was forbidden to go swimming in.

 

[RANCH]

The jury said "we don't have an exact cause of death" and washed their hands of it. Too complicated for them.

Poor Jennifer Ford was lost in a maze because Casey told more stupid lies and she believed them. Oh and she was distracted by the fact that there was this big shiny pool that she could see from her hotel room window that she was forbidden to go swimming in.

The jury insisting on needing an exact cause of death tells me they didn't pay attention or care to know what they were supposed to do. I guess they must feel if a murderer can hide or dispose of a body such that a cause of death can not be determined they cannot be convicted of murder.

This jury didn't understand circumstantial evidence or that attorney's statements are not evidence that can be used to find guilt or innocence.

I've always believed that the biggest mistake that led to Casey being acquitted was jury selection. JMO

 

[scaredtopost]

Absolutely RANCH. Prosecutor basically said the majority of the jury pool already thought she was guilty. Their options were limited. As much as we all yearn for facts and details, it seems the Sunshine Law hindered justice being served, in this case. JMO, MOO, etc

 

[Intermezzo]

What's interesting is that it wasn't really what he said before. A while back, he was in some sort of article where he said that he personally believed there was enough evidence given at trial to convict Casey of first degree murder. I suppose he could have been talking about felony murder though...

He also mentioned hearing four letter words being screamed in rage from the holding cell when Cheney Mason went in there attempting to convince Casey to take a plea.

Aside from that, I had my doubts about Judge Perry when I saw the way he was rushing jury selection. He inexplicably sat a woman on that jury who the State had every right to strike, because she stated that her "religion didn't allow her to judge other people."

IIRC, Baez or Mason objected, claiming the State was trying to strike her due to racial bias (she was black) and Judge Perry agreed and refused to allow the State to strike her. Even the defense had this surprised look on their faces like "I can't believe that worked." The whole thing was bizarre.

Either way, that woman ended up on the jury and I doubt she was much help.

The sad thing is that I don't think Judge Perry had any sort of nefarious motive when he did so. He just got complacent and wanted to rush jury selection along as fast as he could and start the trial. I think he figured that no one in their right minds would look at the evidence against Casey and decide that she bore no responsibility for what happened to Caylee.

I couldn't believe my eyes and ears when Perry allowed that 'I don't judge" lady not to be stricken and to put her on the jury.

 

[Intermezzo]

Agreed. I think the jury discounted a lot of very good evidence, especially what Dr. G stated about duct tape around little Caylee's face, and then Baez's fairytales stuck in their minds more than the evidence did IMO.
There was a question of jury tampering as well, but was never investigated to my knowledge?

BBM
No, I don't believe so
There was an investigation into Witness Tampering

 

[Intermezzo]

I can't recall but was the death penalty on the table?

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

Yes it was.
FCA was indicted by a Grand Jury with Murder 1(and other charges) in October 2008 with the possibility of seeking the DP
In early Dec 2008, before Caylee's remains were found, the State said it was not going to seek the DP.
Then the remains were found along with other evidence at the crime scene.
April 2009, the State changed its mind and decided to seek the Death Penalty.

 

[Intermezzo]

BBM

Are we still doing the duct tape argument, Tugela?... I'm officially moving that to the top of my list of mistakes made...
(1) The prosecution should have called a duct tape expert to the stand. I don't even know if a duct tape expert exists, lol, I always assumed it was common sense that duct tape doesn't attach, then lose its adhesion and unattach, then slip down and gets its adhesion back and reattach somewhere else. Which is exactly what would've been necessary if the duct tape was used first on the trash bags, or anywhere else for that matter... I don't think you need an expert to explain that duct tape won't slip or slide around on plastic trash bags AND if it comes loose, once attached, it's because it lost all its adhesive properties and would not then be able to reattach to hair. And it was attached to her hair, which is why her skull and mandible were found as one unit. Dr. G reiterated this in night 2 of the recent special... One thing I have learned about this case, and this jury, is that common sense should not be considered and experts are required for everything, the sillier the expert, the better... ie, Spitz and the grief lady...smh

All jmo.

Was there an employee of 3M on the witness list? or did some other expert talk about the duct tape? I don't mean Dr G.

 

[Intermezzo]

They should have focused on her lies about her job, her inconsistent stories when Caylee was missing. Lay out what a master manipulator Casey was. Lay out how she would be willing to vilify her father as a child molester to save her skin. I just feel if her lies had been chronicled in a more meaningful way the jury would see through the smoke and mirrors. If Baez is going to use a pseudo psych maybe bring in another talking head about how post partem depression can make women go off the rails and murder their children. How parents will be willing to sacrifice themselves and their reputation for their only spoiled little brat.

With Baez I would have tried to take the approach of "Oh you wanna play the game THAT way? Well then, let's see who plays it better."

Admittedly I don't know much about the science involved in the case. I remember the decomposition expert having a tough time bc Casey's defense kept calling question to his abilities to identify human decomp vs trash decomp. Who the F leaves trash in the back of their trunk to decompose? Bc it wasn't trash. It was Caylee.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think Lead Prosecutor Linda Diane Burdick laid out a good foundation during her opening statement about FCA and her lies and who was the 1 person who would benefit from Caylee not being around anymore.

https://youtu.be/8_pn59ykzKM

 

[Razz]

I think Lead Prosecutor Linda Diane Burdick laid out a good foundation during her opening statement about FCA and her lies and who was the 1 person who would benefit from Caylee not being around anymore.

https://youtu.be/8_pn59ykzKM

I agree about Linda Burdick. She was excellent.

I remember being so upset over the CA verdict. I thought passion overruled logic and reason in this trial.

Some speak of how the jury was mentally inept. I thought so too but then, I wasn't there in the jury room.

In order to go through the evidence and organize it and get 11 other people to agree would have taken an above and beyond human being.

Being on a jury is one of our civic duties as Americans but how many people have you known that go to
great lengths to get out of it?

Unfortunately, because of my background in LE, I always get bounced. But,I firmly believe I'd
be a very good juror.

To ask for the sacrifices the Pinellas county jurors had to agree to were IMO overwhelming. To be away from family and friends and your home for weeks on end would make anyone nuts. Oh, and the crushing
responsibility of listening to all that evidence.

I like listening to the evidence and enjoy the complexities but most people don't. 10 minutes of explanation and the average humanbrain is "fried" and on to other concerns (like your children at home without you, your job where they've hired a temp to replace you,
Or your significant other who isn't coping well with the responsibility of being alone with children or coping with the day to day situations that they might not be used to dealing with.)

Maybe someday robots will be used to come up with a verdict. Feed them all the info and evidence and let their unprejudged, unstressed
"brains" handle it. Until then, we'll just have to put up with everyday,
ordinary fellow citizens.




Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[LetThemEatCake]

Another mistake of the prosecution: Not calling back Dr. G after Spitz had questioned her work. I'm sorry but the prosecution was shoddy.

 

[Bgh]

I totally understand jury duty is no picnic, esp for that case. But if they were just in a hurry to get out of there, how about a mistrial? At the beginning, the jury was split 6/6 for manslaughter (1st degree was never going to happen). I will never understand how all 6 for manslaughter were convinced to find FCA not guilty of anything. At least ONE could have stood up and said "No way, Jose!" and there would have been a new trial with a new jury. Sure, the judge would have made them go back and reconsider, they could have done that for an hour and then said the were hopelessly deadlocked.That one juror would have been a hero, and the others the pariahs they are now. Everyone would have been satisfied with manslaughter (I personally believe it was 1st degree, but if I was on that jury I would have gone along with manslaughter). Another thing-doesn't the judge have the power to overturn a verdict in cases of jury misconduct or incompetence? I realize Judge Perry would never have done that, but he did say he was shocked at the verdict and that the prosecution had a mountain of evidence against FCA, i.e. they should have convicted her of something. Did he have the power to call a conference with the jurors and ask them to justify their verdict? Once he heard their responses he would know for sure they didn't follow the instructions and disregarded a lot of the evidence, and declared a mistrial or imposed his own verdict. I could be wrong, but thought I saw somewhere that the judge can intervene in disasters like this. If not, they should be able to! Sure, the defendant will appeal, so what? We do have a great justice system in this country, but when it fails on an epic level like this, there should be some safeguards imposed. JMO

 

[LetThemEatCake]

I think we need to rethink the performance of Jeff Ashton and the prosecution because the writing was on the wall: [video]https://youtu.be/NcuWI9tGNx0?t=27m50s[/video]

When you have this much circumstantial and physical evidence and you still lose, it's your fault, I'm sorry. Just like the OJ trial, it was lost 100% because of Marcia Clark and Chris Darden's incompetence. Don't believe me? Go look for Vincent Bugliosi's documentary on the trial.

 

[Wendy101]

IMO - Baez did a great job as a defence lawyer. He created reasonable doubt using George and the Pros. totally allowed it. They allowed Cindy to lie on the stand..
The Pros. made a very very weak case using the what did Casey do for "31 days" - it was painful to watch.
IMO- Baez showed George did it and how, he also showed WHY Casey acted the way she did - the story, even tho a lie (IMO) made perfect sense.
I know the moment Baez said he first sentence - she would walk free.

 

[Razz]

IMO - Baez did a great job as a defence lawyer. He created reasonable doubt using George and the Pros. totally allowed it. They allowed Cindy to lie on the stand..
The Pros. made a very very weak case using the what did Casey do for "31 days" - it was painful to watch.
IMO- Baez showed George did it and how, he also showed WHY Casey acted the way she did - the story, even tho a lie (IMO) made perfect sense.
I know the moment Baez said he first sentence - she would walk free.

Not only Baez but Chaney Mason
as well as much as I hate to admit that. He ended closing arguements
with a rousing, passionate speech on reasonable doubt. I couldn't and didn't watch it because I knew his speech was going to razzle dazzle
his audience....the jury. And they would be taken in.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[Bgh]

Agree the defense did a great job--don't agree that a defense attorney's opening statement, a story never before heard, with no evidence offered during the trial to back it up, should be used as reasonable doubt by any thinking person. It has crossed my mind that Caylee did indeed drown in the pool--but NOT accidentally. Casey threw her in without her water wings, after George had left for work at 3:00 PM. She couldn't call 911, because then, first of all, it would totally mess up her date night with her new boyfriend, who was clearly her #1 priority at that time. Then, she would have to explain how Caylee got in the pool. Cindy was pretty adamant that she never left the ladder down, and she was so mad at Casey at that time, I doubt she would have lied and said she did. Maybe later, at the trial, but not then. But wait--that doesn't explain that pesky duct tape! If you think it through to the end, no accident story explains the duct tape. The jury apparently forgot about it, didn't think it was important, or maybe Kronk put it there. Yeah, that's reasonable!

 

[Bgh]

Everyone on this forum understands reasonable doubt, that's what we've all been talking about. The defense had nothing whatsoever, the prosecution had a boatload of evidence, yet FCA was found not guilty of anything. So the defense threw out a fairytale and the jurors bought it. My comment about the duct tape was meant to be sarcastic. Was trying to point out there's no accident story, even if GA was involved, that explains the duct tape--and the jurors failed to understand that. We're admitting the defense did a good job, because they won an unwinnable case, if the jury hadn't been half-wits.

 

[LetThemEatCake]

Everyone on this forum understands reasonable doubt, that's what we've all been talking about. The defense had nothing whatsoever, the prosecution had a boatload of evidence, yet FCA was found not guilty of anything. So the defense threw out a fairytale and the jurors bought it. My comment about the duct tape was meant to be sarcastic. Was trying to point out there's no accident story, even if GA was involved, that explains the duct tape--and the jurors failed to understand that. We're admitting the defense did a good job, because they won an unwinnable case, if the jury hadn't been half-wits.

No they don't understand it, just because the jurors bought it doesn't mean it was reasonable, what Baez presented was UNREASONABLE. It DID NOT raise reasonable doubt, as a matter of fact, it didn't even raise A doubt and that is a fact and we need to stick to it. Semantics in this context are EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.