Mistakes made that led to Casey being aquitted...

[mickey2942]

I think juries are too used to watching "Law and Order", where the jury is spoonfed concrete evidence. No inference is needed, no logical problem solving skills needed. Black and white.

The state clearly overcharged here, I think that was the hangup for the jury, the "death" penalty. They felt that they needed concrete evidence for that reason. If the state had charged manslaughter or involuntary, CA would have been convicted.

 

[LetThemEatCake]

I think juries are too used to watching "Law and Order", where the jury is spoonfed concrete evidence. No inference is needed, no logical problem solving skills needed. Black and white.

The state clearly overcharged here, I think that was the hangup for the jury, the "death" penalty. They felt that they needed concrete evidence for that reason. If the state had charged manslaughter or involuntary, CA would have been convicted.

The state didn't overcharge, like Dr. G. said, the evidence didn't fit anything else except a homicide. The problem is that Jeff Ashton did nothing to attack Anthony as a mother, he did not fight the she was raped allegations, did not put Dr. G back on the stand to defend her again Speitz's accussations and so on, so many mistakes were made.

 

[heidisams]

I think juries are too used to watching "Law and Order", where the jury is spoonfed concrete evidence. No inference is needed, no logical problem solving skills needed. Black and white.

The state clearly overcharged here, I think that was the hangup for the jury, the "death" penalty. They felt that they needed concrete evidence for that reason. If the state had charged manslaughter or involuntary, CA would have been convicted.

BBM


But, the jury had other options. They could've gone with manslaughter, only the top charge was Murder 1 - and there were options there too, the jury could've given her LWOP... Regardless, the jury shouldn't have been "hung up on the death penalty", this was not the penalty phase. They shouldn't have even been considering punishment during the guilt/innocence phase... I swear, sometimes I think some believe that death was the only option this jury had... (not directed at you mickey)

All jmo.

 

[jkly]

The state didn't overcharge, like Dr. G. said, the evidence didn't fit anything else except a homicide. The problem is that Jeff Ashton did nothing to attack Anthony as a mother, he did not fight the she was raped allegations, did not put Dr. G back on the stand to defend her again Speitz's accussations and so on, so many mistakes were made.

Yeah, that wonderful jury needed everything spelled out to them piecemeal because they were unable to use their common sense and make inferences themselves based on evidence.

Honestly the defense's story was stupid and full of holes. They even claimed that Kronk, a complete stranger, came across Caylee's remains, kept them in his house for months and then put Caylee back in the woods and staged the crime scene without leaving a shred of his dna anywhere.

Not only that fine vines were growing on the blanket and through Caylee's hair and through her skull. Her skull was actually anchored to the ground by fine vines. How anyone thinks that Kronk could have managed that is beyond me.

IMO Spitz made himself look bad when he described going at Caylee's skull with a five dollar saw from WalMart. This amazing doctor broke Caylee's skull. But the jury wasn't offended by that at all apparently. Too busy seething over Ashton's inadvertent "pig in a blanket" remark I guess.

The jurors were parroting Baez and they ignored all of the evidence that didn't fit his narrative. Not only that, some of the jurors during Aaron Hernandez's trial also appeared to have some jurors forcibly supporting the defense and who roped the rest of them into letting him off scott free.

.Funny coincidence.

 

[Razz]

Yeah, that wonderful jury needed everything spelled out to them piecemeal because they were unable to use their common sense and make inferences themselves based on evidence.

Honestly the defense's story was stupid and full of holes. They even claimed that Kronk, a complete stranger, came across Caylee's remains, kept them in his house for months and then put Caylee back in the woods and staged the crime scene without leaving a shred of his dna anywhere.

Not only that fine vines were growing on the blanket and through Caylee's hair and through her skull. Her skull was actually anchored to the ground by fine vines. How anyone thinks that Kronk could have managed that is beyond me.

IMO Spitz made himself look bad when he described going at Caylee's skull with a five dollar saw from WalMart. This amazing doctor broke Caylee's skull. But the jury wasn't offended by that at all apparently. Too busy seething over Ashton's inadvertent "pig in a blanket" remark I guess.

The jurors were parroting Baez and they ignored all of the evidence that didn't fit his narrative. Not only that, some of the jurors during Aaron Hernandez's trial also appeared to have some jurors forcibly supporting the defense and who roped the rest of them into letting him off scott free.

.Funny coincidence.

Kronk was an effective diversion.

How did he know that it was Caylee?

Why didn't he go in there and get the bag?

It's weird. Why did he see things that other people didn't?!

I can't recall but did he go in the woods and see the skull?



Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[GiantPickle]

I think Kronk was flat out looking for Caylee. It made sense that FCA would dump her that close....she even said as much in her jail tapes "she's close." He was doing work others hadn't done.

 

[heidisams]

I try not to pick on Kronk too much... Imo, he's just another example of collateral damage caused by the actions of casey anthony...And I realize his oddities provided plenty of fodder for the defense, but he in no way deserved what was done to him... He found Caylee, and then his life was turned upside down. I don't think he was prepared to be thrust into the public eye (would any of us?), where every detail of his life was scrutinized, fingers were pointed at him, everything he said was analyzed, etc.... And he may have exaggerated some, adding details that weren't necessary, etc. Only digging himself in even deeper when he attempted to defend his actions and explain away some of those embellishments that didn't fit the evidence, ie, picking up skull with stick, etc... So he wasn't a great witness, but I would hate it if this kind of treatment (of witnesses) might prevent others from getting involved in the future, and doing the right thing... I think he was treated horribly, and the defense was ruthless in their attacks on him, even after knowing Caylee "drowned"... Everything overshadowed the fact that Kronk found Caylee and because he persisted she was recovered and removed from the pile of trash she was thrown in...

All jmo.

 

[jkly]

Kronk was an effective diversion.

How did he know that it was Caylee?

Why didn't he go in there and get the bag?

It's weird. Why did he see things that other people didn't?!

I can't recall but did he go in the woods and see the skull?



Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

I don't think there's any real evidence that he knew it was Caylee. However, it was very close to the Anthony house and it was in the area of town that Caylee disappeared from and Caylee was all over the news. I think anyone coming across a child's skull in garbage bags might have some suspicion that it was Caylee.

Kronk worked as a meter reader. So his job had him walking around that area on foot checking meters. He was allegedly taking a leak when he came across the bag.

It's weird. But Casey's behavior was far weirder. AND the defense admitted that no one was present when Caylee drowned except for Casey and allegedly George.

IMO, for Kronk to be an effective diversion, the defense would need to incriminate him in a way that made sense. IMO, they failed miserably. It worked with the jury because they were lazy and devoid of common sense.

Or some of those jurors appeared to be abnormally greedy.. So maybe it made perfect sense to them to find a body in the woods and, when the police fail to discover said body, take it with you, then lay low and keep it in your home for months in hopes of eventually collecting the reward money.

 

[jkly]

I try not to pick on Kronk too much... Imo, he's just another example of collateral damage caused by the actions of casey anthony...And I realize his oddities provided plenty of fodder for the defense, but he in no way deserved what was done to him... He found Caylee, and then his life was turned upside down. I don't think he was prepared to be thrust into the public eye (would any of us?), where every detail of his life was scrutinized, fingers were pointed at him, everything he said was analyzed, etc.... And he may have exaggerated some, adding details that weren't necessary, etc. Only digging himself in even deeper when he attempted to defend his actions and explain away some of those embellishments that didn't fit the evidence, ie, picking up skull with stick, etc... So he wasn't a great witness, but I would hate it if this kind of treatment (of witnesses) might prevent others from getting involved in the future, and doing the right thing... I think he was treated horribly, and the defense was ruthless in their attacks on him, even after knowing Caylee "drowned"... Everything overshadowed the fact that Kronk found Caylee and because he persisted she was recovered and removed from the pile of trash she was thrown in...

All jmo.

Everyone that did anything that aided in discovering the truth got crapped all over by the defense.

Baez even tried to go after the Equusearch volunteers. I remember Tim Miller fighting him in court because Baez wanted a list of everyone who was involved in canvassing the area.

The police were on their hands and knees for hours attempting to retrieve each and every one of Caylee's little scattered bones and the defense portrayed them as not working hard enough and victimizing their lazy, dumb client to distract from the fact that she was a pathetic excuse for a mother.

It took them so long to find Caylee because Casey obstructed their investigation and lied and lied and lied. I still don't see how the jury could have not taken that into consideration.

I'm also sick of hearing that the State didn't prove their case when the reason why is glaring anyone who takes a close look at the circumstances in the face.

How is it the State's fault that Caylee was skeletonized by the time they found her? Because they couldn't see into Casey's pea brain and read her mind to know where she dumped her child's remains?

 

[heidisams]

1) I don't think there's any real evidence that he knew it was Caylee. However, it was very close to the Anthony house and it was in the area of town that Caylee disappeared from and Caylee was all over the news. I think anyone coming across a child's skull in garbage bags might have some suspicion that it was Caylee.

2) Go in there and get the bag? He lifted part of it up with his meter reader stick and a human skull rolled out. After that, it makes sense that he wouldn't want to tamper with the crime scene.

3) Kronk worked as a meter reader. So his job had him walking around that area on foot checking meters. He was allegedly taking a leak when he came across the bag.

4) It's weird. But Casey's behavior was far weirder. AND the defense admitted that no one was present when Caylee drowned except for Casey and allegedly George.

IMO, for Kronk to be an effective diversion, the defense would need to incriminate him in a way that made sense. IMO, they failed miserably. It worked with the jury because they were lazy and devoid of common sense.

Or some of those jurors appeared to be abnormally greedy.. So maybe it made perfect sense to them to find a body in the woods and, when the police fail to discover said body, take it with you and keep it in your home for months in hopes of eventually collecting the reward money.

BBM

Lol...this just takes me back to all the absurdities of the case....I know it's not a funny matter, but, boy there sure were some really strange moments from that defense...

All jmo.

 

[LetThemEatCake]

Everyone that did anything that aided in discovering the truth got crapped all over by the defense.

Baez even tried to go after the Equusearch volunteers. I remember Tim Miller fighting him in court because Baez wanted a list of everyone who was involved in canvassing the area.

The police were on their hands and knees for hours attempting to retrieve each and every one of Caylee's little scattered bones and the defense portrayed them as not working hard enough and victimizing their lazy, dumb client to distract from the fact that she was a pathetic excuse for a mother.

It took them so long to find Caylee because Casey obstructed their investigation and lied and lied and lied. I still don't see how the jury could have not taken that into consideration.

I'm also sick of hearing that the State didn't prove their case when the reason why is glaring anyone who takes a close look at the circumstances in the face.

How is it the State's fault that Caylee was skeletonized by the time they found her? Because they couldn't see into Casey's pea brain and read her mind to know where she dumped her child's remains?

but the prosecution didn't bother to defend roy kronk against the defense.

 

[heidisams]

but the prosecution didn't bother to defend roy kronk against the defense.

The prosecution discredited the defense claims with the evidence (plant & root growth, scattered bones, etc), by proving the remains had been there since June '08, and not removed and taken home by kronk.... The defense just had wild theories, but the evidence told the real story. The prosecutors were better off disproving them by using the evidence, rather than a witness who may not be as reliable... I'm really not sure what more they could've done without going into the weeds with the defense... Not to mention, at the time, it seemed so ridiculous to believe anyone was buying into their bizarre story of hiding and moving bodies and duct taping skulls, etc. And that Dr. Spitz was something else. :facepalm: ....Between him breaking her skull and jbaez's 2a run to Walmart for a $5 blade, sheesh, talk about a train wreck...they did enough on their own to discredit themselves...

All jmo.

 

[jkly]

but the prosecution didn't bother to defend roy kronk against the defense.

Why should they? Even according to the defense, he had nothing to do with Caylee's death and if he "found Caylee's body in the woods and took it home with him", Casey still could have been the one who put it there.

IIRC, they did nothing to tie George to him and claim the two of them were somehow in cahoots. It was just another distraction and a pretty absurd side note that the defense did nothing to prove.

 

[jkly]

The prosecution discredited the defense claims with the evidence (plant & root growth, scattered bones, etc), by proving the remains had been there since June '08, and not removed and taken home by kronk.... The defense just had wild theories, but the evidence told the real story. The prosecutors were better off disproving them by using the evidence, rather than a witness who may not be as reliable... I'm really not sure what more they could've done without going into the weeds with the defense... Not to mention, at the time, it seemed so ridiculous to believe anyone was buying into their bizarre story of hiding and moving bodies and duct taping skulls, etc. And that Dr. Spitz was something else. :facepalm: ....Between him breaking her skull and jbaez's 2a run to Walmart for a $5 blade, sheesh, talk about a train wreck...they did enough on their own to discredit themselves...

All jmo.

Yeah but actual evidence didn't interest the jury. According to jennifer ford, Ashton was putting them all to sleep with his boring forensic evidence.

The defense was handing out smut free of charge and casey's body language seemed sincere.

 

[Gnatcatcher]

Yeah but actual evidence didn't interest the jury. According to jennifer ford, Ashton was putting them all to sleep with his boring forensic evidence.

The defense was handing out smut free of charge and casey's body language seemed sincere.

BBM -- I'm sorry but .... did she really say that? I missed the comment somehow. Oh my god, I mean, I just can't EVEN with that.... This wasn't a 7th grade movie about insects and biology, where you get to wear sunglasses and hide in the dark classroom hoping nobody knows you fell asleep. God. I'm riled up all over again about this jury.

 

[Razz]

BBM -- I'm sorry but .... did she really say that? I missed the comment somehow. Oh my god, I mean, I just can't EVEN with that.... This wasn't a 7th grade movie about insects and biology, where you get to wear sunglasses and hide in the dark classroom hoping nobody knows you fell asleep. God. I'm riled up all over again about this jury.

In some defense of the jury......I can
unfortunately see where the evidence presented would boggle people's minds. Because I understand it, it was easy to grasp and I have to admit Ashton did a good job of explaining and answering questions, but if this isn't your thing, they may have heard yakity yak yak.



Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[Gnatcatcher]

In some defense of the jury......I can
unfortunately see where the evidence presented would boggle people's minds. Because I understand it, it was easy to grasp and I have to admit Ashton did a good job of explaining and answering questions, but if this isn't your thing, they may have heard yakity yak yak.



Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

Understood. NOT a reason to ignore it all, but understood. I was on a murder case jury once. We had three specific items we didn't clearly understand during the trial, all of which we asked for - and were granted - a second review so that we could understand it clearly. My trial lasted two weeks and our deliberation took four and a half days. It's just not something I'm willing to overlook. Being bored by forensics is NOT an excuse to just ignore it.

 

[Razz]

Understood. NOT a reason to ignore it all, but understood. I was on a murder case jury once. We had three specific items we didn't clearly understand during the trial, all of which we asked for - and were granted - a second review so that we could understand it clearly. My trial lasted two weeks and our deliberation took four and a half days. It's just not something I'm willing to overlook. Being bored by forensics is NOT an excuse to just ignore it.

Yes, I agree but often times the jury pool is limited and those in the jury pool are limited. Not being judgemental but realistic. Many people can't hold on to all the minutiae thrown at them during a day much less weeks.

Also, people in the jury can be easily influenced by, what someone is wearing, how they act at the prosecution or defense table, how they wear their hair or make up etc.
There are so many factors.

Why not a "Watson"? A dispassionate computer that takes in all the evidence w/ knowledge of all rules etc. I honestly think I'd rather have that than a jury of my peers.



Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[Gnatcatcher]

Agreed. I guess what I'm getting hung up on here, is that they never even asked for a piece of evidence to be reviewed, a tape to be replayed, no questions to the judge, just kind of "I'm outtie", and that's it. 11 hours, was it? Anyway, I guess I'm being overly emotional today. Where's lunch?!

 

[jkly]

BBM -- I'm sorry but .... did she really say that? I missed the comment somehow. Oh my god, I mean, I just can't EVEN with that.... This wasn't a 7th grade movie about insects and biology, where you get to wear sunglasses and hide in the dark classroom hoping nobody knows you fell asleep. God. I'm riled up all over again about this jury.

Yes, she said that. But she seemed to like Baez for some reason.

She also didn't understand why people were getting so mad at her when they didn't even know Caylee.