Mistakes made that led to Casey being aquitted...

[mickey2942]

When we consider jury selection and serving on a jury, from what I understand, the goal of most professional people is to get out of jury duty. And in most cases, the defence usually wants the jury stacked with people who have a lower level of education. I have seen several trials, with overwhelming evidence, and the accused goes free, one trial I remember most, is the infamous "O.J. Trial", the evidence was clear, and concrete. The defence turned the trial into a media circus, with Judge Pinhead Ito, as the ringmaster.

I believe that CA will end up the same place OJ is, just a matter of time.

 

[LetThemEatCake]

When we consider jury selection and serving on a jury, from what I understand, the goal of most professional people is to get out of jury duty. And in most cases, the defence usually wants the jury stacked with people who have a lower level of education. I have seen several trials, with overwhelming evidence, and the accused goes free, one trial I remember most, is the infamous "O.J. Trial", the evidence was clear, and concrete. The defence turned the trial into a media circus, with Judge Pinhead Ito, as the ringmaster.

I believe that CA will end up the same place OJ is, just a matter of time.

The O.J. Simpson jury was of sub par intelligence but that's not why he got off, he got off because Marcia Clark called the LAPD sloppy, the worst there was, racists, etc in front of the jury. What credibility could the evidence have for a jury after that?? None.

The Anthony jury I don't understand. The prosecution made no such mistakes as Clark did, and they didn't look as dumb as the OJ jury yet they turned out to be even worse. Hearing them talk in interviews you can tell they were raw sewage, in particular that white red head lady. Acquitting her because they didn't know how she died?? Please. Definitely humans are not cut from the same cloth and some people are just vastly inferior to what's normal.

 

[jkly]

Yes, in that interview he seemed certain about there being enough evidence for murder one. Now it might have been an accident. I mean, if the Judge changes his opinion depending on which way the wind blows (yeah, he changes his mind AFTER learning about the fool-proof suffocation---what logic!) then what to say about those misinformed jurors!? They must feel pretty smug now that even the Judge isn't sure. This is what they must be thinking if they remember this case at all---I say if because it didn't seem like they took their duties seriously. Ridiculous all around.

He presides over a lot of cases. Maybe he just forgot the details of this one and made a big fool of himself. The "fool-proof suffication" search does not scream accident.

What annoyed me was Baez saying that George must have made it because he was a bad speller. Then he provides no evidence of it. We're just supposed to take his word for it, despite casey o'marie signing into AIM and checking her facebook before and after it.

Oh well, I guess that worked with the jury. He didn't back up any of his opening statement with evidence.

 

[noche_de_luna]

I agree with everything on this thread, but SheRa got to the root cause. The jury just did not believe. While there were many reasons for this, they are variations of the following:

1. The Prosecution could not prove chloroform death beyond a reasonable doubt. Even with the foolproof suffocation search, juries expect solid evidence here. Did they not get it.

2. The Prosecutors did emphasize KC's lifestyle sufficiently. In a circumstantial case, this is critical. Was she the type of person who would do this? What timeline of events led to the girl's murder?

3. Cindy and George cover for Cindy and were allowed to by LE. She is free mostly because of the evidence they destroyed. The lies they told under oath.

IMHO, the prosecution failed. They didn't work hard.

>> They needed to anticipate the Anthonys would act as hostile witnesses and shown this clearly. Openly questioning their answers and motives.


>> The prosecution needed to show why the timeline was critical, given the circumstantial, tampered nature of the case.


>> The pool story should have been addressed on rebuttal, complete with timeline. For example, if Caylee died, why was KC happy partying. Wouldn't she be grieving, given what a good mother she was? Step-by-step why it made no sense.

MOO

 

[Razz]

I don't really defend the verdict, I think she killed her daughter and should of been convicted. But I also don't agree with those who refuse to put the reasons of the acquittal on the prosecution, at least partially. I firmly believe that the prosecution always assumed they were going to get a guilty verdict based on their evidence. IMO, you never assume anything. You drive home the points in 100 different ways, then you do it another 100 different ways to show that there is one person and only one person that could do this crime. You throw the kitchen sink at the jury, from showing cell pings, to her exact movements, to previous history, etc. You do this because there is always a chance, no matter how small, that there will at least be one, let along 12, that the evidence will not be clear to. That will have questions. I don't care how monotonous it is, you repeat the same points over and over again. Lastly, you humanize the victim. Show and illustrate what was taken. Describe how a 2 year old was robbed of life by this person and why.

IMO, they (prosecution) didn't do that or at least enough of it. Perusing through the trial threads you'll find numerous posts about this (why didn't they do this, that, etc). Never assume a guilty verdict. Always assume a NG verdict and drive home till the end to get the best possible outcome.

I agree. I thought the prosecution blew it.

Actually, I thought JB did an admirable job for CA. Judge Perry, in the beginning, had an obvious dislike and distain for JB. "Yes, Mr. Baezzzzzzz". However, someone must have said something to him because that contempt stopped later on.

As much as I liked JA, his actions at the table (That we couldn't see but the jury could) when he laughed and scoffed at JB were juvenile and unprofessional. I can't help but think that after awhile, the jury felt sorry for JB.

The good Dr. who testified for the prosecution regarding the smells from the trunk, was way over the top. I had a hard time believing him after awhile. And the defense's swimsuit theory was a good one.

The state went for too much in their charges against CA. I too thought it may have been a swimming accident......CA was busy on the phone when she should have been watching her daughter and Caylee subsequently drowned. Especially with the flurry of phone calls from CA to her parents around the time the drowning may have occurred was strange. (And she was never able to connect with either parent). Things may have turned out differently had she been able to make contact with either parent.

Allowing the prosecution to transpose Caylee's face behind the duct tape was highly prejudicial.
I'm surprised the prosecution was allowed to do that. And I think, on appeal, that would have been front and center.

The person who came up with GA
sexually abusing his daughter was "brilliant", I hate to say. It sure took the focus off CA and put it squarely on GA. My brother, who lives in a different state and who wasn't all that familiar with the case or the people in it, thought GA was pure evil. Yep, the focus became about
GA there at the end.

In closing arguements, MC or is it CM, CA's big-time lawyer from Orlando, gave a "rousing speech" about reasonable doubt.
If I didn't know it was a way to confuse the jury, I too may have been riveted. (And given CA the benefit of the doubt.)

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[LetThemEatCake]

I agree with everything on this thread, but SheRa got to the root cause. The jury just did not believe. While there were many reasons for this, they are variations of the following:

1. The Prosecution could not prove chloroform death beyond a reasonable doubt. Even with the foolproof suffocation search, juries expect solid evidence here. Did they not get it.

So what?? You don't need cause of death to prove first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury were mentally challenged.

 

[jkly]

I agree with everything on this thread, but SheRa got to the root cause. The jury just did not believe. While there were many reasons for this, they are variations of the following:

1. The Prosecution could not prove chloroform death beyond a reasonable doubt. Even with the foolproof suffocation search, juries expect solid evidence here. Did they not get it.

2. The Prosecutors did emphasize KC's lifestyle sufficiently. In a circumstantial case, this is critical. Was she the type of person who would do this? What timeline of events led to the girl's murder?

3. Cindy and George cover for Cindy and were allowed to by LE. She is free mostly because of the evidence they destroyed. The lies they told under oath.

IMHO, the prosecution failed. They didn't work hard.

>> They needed to anticipate the Anthonys would act as hostile witnesses and shown this clearly. Openly questioning their answers and motives.


>> The prosecution needed to show why the timeline was critical, given the circumstantial, tampered nature of the case.


>> The pool story should have been addressed on rebuttal, complete with timeline. For example, if Caylee died, why was KC happy partying. Wouldn't she be grieving, given what a good mother she was? Step-by-step why it made no sense.

MOO

1) The prosecution did not need to prove chloroform death. They needed to prove that A) Caylee Anthony was dead and B) Casey Anthony was responsible for the death of Caylee Anthony.

Caylee Anthony was obviously dead.

The second part is a little trickier, but a jury still could have easily convicted on it.

There was zero evidence supporting Casey's story that George was there and disposed of the body, so it makes sense to ignore that, especially since Casey had already changed her story twice.

Someone put Caylee in garbage bags and dumped her in the woods. Caylee did not do that herself. The evidence in Casey's car and Casey's behavior after the fact points towards Casey being the one who dumped her in the woods.

So Caylee either died by accident or Casey willfully murdered her.

A) If Caylee died by accident, Casey failed to call the police or notify anyone of her daughter's death for a month.Then there's the fact that after this horrible accident, she callously dumped her daughter's body in the woods for the animals to chew on. That's manslaughter/negligence. That is the reason Casey would not admit to dumping the body.

B) If Caylee died because Casey overdosed her on something, that's first degree felony murder. She was already committing a felony and Caylee died during the course of it.

C) If Casey murdered her intentionally, coupled with the searches, that's first degree murder.

Cause of death isn't required to convict someone of murder.

2) I agree. A lot of the more prejudicial stuff was kept out to ensure that "Casey got a fair trial." Unfortunately, all the jury was really interested in was the prejudicial stuff, they ignored the forensic evidence and the timeline.

3) You made some really good points. The police went way too easy on her parents, especially Cindy who constantly tried to control the investigation by wrapping herself from head to toe in what amounted to a victim burka (too much emotional fabric to describe it as a victim mantle) and attempted to manipulate the police via endless theatrics and the "I'm a hostile grieving grandmother" routine.

I agree that the Prosecution made some whoppers. I still can't believe that they somehow overlooked the entire Firefox computer history along with that "fool-proof suffication" search that was made the day Caylee died.

The timeline on June 16 absolutely should have been hammered to death. They could have debunked a lot of Casey's nonsense just by going over the internet search history on that day and saying "Oh look, Casey is now googling uniforms for the shot girls at Fusion, is that before or after the drowning?" They could have eviscerated the defense for their overall vagueness regarding the window of time during which Caylee allegedly "drowned."

But...I still feel that that the jury met them way more than halfway when it comes to contributing to this failure. The jury seemed to think that they were forbidden to consider Casey's behavior/suspicious actions and the jury seemed to think they didn't even need to deliberate since there was no concrete cause of death.

 

[jkly]

Actually, I thought JB did an admirable job for CA. Judge Perry, in the beginning, had an obvious dislike and distain for JB. "Yes, Mr. Baezzzzzzz". However, someone must have said something to him because that contempt stopped later on.

Who doesn't have disdain for Baez? IMO, Baez kept making ridiculous mistakes and he was shady as heck.

As much as I liked JA, his actions at the table (That we couldn't see but the jury could) when he laughed and scoffed at JB were juvenile and unprofessional. I can't help but think that after awhile, the jury felt sorry for JB.

I doubt it. That jury seemed somewhat self absorbed and lacking in empathy. One of them was quoted as saying that "Ashton was putting them all to sleep" with all his boring evidence.

The good Dr. who testified for the prosecution regarding the smells from the trunk, was way over the top. I had a hard time believing him after awhile. And the defense's swimsuit theory was a good one.

It's possible that the jury decided it made more sense to ignore the decomposition expert and go with the defense's swimsuit theory, but I'm leaning towards thinking they just weren't paying attention again.

The state went for too much in their charges against CA. I too thought it may have been a swimming accident......CA was busy on the phone when she should have been watching her daughter and Caylee subsequently drowned. Especially with the flurry of phone calls from CA to her parents around the time the drowning may have occurred was strange. (And she was never able to connect with either parent). Things may have turned out differently had she been able to make contact with either parent.

According to Casey's phone records, she had a habit of making flurries of calls to her parents, probably to see if they could babysit her child.

Allowing the prosecution to transpose Caylee's face behind the duct tape was highly prejudicial.

I somewhat agree. Their goal, however, was to demonstrate the duct tape in relation to Caylee's face and how a piece of it could block Caylee's airways.

The person who came up with GA
sexually abusing his daughter was "brilliant", I hate to say. It sure took the focus off CA and put it squarely on GA. My brother, who lives in a different state and who wasn't all that familiar with the case or the people in it, thought GA was pure evil. Yep, the focus became about GA there at the end.

I don't know if brilliant is the word I would use to describe that strategy.

 

[Karinna]

The way they portrayed CA in the courtroom as looking small & insignificant, and what a lot of the other stuff you guys mention too. And the lies that were permitted too, that were unsubstantiated

 

[Razz]

I'm not sure but is Jose Biez representing Aaron Hernandez?! Hey, if he can get CA off why not Aaron too.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[LetThemEatCake]

All we need to know that the jury was a bunch of imbeciles is the fact that they didn't convict her for any of the other lesser charges that she was charged with and that she was undoubtedly guilty of.

 

[Karinna]

All we need to know that the jury was a bunch of imbeciles is the fact that they didn't convict her for any of the other lesser charges that she was charged with and that she was undoubtedly guilty of.

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?

 

[Tugela]

So what?? You don't need cause of death to prove first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury were mentally challenged.

You do however need to prove that the accused actually did it. That the state failed to prove.

 

[Tugela]

Who doesn't have disdain for Baez? IMO, Baez kept making ridiculous mistakes and he was shady as heck.



I doubt it. That jury seemed somewhat self absorbed and lacking in empathy. One of them was quoted as saying that "Ashton was putting them all to sleep" with all his boring evidence.



It's possible that the jury decided it made more sense to ignore the decomposition expert and go with the defense's swimsuit theory, but I'm leaning towards thinking they just weren't paying attention again.



According to Casey's phone records, she had a habit of making flurries of calls to her parents, probably to see if they could babysit her child.



I somewhat agree. Their goal, however, was to demonstrate the duct tape in relation to Caylee's face and how a piece of it could block Caylee's airways.


I don't know if brilliant is the word I would use to describe that strategy.

The problem with the "decomposition expert" is that they were making hypothesis without proving that what they were claiming was correct. Basically they were doing a bunch of tests without doing controls to show that whatever they were measuring really did support their hypothesis.

The duct tape proves nothing. It could have been placed there post-mortem as part of the wrappings to conceal and contain the body, or it may have slipped there incidentally having being somewhere else in the package prior to the body decomposing. The mere fact that it was present does not mean that it was used to suffocated Caylee. That would have been seen by the jury as common sense, and the attempts by the prosecution to suggest that (and again, with the supposed chloroform connection) would have been perceived as clutching at straws. That did not help their case.

I think a jury wants to see a compelling case before they do something as serious as convicting someone of murder, and the problem for the prosecution was that they did not have a compelling case. They had suspicion, but that was all. You could equally well make an alternative argument for how Caylee died, and that would have been just as plausible. Just saying that Anthony was an irresponsible mom is not enough. That was why the case ended in acquittal. As to why the state proceeded with prosecution when they clearly did not have a case for the charges they were making is up for debate, but no doubt public pressure and the high profile of the case played a large role in that.

 

[Karinna]

I think the biggest tell in this case for most people was that CA did not say anything to anyone about her daughter being missing. Caylee had not been seen for 31 days and then it was Cindy that called it in. If it was up to Casey she would never have notified authorities about Caylee IMO, and someone else would have to have done that.
If your child genuinely went missing and you were innocent, you would straightaway call 911.
If any of the jurors had an ounce of common sense wouldn't that tell any normal rational thinking person that something was horribly wrong in that situation, and that the mother was hiding something so awful that she couldn't tell anyone? Because even if a child has a fatal accident you would still call 911. Unless of course you contributed to your own child's death in some way.

 

[Razz]

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

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

 

[LetThemEatCake]

You do however need to prove that the accused actually did it. That the state failed to prove.

How?? the circumstantial evidence proved that, the defense wasn't able to counteract that. The biggest hurdle of the prosecution was ******* Cindy Anthony perjuring herself and saying that she was in the house at times were she wasn't, that could have made a mentally challenged jury doubt, but as far as the prosecution, they proved their case.

 

[LetThemEatCake]

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

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk

Yes it was.

 

[LaneGirl]

I think a mistake was having her seating directly across from the jury. It humanized her too much I think in their eyes. Hard to sentence someone to death when you looking directly at them all the time.

Smart move on the defense side though. More defense should use it to see if that makes a difference.

And asking for the death penalty may have been a mistake.

MOO

 

[Razz]

Yes it was.

I think that was part of it too. They didn't want to sentence this woman- child to death. That's a huge responsibility.

Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk