The jury deserve to be thanked for their service in this trial. They tried a case which was difficult, both emotionally and mentally, where both sides marshaled a substantial amount of argument and evidence.
They made significant personal sacrifices to give both the Defendant and the State of Florida a fair trial with the intent that it be free from pre-trial prejudice, partiality, or undue influence from the media but be based upon the admissable evidence presented at trial, the arguments of counsel and the law as given by the Judge.
Their sacrifices were vital to ensure a fair trial in accordance with the law of Florida, which is based upon the law and customs used to try serious criminal cases worldwide, in those countries which use a common law legal system. This is widely considered to be one of the best and certainly is one of the most tried and tested systems of justice which has stood the test of time, being in use for centuries worldwide.
The jury seemed to have listened to the evidence, arguments and law and done their level best to arrive at a fair and just verdict based upon the facts and law whilst hold the prosecution to their burden of proof, which, as always, is Beyond and to the Exclusion of Reasonable Doubt.
The juror interviews thus far indicate that they realised that this case had the potential to be emotional but set aside those emotions and looked at the facts and evidence. They reached a verdict which some were uncomfortable with but was fair and in accordance with the felt: they did not have unwavering conviction of the Defendant's guilt as to to her guilt on the three main counts. They realised that it was simply insufficient that they may have felt the KC "might have" or even "probably" killed her daughter.
The jury seems to have convicted Casey Anthony of those crimes where they find the prosecution had proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted her of the ones where she had not. This was not a case where they gave a straight-acquittal or straight conviction, without reference to the evidence and law.
In short this jury should be thanked for their service; a service which is necessary to ensure that individuals are ensured their right to trial by jury, a right which is recognized, to some extent, throughout almost all common law countries world wide.
Their is no basis to criticise this jury and the criticism I have seen so far is unfounded and in some instances relies upon wild and absurd speculation.
I had been meaning to post on this thread earlier but never got round to it. However, I earlier took got into an exchange with another poster an another thread when I took issue with their baseless criticism of this jury and their verdict. I think this extract from my post sums up the position nicely:
"TBH, I am only stating my opinion on matters which I find really wrong: In particular criticizing a jury who took 6 weeks out of their lives in order to do their civic duty and for what? $1200 to $1300, a load of criticism, shunning from their community, hate-filled commentary and indeed, in some instances threats of violence (ref: Judge Perry "fillet comments").
I am not aware of any post threatening violence against any of the jurors on this forum,any such post I am sure would be promptly removed, but the the insults being levelled against the jurors on this forum, especially in the jurors thread, are outrageous and absurd.
This jury did not ask to be on the jury, they were called by summons. They did their civic duty for no to little reward. Publicity? Perhaps, but at least one juror has stated that he doesn't want his name released but just to protect his family. Although, I would not blame the jurors if they accept one of the media deals being offered. In any event, they are entitled to be left alone and get on without baseless criticism."
