The evidence failed Caylee, not the Jury.

[Never4GetCaylee]

Juror # 3 says that prosecution "Didn't even paint a picture for me to consider." She also said "How can you punish someone when you don't know what they did?" (cause of death) She also said how the person died is an important question and they didn't answer it. Also she didn't believe a thing George said because he was evasive and didn't give straight answers to either the prosecution or the defense.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

I saw a documentary on TV about a case where a young man (I think he may have been around 18) shot his grandfather while he slept. The jury sympathized with the kid because the grandfather had been physically and verbally abusing him, his sister, their mother and their grandmother all their lives. The kid finally snapped one night and shot the gf. Then he stole money from his wallet and took off.

The jury convicted him on the least serious charge they could. I do not recall offhand what that was, but it carried a life sentence. However, the jury DID NOT KNOW at the time of deliberations that their verdict could result in a life sentence for this kid. The verdict was because they felt the environment played a major role in the boy's decision to take a life but still they believed he should not go scot free.

After the trial the jurors were horrified to hear the young man had been given a life sentence. They said had they known that was a possibility, they never would have given the guilty verdict that they did.

Like it or not fellow Americans....the potential penalty does come into play during deliberations and IMO it does more often than not.

I do think that the potential penalty should come into play during deliberations. Possibly the jury needs more flexibility when making these kinds of decisions.

 

[butwhatif?]

I definitely don't want to bash the jurors. I have been a juror on a criminal case and I know how difficult it is. People have a vast difference of opinions and it takes time to consider every single person's point of view. My main grievance with them is two things:

1. If they were so passionate about the fact that she probably was not totally innocent and weren't sold on the evidence... then slow down, take the time to go through all of the evidence again, write down notes/graphs/whatever it takes and discuss amongst the group. What was the freaking rush?!!

2. They were negligent to not at least hold her accountable for aggravated child abuse. She admitted to be present when her child died, accident or not, and the child ended up triple bagged with duct tape and decomposed in a swamp. These are facts!! She never called 911 and she lied about it for 3 years. If that's not aggravated child abuse then I am clearly living on the wrong planet.

In the juries defense, we have 8 threads here about theories of how Caylee died.
With all the members here who believe that Casey killed Caylee, there's no single theory that everyone agreed fit with the evidence.

We know far more about the case than them, yet there was, and still is debate about exactly how Caylee died.

Sure, the tape seems to point to premeditation , but even that gets muddied by the fact that Caylee and the tape were exposed to the elements for too many months.
If we accept the SA's very valid point that there were no fingerprint, DNA or trace evidence recovered from the tape because of the elements, then it's not a huge leap to believe that the tape became dislodged from the bag, where it's purpose was to seal it's contents. (not saying that's what happened, but that it wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt for me- or the jury it seems).
And let's not forget they actually got to see the photos of the skull and tape. We didn't.

At least one juror is saying that since they couldn't prove HOW Caylee died, they were unable to find her guilty of any of the major counts.

It makes sense to me.. If the evidence didn't prove to them beyond a reasonable doubt HOW Caylee died, how could they agree on a lesser charge just because their 'gut' told them she was guilty of 'something'?

The state didn't prove murder to them. The DT didn't prove an accidental death to them.

IMO, that's why it didn't take them long to deliberate. If they can't get past HOW caylee died, what difference would smelling the decomp make? What difference would it make to go over all the decomp/ entomology evidence?

Unfortunately Caylee wasn't found sooner, even though she should have been. If she had, I think the verdict could have been very different.
JMO

 

[Schu7]

The evidence did not fail Aston. He failed the evidence. So the jurors are a brain lot? The prosecution did not tailor a case towards that fact. To win the case, Aston and company would have to gone with the truth. The escalating fight between Cindy and Casey. Over the massive long tern and on going stolen money problems and no job issues Cindy suspected or knew. George was an outsider to any decisions in this house. The big fight between Cindy and Casey was they key and trigger for the death of Caylee. Aston should have left out a certain how the murder was committed. But gone after the lying "grieving grand-mother Cindy. Then it would be a simple mental fit to a simple minded jury. Casey's time of living free on her lies was over. In rage of desperation she killed Caylee to make Cindy feel as horrible as humanly possible. As for the 31 days? Casey wanted to party well she could. The "timer55" MySpace signature was just how far Casey thought she might get away with it until caught. A goal to make. Casey had no money. No hope of surviving somewhere else. So she did not run. But stayed to party well she could. It is that simple. So simple to understand evidence.

The why the prosecution could not go this route? Easy. They did not want all of the States watch them tear up and destroy a supposed grieving grand-mother. Little did they know at the start, that Cindy is almost as evil as Casey. All the endless scientific evidence only bored the jurors. And made it clear there was no certain cause of death. Computer searches of 1 or 84 items for chloroform. A trunk stain that might or might not be there. A smell that might or might not be there. A medical autopsy that showed nothing conclusive. Those are facts. Facts that took endless time that lost these simple minded jurors.

Now Aston failed on the cell phone evidence big time! The cell phone records show that Cindy never made a call to George about the swimming pool latter being down that day. Yet that key possible accident fact was left untouched in rebuttal. The evidence was simple and solid that it was another big Cindy lie. Aston let that go unchallenged. The jury would have taken great note of that lie and had a belief in cell phone records. Evidence they could understand.

And as for witnesses? Heck so many Anthony people lied, who could believe any statement as a solid fact. Leaving the charge of child neglect as the only possible way to go for the prosecution. Which they did not. The murder #1 charge was a huge mistake. A mistake the jurors took full note of. If the main State charge is proven legally completely unattainable, then the other charges brought by the State might be wrong as well. A simple minded conclusion the jurors did not miss. What we have here is a sad case where the level of the prosecutions insight into the jurors they had to sell there case to was misguided at best. Simple minded foolish in all probability. And the prosecutions level of incompetence was matched by the juror members. A simple point of truth here.

I find it strange that the general belief is the prosecution did a great job. They lost the case. How is losing the case doing a great job? Even with a limited jury pool to work with, they even missed that important point. Aston let JB beat him. That is not the jurors fault. That rests with him. The evidence did not fail Aston. He failed the evidence. IMO

 

[Bullwinkle]

Certainly the outcome of this trial could have been different if Caylee's remains been discovered sooner. Here are some random thoughts, not necessarily in order.

Obviously, the circumstantial evidence in this case was strong and convincing. I hold the jurors, and the court system as it exists, responsible for the outcome of this trial.

If you know in your heart that someone is guilty, and that belief is based on a substantial amount of circumstantial evidence, and if that evidence points nowhere else, if after some discussion you find that you can't get everyone to agree with you, that is no excuse to cave in and walk away, for any reason. You have to stand up for what you believe in. Otherwise, regardless of what the system requires, you in my opinion are not qualified to be a juror.

It's ridiculous to have the outcome of a case like this left in the hands of people who cannot possibly understand certain key aspects of the evidence. It has been suggested that juries should be made up of former judges, or perhaps detectives. Others have suggested that potential jurors should be given written exams to qualify. (And the verdicts in this case suggest that a second exam could well have been given before the jurors began their deliberations.)

Requiring a group of people from different backgrounds, with different beliefs, different values, and different biases to unanimously agree on anything is unreasonable. That almost never happens anywhere else in life, so why make it a requirement in court? Majority rules works fine pretty much everywhere else. That should be enough. An example: "In England and Wales, since the Juries Act 1974, a verdict may be returned where not more than 2 jurors dissent." (Reference here)

The practice of either side being permitted to use paid witnesses who will say whatever someone wants needs to be examined if not done away with.

Defense attorneys and witnesses who slander people in opening statements or at any time in court or elsewhere need to be held fully accountable, as should everyone, with no exceptions, who is proven to having lied in court.

In principle, putting people under oath used to make sense, but in practice it's pretty much pointless, because so many people lie or exaggerate in court, and most of the time spent in courtrooms is devoted to trying to figure out who's actually being honest. There needs to be a more-reliable, more-efficient method of establishing who is telling the truth and who isn't. At some point, far in the future, technology will play a role in this, because it has to.

People can go on and on all they want about reasonable doubt and the US constitution and the rights of Americans and Blackstone's formulation that says "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". The court system badly needs to be improved. It's too inefficient and it's just plain outdated.

 

[jjenny]

Well nobody knows how Laci Peterson died either. Yet Scott Peterson is sitting on death row. I think we have to consider that a jury might give a benefit of a doubt to a young pretty female, they the might not have given if Casey was a male.

 

[AZlawyer]

The evidence did not fail Aston. He failed the evidence. So the jurors are a brain lot? The prosecution did not tailor a case towards that fact. To win the case, Aston and company would have to gone with the truth. The escalating fight between Cindy and Casey. Over the massive long tern and on going stolen money problems and no job issues Cindy suspected or knew. George was an outsider to any decisions in this house. The big fight between Cindy and Casey was they key and trigger for the death of Caylee. Aston should have left out a certain how the murder was committed. But gone after the lying "grieving grand-mother Cindy. Then it would be a simple mental fit to a simple minded jury. Casey's time of living free on her lies was over. In rage of desperation she killed Caylee to make Cindy feel as horrible as humanly possible. As for the 31 days? Casey wanted to party well she could. The "timer55" MySpace signature was just how far Casey thought she might get away with it until caught. A goal to make. Casey had no money. No hope of surviving somewhere else. So she did not run. But stayed to party well she could. It is that simple. So simple to understand evidence.

The why the prosecution could not go this route? Easy. They did not want all of the States watch them tear up and destroy a supposed grieving grand-mother. Little did they know at the start, that Cindy is almost as evil as Casey. All the endless scientific evidence only bored the jurors. And made it clear there was no certain cause of death. Computer searches of 1 or 84 items for chloroform. A trunk stain that might or might not be there. A smell that might or might not be there. A medical autopsy that showed nothing conclusive. Those are facts. Facts that took endless time that lost these simple minded jurors.

Now Aston failed on the cell phone evidence big time! The cell phone records show that Cindy never made a call to George about the swimming pool latter being down that day. Yet that key possible accident fact was left untouched in rebuttal. The evidence was simple and solid that it was another big Cindy lie. Aston let that go unchallenged. The jury would have taken great note of that lie and had a belief in cell phone records. Evidence they could understand.

And as for witnesses? Heck so many Anthony people lied, who could believe any statement as a solid fact. Leaving the charge of child neglect as the only possible way to go for the prosecution. Which they did not. The murder #1 charge was a huge mistake. A mistake the jurors took full note of. If the main State charge is proven legally completely unattainable, then the other charges brought by the State might be wrong as well. A simple minded conclusion the jurors did not miss. What we have here is a sad case where the level of the prosecutions insight into the jurors they had to sell there case to was misguided at best. Simple minded foolish in all probability. And the prosecutions level of incompetence was matched by the juror members. A simple point of truth here.

I find it strange that the general belief is the prosecution did a great job. They lost the case. How is losing the case doing a great job? Even with a limited jury pool to work with, they even missed that important point. Aston let JB beat him. That is not the jurors fault. That rests with him. The evidence did not fail Aston. He failed the evidence. IMO

The prosecution had zero evidence of "the fight." We don't even know if it happened. There were no witnesses willing to admit to it. The "neighbor" witness appears to have been a rumor.

The stealing from CA/grandparents was irrelevant as a legal matter unless the prosecution had some basis for suggesting that it connected to Casey's motive.

The other things you mention in your first paragraph, as well as Cindy's cell phone records, were raised by the prosecution IIRC, except for Casey wanting to make Cindy feel bad (which is unsupported by the evidence as Casey was avoiding Cindy finding out).

The scientific evidence was the only thing the State had to go on that could possibly support a conviction through the appellate process.

The prosecution did an incredible job. The evidence was never "slam-dunk," certainly not for 1st degree murder, but there is nothing wrong with charging someone with 1st degree murder when there is duct tape found on the skull of a baby thrown out in the woods and that person was last seen with the baby and has nothing but lies to explain what happened.

 

[magic-cat]

The evidence did not fail. The jurors failed to even LOOK at the evidence and hash it out. 11 hours was not enough time to deal with 2 months worth of evidence and testimony. They threw in the towel. They shirked their duty to examine the evidence. It was there if they had a mind to entertain it.

 

[affinity]

I was a juror in a murder trial in the mid 80's. I'll always remember what the Judge said to us when he instructed us (and I don't know if he was "wrong" to say this or not, I just remember that his words helped us understand our job. He read everything and then at the end said "remember reasonable doubt does not mean NO doubt. Use your common sense" I wish Judge Perry could have said this to the jury. I have a feeling that a strong personality convinced the rest that if they had any doubt, no matter how small, they had to find her not guilty.

 

[magic-cat]

They keep saying there was no cause of death but there was: homocide by undetermined means. The Medical Examiner ruled it a homocide. Did the jury miss that too?

 

[AZlawyer]

I was a juror in a murder trial in the mid 80's. I'll always remember what the Judge said to us when he instructed us (and I don't know if he was "wrong" to say this or not, I just remember that his words helped us understand our job. He read everything and then at the end said "remember reasonable doubt does not mean NO doubt. Use your common sense" I wish Judge Perry could have said this to the jury. I have a feeling that a strong personality convinced the rest that if they had any doubt, no matter how small, they had to find her not guilty.

The jury instruction on reasonable doubt included this sentence:

A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt.

 

[Whisperer]

Well nobody knows how Laci Peterson died either. Yet Scott Peterson is sitting on death row. I think we have to consider that a jury might give a benefit of a doubt to a young pretty female, they the might not have given if Casey was a male.

you could have a point because some young men want to have ICA as a bedmate. One of them even spent six days there for lust, imo.

I was there in San Mateo and Scott Peterson was a very good-looking man. The difference is the level of intelligence and thought processes that this jury had. It was also taken out of Modesto and brought here....where people are very much of a professional background...many lean toward the sciences here but that was not required with SP case. What was required were people with minds that leaned toward the logic and did not base decisions on emotion. Whenever you have an emotion based group of people, many times the results will be like yesterday's.

There was method in Baez's choice of juror as he had help in selection. He wanted it in Miami where it would be a slam dunk for him. He got lucky with pinellas. I had no idea till today of their demographics....

 

[AZlawyer]

They keep saying there was no cause of death but there was: homocide by undetermined means. The Medical Examiner ruled it a homocide. Did the jury miss that too?

The medical examiner's opinion is not evidence of homicide. What the jurors probably mean is that there was no evidence that Casey purchased, made or used chloroform on Caylee, and no evidence that the duct tape was actually (rather than potentially) covering the mouth and nose prior to death.

This was not a stupid decision by the jury. I thought they would go for agg. manslaughter of a child, but the fact that they didn't doesn't mean they were stupid or incompetent or paid off, etc.

 

[Whisperer]

If I start to express my research on how juries can be selected to your advantage, I will get in trouble again. Religion, sex and politics are definitely part of the process mixed in with ethnicity and you can pretty much see how they lean.

In this case, I think SA thought whoever was picked surely would see the facts. Intelligent people like JO and LDB seem to give the benefit of the doubt to most...big mistake.

 

[Whisperer]

The medical examiner's opinion is not evidence of homicide. What the jurors probably mean is that there was no evidence that Casey purchased, made or used chloroform on Caylee, and no evidence that the duct tape was actually (rather than potentially) covering the mouth and nose prior to death.

This was not a stupid decision by the jury. I thought they would go for agg. manslaughter of a child, but the fact that they didn't doesn't mean they were stupid or incompetent or paid off, etc.

AZ..are you sure you're not a chemist? When I list the four manners of death, I get homicide as the conclusion.

1. accident
2. suicide
3. natural causes
4. homicide

Since no accident was reported and no evidence was shown to prove it.It is ruled out. We know she didn't kill herself and we know she didn't die of natural causes.

Now, there was testimony that the mandible separates from the skull. This didn't happen because the tape held it there and kept it jointed. That tells me that the duct tape was on the face since it was sitting on the mandible (jaw).

The logical and only conclusion is homicide by undetermined means. Since the tape was from the home, that generally means that an Anthony was involved in placing the tape on Caylee. Now which A would that be?...mmm. Who was the main one who didn't happen to care and didn't happen to report it. That is murder. We don't need to know how she did it or why she did it but we sure as ell know casey marie anthony was happy about it. Combined with Caylee's hair in her trunk and decomp occuring there. Tell me what the heck these morons missed.

 

[Whisperer]

AZ...what kind of flack would HHJP face if he gave ICA maximum sentences on all four charges and made them consecutively. I am sure CM is ready for this quoting zillions of cases where the judge ran concurrently. BUT doesn't the judge have the power to judge and sentence the way he wants within the parameters of the law w/o suffering surmounting problems from these gnat-like defense flies?

 

[Nova24]

Listening to the jurors that have spoken so far they totally ignored the evidence. Russ says he doesn't even think she was in the trunk. He wasn't even concerned about the hair with a deathband. I don't get the feeling they listened all that much to the State. I think the evidence was just too hard for many of them to comprehend.

Accident however is easy. #3 admits the lying and 31 days "looks bad" and Russ just calls it "bizarre." Neither were all that worried about all the lies and commulative evidence but I don't know if they really could connect the dots intellectually. They were played like fiddles and I do think one day many will see it and regret it but it will be too late to change it. You'd think one of them might think that someone that lies constantly could be lying again about a drowning and setting her dad up but apparently not. Russ thinks they turned an accident into a murder. That just defies logic at best.

I also don't think they understood RD versus no doubt or that punishment wasn't their job but that of the judge. They wanted COD but didn't seem to understand that couldn't happen here due to the body being so decomposed.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ..are you sure you're not a chemist? When I list the four manners of death, I get homicide as the conclusion.

1. accident
2. suicide
3. natural causes
4. homicide

Since no accident was reported and no evidence was shown to prove it.It is ruled out. We know she didn't kill herself and we know she didn't die of natural causes.

Now, there was testimony that the mandible separates from the skull. This didn't happen because the tape held it there and kept it jointed. That tells me that the duct tape was on the face since it was sitting on the mandible (jaw).

The logical and only conclusion is homicide by undetermined means. Since the tape was from the home, that generally means that an Anthony was involved in placing the tape on Caylee. Now which A would that be?...mmm. Who was the main one who didn't happen to care and didn't happen to report it. That is murder. We don't need to know how she did it or why she did it but we sure as ell know casey marie anthony was happy about it. Combined with Caylee's hair in her trunk and decomp occuring there. Tell me what the heck these morons missed.

I agree; the evidence leads me to conclude that the cause of death was homicide (by Casey) as well. But I think it is OK for other people to say that was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps it was an "accident" not quite amounting to manslaughter, with an incredibly stupid cover-up due to fear of prosecution for manslaughter. Perhaps that would have been the right thing for me to say if I were on the jury, as I must admit that I have entertained the accident theories many times and harbored some doubt at those times. Perhaps if I were on the jury and voted for 1st degree murder, it would be because I strongly believe Casey to be guilty of murder, and not because I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is a very personal decision and a huge responsibility. I don't think we should be maligning these jurors, even though I do think Casey got away with murder and it makes me sick. :sick:

I sure as heck hoped the evidence would show that the duct tape was clearly placed over the nose and mouth and was there prior to death. I wish we could have seen the photos more clearly, but from what I saw they did not look like what we all imagined they would look like.

 

[AZlawyer]

AZ...what kind of flack would HHJP face if he gave ICA maximum sentences on all four charges and made them consecutively. I am sure CM is ready for this quoting zillions of cases where the judge ran concurrently. BUT doesn't the judge have the power to judge and sentence the way he wants within the parameters of the law w/o suffering surmounting problems from these gnat-like defense flies?

He could probably get away with doing it, considering the fact that her lies to LE caused thousands of people to give up their time and money trying to track down her baby daughter.

 

[Whisperer]

Listening to the jurors that have spoken so far they totally ignored the evidence. Russ says he doesn't even think she was in the trunk. He wasn't even concerned about the hair with a deathband. I don't get the feeling they listened all that much to the State. I think the evidence was just too hard for many of them to comprehend.

Accident however is easy. #3 admits the lying and 31 days "looks bad" and Russ just calls it "bizarre." Neither were all that worried about all the lies and commulative evidence but I don't know if they really could connect the dots intellectually. They were played like fiddles and I do think one day many will see it and regret it but it will be too late to change it. You'd think one of them might think that someone that lies constantly could be lying again about a drowing and setting her dad up but apparently not. Russ thinks they turned an accident into a murder. That just defies logic at best.

Tell me about it. The State wound down with the video's of ICA flyin F-bombs and not caring about Caylee. Did they simply turn out? It appears they only listened to Baez as they used his words and sayings. They can't quote anything of the SA's words...very telling.

Mr. Brillianceis on now..the alternate juror who stumble over himself.