The evidence failed Caylee, not the Jury.

[burbqueen]

exactly ehough, the jurors comments needs the focus. Not the evidence of how we saw it, but how the juror saw things. What the Alternate juror said yesterday spoke volumes to me. He focused on piece of the case that were DT theories and speculation but just disregarded evidence, witnesses and experts from the PT. I am kinda starting to believe that the jurors really didnt like Ashton and felt Baez was the underdog maybe.

I'm not saying anything was wrong with the jury selection or who they selected. There is some sort of dynamic in play here and I'm not sure what it is. I cannot say the state failed in their burden of proof cause according to the Alternate's comments they were focusing on GA. So even if there were fingerprints on the duct tape of DNA in the trunk I still think the jury may have been hung up on when and how caylee was killed.

 

[cloud9]

The Jury:

EPIC FAIL!!!

 

[JDB]

Whoa! What about the evidence? Is it not factual evidence that the child died - had duct tape over her face, was placed into garbage bags and hidden in a swamp? Plus other evidence -

staying away from home 31 days
telling friends Caylee was with nanny or grandparents
telling Cindy Caylee was with nanny
telling LE nanny took Caylee
decomp in car

... and then when Jose gets up and said Caylee drown I wondered WHY KC let people search for her, why she made statements about looking for her once she was out on bail, why she claimed she wanted to find Caylee, why she claimed she spoke to Caylee on the phone 'just that day', etc etc etc.

Are you forgetting anything stated in opening statements is not evidence? And since Casey never took the stand all her lies could be considered hearsay. Honest I know she got off with murder an I am not happy at all . But it is time to move on. This is another OJ . A DJ I heard this mornig made a remark this morning " Can you imgaine what Scott Peterson is saying now" How come i could not have had that Jury?

 

[Drama Queen]

I think that the jury did the job that they were asked to do. Do I agree with the decision...nope! It is possible that they took reasonable doubt to mean beyond a shadow of doubt? The facts are the facts. It bothers me that they did not ask to review one document or peice of evidence. But...this is our justice system and I am proud to be an Amercian. The two don't always agree with me but I would not trade it.
Caylee...rest in peace. You may be gone but you will never be forgotten.

 

[evelyn24]

I think you are just outnumbered in your opinion. Noone is making threats to the jurors.

ITA!
I didn't see ONE post threatening this jury or wishing them harm.

 

[cluciano63]

If the jury took a vote as soon as they began deliberating and they all agreed on "Not Guilty" what were they supposed to do? Sit in that room for days trying to convince themselves that she was guilty? Most people would have been thrilled if all 12 voted "guilty" the first time around and marched right back out and said so.

The state stressed using common sense...maybe they should have placed more stress on using the evidence, and explaining that reasonable doubt did not mean all doubt. They blew off JB all through the trial, acted as though the defense did not even exist and was beneath their notice, IMO. Somehow, JB is the one who seems to have captured the jury.

Personally, I was not overwhelmed by JA or LDB; I thought they were competent and determined to get a death sentence. JB played his role as the guy defending the "underdog" very well. And often, what happens in court is all about who plays their roles best. The jury was not obligated to find for murder or manslaughter or anything at all. I don't believe they willfully decided to free Casey; I think they simply all agreed that they were not convinced by the evidence they heard. I don't believe it is their job to try to convince themselves of guilt, if their initial conclusions were "not guilty."

 

[D96s]

Originally posted by wfgodot
"Common sense" is what hung the witches at Salem Village.

Huh??!? I believe the exact opposite. It was the lack of common sense that hung the witches at Salem Village.

 

[miimaa]

I object to the notion that those of us who saw enough evidence to convict must have been influenced by the media. That is an untrue, unfounded assumption. I know what I saw and heard in the TRIAL. And yes, I see enough. Apparently this is a matter of opinion, but that means it goes both ways. It means those who didn't see enough evidence think the State failed, but conversely those of us who see the evidence feel the jury failed. We are entitled to that. A baby died at the hands of her mother, so no, it isn't time to move on and be grown ups. It is time to mourn that baby and her severe lack of justice.

I'm not saying we all have to agree. I'm saying those of us who are upset are entitled to be. We saw what we saw and it's baffling that the jury didn't. I am personally disheartened by the things the alternate is saying- it shows yes, a lack of common sense as well as a complete disregard for the facts. And please note, I am not saying those who don't see enough evidence are disregarding the facts- I am specifically talking about that juror's comments and how they are not at all logical. It is not simply "there wasn't enough"- he discounted proven facts and testimonies. If I extrapolate his theories to the rest of the jury, it is frightening and frustrating.

Thanks. I don't even have cable to see the talking heads but I thought she would be found guilty for sure. Still stunned over what happened yesterday.

 

[wfgodot]

Huh??!? I believe the exact opposite. It was the lack of common sense that hung the witches at Salem Village.

"Common sense" is always contextual, of its time. And during that time, misfortunes were traced directly to Darker Powers. It was common-sensical, then, to seek out those powers's agents on earth, and to shape "evidence" so as to indict them.

I'd actually taken that post down as it sounded sorta snarky.

 

[Zak]

I understood the technical jargon quite well, but it convinced me of nothing. This case was built on a prosecution scenario, supposedly bolstered by "new", untried "science". That, I believe was a big mistake. Some day this new "science" may be accepted, or not, but it did nothing to convince me, and obviously not the jurors either.

What did they really have - iffy chloroform, iffy duct tape, which I believe was on the bag and got attached to the skull and hair when the same came out of the bag. They had no cause of death, no time of death, no finger prints, no DNA, no witnesses, no nothing to tie Casey or anyone else to the body.

Common sense? The state brought a case against Casey, howled for her life, but they didn't prove it. The jury, and all of us were asked to believe what the state accused her of, but their proof wasn't conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt. End of story - Casey cannot be tried again for murdering her daughter.

My opinion only

BBM

Duct tape put on a garbage bag will not leave that garbage bag until there is no glue left on that duct tape, so how would it then stick to Caylee's hair?

 

[JBounds]

I think we should all agree to disagree. Because it will be forever an endless debate that nobody is gonna win.

 

[D96s]

If the jury took a vote as soon as they began deliberating and they all agreed on "Not Guilty" what were they supposed to do? Sit in that room for days trying to convince themselves that she was guilty? Most people would have been thrilled if all 12 voted "guilty" the first time around and marched right back out and said so.

The state stressed using common sense...maybe they should have placed more stress on using the evidence, and explaining that reasonable doubt did not mean all doubt. They blew off JB all through the trial, acted as though the defense did not even exist and was beneath their notice, IMO. Somehow, JB is the one who seems to have captured the jury.

Personally, I was not overwhelmed by JA or LDB; I thought they were competent and determined to get a death sentence. JB played his role as the guy defending the "underdog" very well. And often, what happens in court is all about who plays their roles best. The jury was not obligated to find for murder or manslaughter or anything at all. I don't believe they willfully decided to free Casey; I think they simply all agreed that they were not convinced by the evidence they heard. I don't believe it is their job to try to convince themselves of guilt, if thier initial conclusions were "not guilty."

JB threw innocent people under the bus, encouraged false testimony (knowingly fought to keep false testimony in). You will recall that the judge denied JBs objection to have Cindy's lies proven - saying, "Trials are about finding the truth". What is sickening to me is that in JBs closing statements, he repeated that sentence at least three times - and maybe more. He is the one who lied, cheated, got people to purjure themselves, etc. and he was hawking truth and a higher moral ground at closing. Sickening.

 

[Baznme]

IMO, this is it in a nutshell.

I cannot understand how they overcharged this case or left anything out. But, that's going to have to be OK for now because there's nothing I can do about it. Frustrating but true.

 

[burbqueen]

If the jury took a vote as soon as they began deliberating and they all agreed on "Not Guilty" what were they supposed to do? Sit in that room for days trying to convince themselves that she was guilty? Most people would have been thrilled if all 12 voted "guilty" the first time around and marched right back out and said so.

The state stressed using common sense...maybe they should have placed more stress on using the evidence, and explaining that reasonable doubt did not mean all doubt. They blew off JB all through the trial, acted as though the defense did not even exist and was beneath their notice, IMO. Somehow, JB is the one who seems to have captured the jury.

Personally, I was not overwhelmed by JA or LDB; I thought they were competent and determined to get a death sentence. JB played his role as the guy defending the "underdog" very well. And often, what happens in court is all about who plays their roles best. The jury was not obligated to find for murder or manslaughter or anything at all. I don't believe they willfully decided to free Casey; I think they simply all agreed that they were not convinced by the evidence they heard. I don't believe it is their job to try to convince themselves of guilt, if their initial conclusions were "not guilty."

With all due respect I think it was the evidence that confused the jurors. I wish I knew where to find the alternate jurors transcript, but they way some sources put it, the jury had too much evidence to consider that was confusing. They chose to focus on the dynamics of the family and all the lies and probably gave up on who was telling the truth instead of letting the evidence speak for it self. I'm not trying to be rude to the jury, but it kinda seem like they got caught up in the sensationalized ellements of this case and the evidence was just boring fodder. But I'm waiting for them to speak.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

I understood the technical jargon quite well, but it convinced me of nothing. This case was built on a prosecution scenario, supposedly bolstered by "new", untried "science". That, I believe was a big mistake. Some day this new "science" may be accepted, or not, but it did nothing to convince me, and obviously not the jurors either.

What did they really have - iffy chloroform, iffy duct tape, which I believe was on the bag and got attached to the skull and hair when the same came out of the bag. They had no cause of death, no time of death, no finger prints, no DNA, no witnesses, no nothing to tie Casey or anyone else to the body.

Common sense? The state brought a case against Casey, howled for her life, but they didn't prove it. The jury, and all of us were asked to believe what the state accused her of, but their proof wasn't conclusive beyond a reasonable doubt. End of story - Casey cannot be tried again for murdering her daughter.

My opinion only

I totally agree with your post.

The evidence was not there. There was no lack of common sense by the jury. The jury viewed the unembellished evidence, and heard from both sides about what this evidence is. The unembellished evidence has been out there for nearly 2 1/2 years via the Sunshine laws. The media chose to totally embellish the evidence that leaned towards guilt, and downplay or ignore the evidence that leaned towards not guilty.
From the moment the press reported 31 days, hundreds of thousands, if not millions were outraged and instantly knew KC was guilty. For many, from that day on there was absolutely nothing that anyone could ever say or do that would change their minds. The media had found a gold mine story, and they took full advantage. When the evidence became available due to the Sunshine law, the media hammered on every bit of evidence that made KC look guilty. The masses were pleased with this, no need to look any further, she is guilty. The best illustration of this is when they found the hypodermic needle in the gatorade bottle. The media had found their Smoking Gun, only this gun wasn't loaded, and to this day many misinformed still believe that this hypo is how KC administered the chloroform to Caylee. Caylee lost her life, and this is tragic. The media took the story of this golden child and made far, far more 'blood money' than KC, the Anthony's, or the DT, or the PT will ever make put together off this tragic story. They will continue to make money off this innocent childs tragic story. Now they will scream outrage, the jury got it wrong, and they will incite the public with stories that try to justify the 3 years of misrepresented truths that they fostered.

For nearly two years I have been posting on this site. I have always tried to show respect to others opinions. I have been in the minority this entire time. I read the docs, the interviews, etc. I posted my opinions and was met with angry disapproval, and many felt I have no common sense at all, simply because they already knew KC was guilty, and anything I said about the evidence was wrong because it did not point to KC's guilt. I was accused of not caring about Caylee, because I have always thought what had happened was a tragic accident. My brand of logic lacks common sense to those who do not want to believe what the unembellished evidence shows. There is no proof of what really happened. None. Only speculation. What any individual chooses to believe is entirely up to them. I may totally disagree with their opinion of what happened, but this is America, and I would die for their right to express that opinion. The disrespect towards our judicial system shown by the masses because of their dissatisfaction with the verdict in this trial is troubling.

Our system works, and it worked very well in this case. The evidence to prove KC guilty of any of the charges other than lying to police simply was not there.

As always my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[billysmom]

No read-backs, no look at pictures and evidence. The jury couldn't wait to get home to fame and fortune!

 

[tragco]

Sorry, the Jury failed Caylee. I expected them to not fall for the defense team smoke and mirrors and to follow the rules. So did the state and the Judge.

The interview that I read about with the alternate juror showed me that they disregarded rules they were given in order to guide them. Opening statements are not evidence. They disregarded that.

They bought it hook, line, and sinker. The defense was allowed to defame two people without one shred of evidence: George Anthony and Roy Kronk. They are allowed to do this in their opening statements; thus the instruction that opening statements are not evidence.

The evidence was there to support at the very least one of the lesser charges.

 

[The Eunice Burns]

I am personally tired of this argument, stated as fact. It is not a fact that there wasn't enough evidence. Hundreds, thousands of people watched the same evidence and felt there was enough to convict her. So no, it isn't a fact that the evidence failed. Common sense failed. Caylee's justice was in the hands of these 12 people and they did not deliver. Absolutely people are going to be upset with them, and for good reason. I understand that some people believe the evidence isn't there. But conversely, some people believe it is, and that's where the frustration lies.

ITA. I'd accept and respect the verdict had the jury deliberated longer and if they had at least asked HHJP if they could review certain evidence. There is no way they could have gone through the evidence thoroughly and come to this verdict. I could accept them rejecting 1st degree murder, but to say that there was not enough evidence to convict her of at least Agg. Manslaughter? I think they missed the State's central point---that nobody makes an accident look like murder. They totally disregarded Dr. G's testimony, among many other things.

And juries do make huge mistakes from time to time. OJ is one example.

I served on a jury.........the young guy chosen to be foreman (poor choice that I voted against) did not even want us go methodically thru the evidence. He just wanted to take a vote and be done with it. I and another juror had to speak up and remind him we had a job to do, and that it required we consider ALL the evidence. It was a much simpler case, involving lesser charges, but still, this guy was a joke.

IMO, juries are not infallible. They get it wrong sometimes. I know that it's over, and that there is no going back for anybody. But to those of us who are so disappointed, the posts and comments that we basically need to *get over it*......... are going to get a strong response. It's our way of trying to make sense out of all this.

MO

 

[burbqueen]

Sorry, the Jury failed Caylee. I expected them to not fall for the defense team smoke and mirrors and to follow the rules. So did the state and the Judge.

The interview that I read about with the alternate juror showed me that they disregarded rules they were given in order to guide them. Opening statements are not evidence. They disregarded that.
They bought it hook, line, and sinker. The defense was allowed to defame two people without one shred of evidence: George Anthony and Roy Kronk. They are allowed to do this in their opening statements; thus the instruction that opening statements are not evidence.

The evidence was there to support at the very least one of the lesser charges.

BBM, thats what I missed. That was the issue too the alternate said that they believed Baez opening statement more. What? So it's not an issue of common sense or even evidence this is something else. Baez won over the jury IMO. Plain and simple. It happens.

 

[Baznme]

BBM within your post.

If the jury took a vote as soon as they began deliberating and they all agreed on "Not Guilty" what were they supposed to do? Sit in that room for days trying to convince themselves that she was guilty? Most people would have been thrilled if all 12 voted "guilty" the first time around and marched right back out and said so.

The state stressed using common sense...maybe they should have placed more stress on using the evidence, and explaining that reasonable doubt did not mean all doubt. They blew off JB all through the trial, acted as though the defense did not even exist and was beneath their notice, IMO. Somehow, JB is the one who seems to have captured the jury. THAT'S THE SCARIEST PART.

Personally, I was not overwhelmed by JA or LDB; I thought they were competent and determined to get a death sentence. JB played his role as the guy defending the "underdog" very well. And often, what happens in court is all about who plays their roles best. The jury was not obligated to find for murder or manslaughter or anything at all. I don't believe they willfully decided to free Casey; I think they simply all agreed that they were not convinced by the evidence they heard. They never asked to see anything once behind closed doors. Going off memory is not IMO their best job. I don't believe it is their job to try to convince themselves of guilt, if their initial conclusions were "not guilty."