The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #3

[askfornina]

Videos,read back of testimony or clarification of juror deliberation instructions .

can't seem to find this after googling. could you kindly link me? thanks. what do you mean by videos? maybe i'm not understanding what you are trying to say here. can you clarify?

 

[pcrum12]

she woulda got guilty on both of these charges from me:

Count Two, Aggravated Child Abuse: The maximum penalty for aggravated child is 15 years in prison. The estimated minimum sentence for this charge and other charges which might result in conviction along with this count would be 12 years, 1 month.

Count Three, Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child: If Casey Anthony is convicted of causing the death of Caylee by culpable negligence the maximum sentence is 30 years in prison. The estimated minimum sentence for this charge and other charges which might result in conviction along with this count would be 16 years and 6 months.

source for chgs http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/july/273571/Casey-Anthony:-The-charges-against-her

I really can't understand why she didn't get count 3...if they believed the drowning (which I'm not sure they did) she was negligent

My opinion on that is that yes, she was negligent. But, negligent and CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE are 2 different things.

AGGRAVATED MANSLAUGHTER OF A CHILD

§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.

2. Casey Marie Anthony’s act(s) caused the death of Caylee Marie Anthony.

Or

The death of Caylee Marie Anthony was caused by the culpable negligence of Casey Marie Anthony.

I will now define "culpable negligence" for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard of the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights. The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

 

[pcrum12]

IMO, they did want to get out of there. Why were they dressed up on Day 2 of deliberations and more importantly, think about this ...

If they deadlocked 6-6 on manslaughter, you mean to tell that all six of these intelligent jurors were swayed back to a not guilty verdict WITHOUT looking at any evidence or requested any readbacks of trial testimony ? Just like that because the foreman said we can't consider the 31 days, they were swayed back to not guilty ? Gimme a break ...

I tried to wear a juror's shoes in this instance ... if I was convinced she was guilty of manslaughter, someone would have show me the flaws in the EVIDENCE that would prove me wrong. Same as on this forum ...
So now go ahead and tell me now that the 6 not guilty manslaughter voters KNEW THE EVIDENCE BY HEART and could cite trial testimony verbatim and could sway the others just by snapping their fingers ? As Susan Moss said ... "we've been O.J.-ed".

BBM: How do you know? How do you know they did not look at any evidence? They had the exhibits. How do you know they did not look and discuss such?

 

[yolorado]

Me to but the state overcharged, if anyone should be mad at anyone, people should be mad at the State for not only overcharging, but being over confident thanks to Nancy.

jmo

Of course because we certainly shouldn't be mad about any of the following.

We shouldn't be mad at poor KC who just...well never reported her child missing and/or dead, who threw her child away in a swamp.

KC, who blamed everybody but herself, threw innocent people under the bus FOR WHAT SHE DID and never accepted any responsibility for anything.

The DT who pulled every sleazy trick in the book to get a guilty woman off and set her free in society.

The prosecution didn't overcharge. They found a dead baby in a swamp never reported dead or missing by her mother, wrapped in duct tape, transported in her mother's car and a mother who seemed fine lying about the whole thing, sending police on wild goose chases and having moved on with her life until she was caught. If the jury thought it wasn't 1st degree, they could have gone with 2nd. If they didn't think it was 2nd, they could have gone with lower charges than that. I don't think they read the instructions far enough to understand that. They went with not guilty. KC is FREE today! Travesty of all travesties.

 

[pcrum12]

I really can't understand why CM's poster is OK and I get why the jury didn't quite understand what reasonable doubt meant. I've always been taught it doesn't mean "no doubt" so "strongly believe" should be on the guilty side...I might even think "guilt likely" would be also be on the reasonable doubt side. Without a video and 40 witnesses of exceptional character...it's always "strongly" or "likely" the defendant did it.

Then why didn't the judge or PT object to CM's poster, if it was not correct?

 

[Baznme]

In charge #3 the neglict had to be proven that it was Culpable.

AGGRAVATED MANSLAUGHTER OF A CHILD

§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.

To prove the crime of Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.

2. Casey Marie Anthony’s act(s) caused the death of Caylee Marie Anthony.

Or

The death of Caylee Marie Anthony was caused by the culpable negligence of Casey Marie Anthony.

I will now define "culpable negligence" for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard of the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights. The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

IMO, sleeping or being on the computer and not watching your child close enough is NOT gross and flagrant. It's not culpable.

______________________________________________________________________

Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

IMO, sleeping or being on the computer and not watching your child close enough is NOT gross and flagrant. It's not culpable"

What?


I couldn't disagree more. If you are sleeping or on the computer, not watching your child closely enough - that defendant KNEW, or reasonably SHOULD HAVE KNOWN was likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Children are not capable of supervising themselves, therefore, she should be held responsible. The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others.It fits but......the DT threw in good old GA as co-conspirator in the alleged knowledge of the death and improper disposal, therefore the inference was that GA took over and KC was completely innocent. They covered their bases in their "alibi" and the jury bought it.

 

[pcrum12]

i keep seeing that the jury didn't ask to review any evidence. i asked in the lawyer thread quite some time ago, and AZlawyer told me that every case she has tried, the evidence was in the jury room. has it been confirmed that there was no evidence in the jury room?

Thank You! All evidence was in the jury room. And no one knows that the jury did not review it or DID review it.

 

[pcrum12]

I'm a little thick sometimes, but the inference that she will probably be convicted IMO, doesn't equate to anything other than perceived "guilt".

So, if you still believe that the phrase "probably will be convicted" and "probably guilty" is two different things, maybe you could explain that to us?

Sure. perceived "guilt" - perceived being the key word. What is perceived and what is fact are 2 different things.

 

[pcrum12]

Common sense would tell you after process of elimination and the fact that KC lied you can only conclude one person was responsible for Caylee and that was her mother. If KC said Caylee drowned and her father found her and her father testified Caylee did not drown you can't consider KC was telling the truth about the drowning. This is a jury instruction regarding a witness lying. All the other State's evidence and specifically Dr. G's testimony points to felony murder. It was that simple. jmo

Why not? her father lies too. The jury instruction regarding witness lying states you may believe all, some, or none of a witness testimony. I doesn't say this just applies to the defendant.

 

[logicalgirl]

Thank You! All evidence was in the jury room. And no one knows that the jury did not review it or DID review it.

Ah..hmm...AZ is not a criminal lawyer..... and does not practise in Florida and the evidence was still all laid out on the evidence table......when the verdict was read.

 

[yolorado]

Accidents happen, and people who have no culpability or who just fell pray to a moment's distraction call 911. I will never be convinced that this was an accidental drowning, but IF it was and if KC didn't call 911 to try to revive the child and to show proof at the time that it was an accident, how is that not child abuse or neglect? She didn't try to save the child! She didn't do everything in her power to make sure the child couldn't be saved. Then, the baby was thrown away in a swamp, her child for whom she bore responsibility. How on any planet would THAT not constitute child abuse or neglect!?

 

[KarmaGet'em]

i keep seeing that the jury didn't ask to review any evidence. i asked in the lawyer thread quite some time ago, and AZlawyer told me that every case she has tried, the evidence was in the jury room. has it been confirmed that there was no evidence in the jury room?

My understanding is that they would have to ask the judge if they wanted any of the testimony read back to them from the court reporter. Also, any videos would have to be requested. Here is a snippet from an article written while they were in deliberations:

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2011/07/casey-anthony-trial-prosecutors-get-the-final-word-with-jurors-monday-63160.html

The jury received the more than 400 pieces of evidence in the jury room that have been by both sides in the case since the trial began in late May.

But jurors will be brought into open court should they request to view any of the video evidence, a court official said. Equipment for video viewing is not available in the deliberation room. The jury has the ability to send questions to Judge Perry via the court deputies, but had yet to do so.

So, I believe they had access to SOME of the evidence, but, at 400 pieces, I believe they would have to request to see any of those that were in the court room.

 

[Baznme]

Thank You! All evidence was in the jury room. And no one knows that the jury did not review it or DID review it.

In all fairness, JF stated in her interview, "they started to go through it". Whatever that means.

 

[logicalgirl]

Why not? her father lies too. The jury instruction regarding witness lying states you may believe all, some, or none of a witness testimony. I doesn't say this just applies to the defendant.

I see, so the theory is that although FKC is a habitual liar and lies even when it isn't necessary, and in her own words is a great liar, in these two instances, the drowning and the abuse - these two times she told the truth? What are the chances of that?

Everyone was lying but FKC? FKC who received four guilty sentences for lying? :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:

 

[askfornina]

My understanding is that they would have to ask the judge if they wanted any of the testimony read back to them from the court reporter. Also, any videos would have to be requested. Here is a snippet from an article written while they were in deliberations:

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2011/07/casey-anthony-trial-prosecutors-get-the-final-word-with-jurors-monday-63160.html



So, I believe they had access to SOME of the evidence, but, at 400 pieces, I believe they would have to request to see any of those that were in the court room.

wow, thank you! i have asked this numerous times numerous places and no one has ever been able to answer before. lol.

 

[Baznme]

Sure. perceived "guilt" - perceived being the key word. What is perceived and what is fact are 2 different things.

So, can we agree that CM "perceived" guilt?

 

[pcrum12]

Someone please tell me why the defense could NOT explain how Caylee's body got to the swamp, hidden in trash bags, with duct tape found where her face should have been? If this was an accident, they should be able to explain it.

When my children are looking guilty and I ask what happened and they say "I don't know", you can bet they know and it ain't good!

"Ann Finnell tell news “I don’t think Casey knows the entire story [of Caylee Anthony's death].” Finnell told news that she does not believe that Casey Anthony knows the complete picture, from death, to discovery of the Casey Anthony skull and remains. “I don’t think I know the complete story” Ann Finnell added. " http://news.lalate.com/2011/07/11/c...aylee-anthony-death-involved-multiple-people/

 

[Sustained]

Me to but the state overcharged, if anyone should be mad at anyone, people should be mad at the State for not only overcharging, but being over confident thanks to Nancy.

jmo

So now the State is in cahoots with NG ? And please provide an interview with any member of the State's team where expressed an overwhelming confidence in the conviction of FCA.

 

[natsound]

Someone please tell me why the defense could NOT explain how Caylee's body got to the swamp, hidden in trash bags, with duct tape found where her face should have been? If this was an accident, they should be able to explain it.

When my children are looking guilty and I ask what happened and they say "I don't know", you can bet they know and it ain't good!

They really don't have to explain it, coco. All they have to do is create smoke and mirrors to confuse the jury in a case where guilt is so obvious. The defense didn't have to explain anything. :sick: I just can't believe the jury fell for it. I thought there were intelligent people up there.

 

[natsound]

Me to but the state overcharged, if anyone should be mad at anyone, people should be mad at the State for not only overcharging, but being over confident thanks to Nancy.

jmo

I don't agree completely with your statement, but I do agree that the state made some mistakes, and I have not watched NG since the verdict because she is so full of air.