The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #4

[logicalgirl]

Casey told "Caylee is with the nanny" story several times in the past prior to day 1 of 31. The Zany nanny story apparently dated back 3 years IIRC from testimony of her friends. Cindy testified about Zany being in the picture prior to day 1 of 31.

Cindy is a liar. Cindy told the LE she had number for Zanny which first she couldn't find, they as she knew, were the numbers for someone else. FCA told her friends she had a Nanny for Caylee, but that was another lie for another reason.

Are you able to provide links to specific depositions that CA states this, and isn't refuted in the same deposition? I'd appreciate one....with thanks.

 

[logicalgirl]

Isn't that what you are doing by suggesting they wanted to go home early. There was no evidence to suggest that either. Nor that they were lazy and didn't do their jobs.

If the jury came back in the same or less time with a guilty verdict no one would even blink on the amount of time it took or why it took them that amount.

You are quite right in the above bolded statement regarding the jury. Are you able to provide links or statements by the jurors to indicate to those of us who who believe they were lazy and didn't do their jobs, to show otherwise.

I think that would be very helpful to your juror support. Because everything I have heard and read so far points in the opposite direction.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

I may believe your comments if no one on the jury had made a public statement. Unfortunately two jurors and one alternate have.

There's your trouble, right there. All three by their individual comments indicated that comprehending their jury instructions or the evidence was beyond their capabilities or will.

I think jurors # 2, 3 and 11 made statements, in addition to one alternate who made a statement.

What were the individual comments they made that indicated comprehending the jury instructions or the evidence was beyond their capabilities or will?

 

[TexanMom]

I think jurors # 2, 3 and 11 made statements, in addition to one alternate who made a statement.

What were the individual comments they made that indicated comprehending the jury instructions or the evidence was beyond their capabilities or will?

I present to you Jennifer Ford's own words....

I did not say she was innocent,” said Ford. “I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be.”

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser...ick-to-our-stomach-to-get-that-verdict_b75053

It was quite clear that this was the guilt phase of the trial, not the penalty phase. Unfortunately, Ms. Ford could not comprehend basic jury instructions.

 

[logicalgirl]

The really tragic part about this jury - for them individually - beyond their incomprehensible decision - is that each one of them will be "branded" for life.

Eventually those names will be released and their names and locations will be known. We'll see on the verdict anniversary - profiles of the Pinellas County 12 - where are they now - being done for years. The media will always want interviews - and how could they be done in a positive light?

Treating the law and the law courts with such disrespect will always follow them. Not speaking up and explaining their positions will always follow them. But it is something they've brought on themselves.

I dont know how their futures can be turned back now.

 

[PeteyGirl]

Yes speculation and inference - which is exactly what the prosecution presented as well. The reason we all continue to debate this is that neither side presented proof of what happened only speculation and inference.

You are hitting upon a very important point.

I continue to debate along these lines because it is clear to me that there was a fundamental difference in the QUALITY of evidence given by the state versus by the defense.

Yes, the defense did not carry the burden of proof, but they DID assert "facts", and DID provide "evidence" to support those facts.

The "evidence" the defense presented ought to have been run through the examination process as thoroughly as the evidence provided by the state was. But, it wasn't, it was just believed . . . and why?

In a court of law, the evidence provided by the state was of a completely superior caliber. It survived Frye hearings for god's sake, and it included expert witnesses who's contributions could bear up under scientific scrutiny.

My opinion, or yours, is IRRELEVANT in a court of law. Calling the state's evidence as equally inferential as the defense's is likely a personal opinion of yours. But your opinion is not relevant to seeking the truth of what happened. What is relevant are the facts of the case and the QUALITY of evidence. These things must meet much higher standards than "personal opinion".

 

[MarthaM]

I present to you Jennifer Ford's own words....



http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser...ick-to-our-stomach-to-get-that-verdict_b75053

It was quite clear that this the guilt phase of the trial, not the penalty phase. Unfortunately, Ms. Ford could not comprehend basic jury instructions.

I didn't take her words to mean anything about the penalty phase. I think she was saying that if you don't know what the crime was, you don't know what to convict her on. I think she was equating conviction with punishment, and was saying that they didn't have enough to choose which punishment to give (which of the charges to convict on).

 

[logicalgirl]

That was my whole point thedevilsadvocate - what information makes you think they did their duty with due diligence. What specifically did these three (or four as you say) tell you that indicates they both understood their jury instructions and then followed through on any actual deliberations once they were sent out?

I've asked that question a number of times now, and all I get back is a question asking the same thing - like there is an echo in here or something.

 

[Dignity4Victims]

i know george stopped to get gas on the way home, but i dont recall if gas was put in it to get to the gas station.

This is not true.

According to court documents, George did not stop on the way home to fill the car.

 

[TexanMom]

I didn't take her words to mean anything about the penalty phase. I think she was saying that if you don't know what the crime was, you don't know what to convict her on. I think she was equating conviction with punishment, and was saying that they didn't have enough to choose which punishment to give (which of the charges to convict on).

Well, how about another Jennifer Ford statement....

"If I'm wrong, and I kill someone else, I can't live with that," Ford said. "If they [the prosecution] want me to kill someone else, they have to prove it."

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/casey-anthony-juror-interview-abc-video-2011-7#ixzz1Xg2jTcFm

Those comments quite clearly show that she confused guilt phase for penalty phase. The instructions laid out to them by HHJP were quite cut and dry.

 

[PeteyGirl]

I just think that KC being responsible IN SOME WAY is vague. The state needs to be specific as to how she was responsible as stated in the charges to get a guilty verdict. Vague equals reasonable doubt.

The jury stated they believed she was in some way responsible, but since the state did not prove in what way she was responsible they had to find the not guilty verdict.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

Not really, not in the eyes of the law. From a personal perspective, yes, but our personal perspective is not relevant. We are obliged to regard the circumstantial evidence through the eyes of the law.

Our personal opinion is not a tool for truth in a court of law.

When the jury made their decision, it seems as though they used their personal opinions as "the" higher standard of truth instead of the instructions they were given.

Therefore, "reasonable doubt" derived from personal opinion ("it was too vague") has no place when reaching a guilty verdict. The jury (and us too) are held to a higher standard of application of logic. This is to avoid the too egocentric or personalized conclusions that are more about the person judging and less about the facts of the case they are judging.

 

[MarthaM]

Well, how about another Jennifer Ford statement....



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/casey-anthony-juror-interview-abc-video-2011-7#ixzz1Xg2jTcFm

Those comments quite clearly show that she confused guilt phase for penalty phase. The instructions laid out to them by HHJP were quite cut and dry.

Again, I don't read the same thing you do. And that isn't a surprise; I'd be surprised if all of us read/heard their comments the same way.

I don't think these quotes tell me that she was thinking ahead to the penalty phase, either. I think she's simply saying that if you want me convict someone of murder, a crime that everyone (not just jurors) knows carries the heaviest of penalties including the death penalty, then you better prove it. She's saying that if you expect me to convict someone of that serious a crime, prove to me that they did it.

I've heard jurors on other murder cases say the exact same thing. The possible penalties weren't the focus of their deliberations, but they were bright enough to know that someone's life hangs in the balance and they better be sure before they convict. Besides, they had no way of knowing whether she would or wouldn't get the DP if they did convict--no jury does at that point.

 

[PeteyGirl]

I have no problem with circumstantial evidence. I don't require DIRECT evidence to believe someone is guilty. However, I do require a story that tells me beyond a reasonable doubt that a murder actually occurred. I didn't get that here. I just didn't. I don't know what happened to Caylee except that a sweet little girl is dead.

Here's where I have trouble agreeing with you.

A healthy two year old child cannot end up dead and bagged in a swamp except by malfeasance.

It's like seeing it snow versus seeing snow on the ground to infer that it did snow. It's as if you are saying "Yes, there is snow on the ground but nothing I've heard yet proves how it got there."

Since Casey Anthony was pronounced NOT mentally ill by six psychiatrists, we SHOULD be unable to use this as an excuse for a theory (as proposed by juror #14) that Casey and her family were so bizarre that they turned an accident into a murder scene. To do this implies a bunch of people hangin' off the edge of consensual reality, which according to six psychiatrists, Anthony was not.

Say you toss out the chloroform and duct tape as means of murder. Say all you have is a mother who lied for 31 days on the whereabouts of her daughter.

The most reasonable inference a person can make should NOT include insane or bizarre behavior (turning an accident into a crime scene). Casey Anthony is not insane. Neither are her parents.

Mothers kill their children every single day. And they lie about it so they don't get nailed for murder.

What is SO different about Casey Anthony? She isn't "different". It is plain to see that she is not different. The only thing that would make her different is insanity (psychosis). Or, fantasy.

 

[TexanMom]

Again, I don't read the same thing you do. And that isn't a surprise; I'd be surprised if all of us read/heard their comments the same way.

I don't think these quotes tell me that she was thinking ahead to the penalty phase, either. I think she's simply saying that if you want me convict someone of murder, a crime that everyone (not just jurors) knows carries the heaviest of penalties including the death penalty, then you better prove it. She's saying that if you expect me to convict someone of that serious a crime, prove to me that they did it.

I've heard jurors on other murder cases say the exact same thing. The possible penalties weren't the focus of their deliberations, but they were bright enough to know that someone's life hangs in the balance and they better be sure before they convict. Besides, they had no way of knowing whether she would or wouldn't get the DP if they did convict--no jury does at that point.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[MiraclesHappen]

Again, I don't read the same thing you do. And that isn't a surprise; I'd be surprised if all of us read/heard their comments the same way.

I don't think these quotes tell me that she was thinking ahead to the penalty phase, either. I think she's simply saying that if you want me convict someone of murder, a crime that everyone (not just jurors) knows carries the heaviest of penalties including the death penalty, then you better prove it. She's saying that if you expect me to convict someone of that serious a crime, prove to me that they did it.

I've heard jurors on other murder cases say the exact same thing. The possible penalties weren't the focus of their deliberations, but they were bright enough to know that someone's life hangs in the balance and they better be sure before they convict. Besides, they had no way of knowing whether she would or wouldn't get the DP if they did convict--no jury does at that point.

Actually, they did have a way of knowing whether she would or wouldn't get the death penalty if they convicted.

It was handed to them, the jury, in the verdict forms.

This jury had the option to convict Casey only on the charges which do not carry death as a possible penalty.

The jury was free to convict and at the same time, take the death penalty off the table. They had that power.

Not only did they have a way of knowing that but they had the tools in front of them to make that happen.

They failed.

MH my opinion:wolf:

 

[LambChop]

I think all three or four stated they thought KC was guilty but they weren't sure of what. They also had a problem with who was the custodian. CA worked, GA worked and KC did not. Caylee was with KC most of the time. Caylee was KC's responsibility 24/7 from the time she was born. If they believed the "drowning" story it was KC's responsibility to call 911. That would have made KC neglegent at the very least for not doing so.

How hard is it to say:
Who legally was responsible for the child?
Why didn't she call 911 and what was she trying to hide?
Why blame someone else if it was just an accident?
Why make your family suffer all those months with lies?
Does duct tape and a t-shirt with the message "Big problems comes in small packages" have some significance in why this child died?

The t-shirt and duct tape w/heart-shaped sticker speaks volumes. She took time to wrap her child in her favorite WTP blanket but left the t-shirt on. Message for CA, I would imagine.

Myself...I think this jury just did not want to deal with it because of the dynamics of the family. It's almost as if they were saying...."Well, no wonder she killed her child." jmo

 

[LambChop]

While the jury had to presume KC innocent until proven guilty I was amazed that they found her guilty of lying to LE but did not consider that in their deliberations. DT admitted she was a liar to the jury so anything in the OS should have been tossed by them. There is no logic in make an accident look like a homocide. And yet, they considered it.

The State had: the trunk, the duct tape, the location of the remains, KC statements full of lies, videos full of lies, family who was willing to lie, KC's behavior for 31 days, etc. The DT had nothing solid, nothing, just a story from a known liar.

It just took a little effort on the jury's part. They never had a problem asking for pretzels. I hope the rest of the jurors come forward so we can clear up the confusion.

It's not necessary to lie if you've done nothing wrong. jmo

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Not really, not in the eyes of the law. From a personal perspective, yes, but our personal perspective is not relevant. We are obliged to regard the circumstantial evidence through the eyes of the law.

Our personal opinion is not a tool for truth in a court of law.

When the jury made their decision, it seems as though they used their personal opinions as "the" higher standard of truth instead of the instructions they were given.

Therefore, "reasonable doubt" derived from personal opinion ("it was too vague") has no place when reaching a guilty verdict. The jury (and us too) are held to a higher standard of application of logic. This is to avoid the too egocentric or personalized conclusions that are more about the person judging and less about the facts of the case they are judging.

Definition of vague:
1. Of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning

If vague evidence meets the legal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then our legal system is in a lot more trouble than I thought it was.

I think when the jury made their decision, they used the instructions they were given. When the prosecution presented evidence that had unclear meaning (like the level of chloroform in the trunk), uncertain meaning (like GA's testimony), or indefinite meaning (like whether or not the duct tape was ever placed over Caylee's mouth and nose), the jury was left with reasonable doubt, because this evidence was too vague.

Sorry, but I can't agree that vague evidence is proof BARD.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only

 

[LambChop]

Definition of vague:
1. Of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning

If vague evidence meets the legal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, then our legal system is in a lot more trouble than I thought it was.

I think when the jury made their decision, they used the instructions they were given. When the prosecution presented evidence that had unclear meaning (like the level of chloroform in the trunk), uncertain meaning (like GA's testimony), or indefinite meaning (like whether or not the duct tape was ever placed over Caylee's mouth and nose), the jury was left with reasonable doubt, because this evidence was too vague.

Sorry, but I can't agree that vague evidence is proof BARD.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only

I could be wrong but I thought I read somewhere in one of the threads that the jury foreman said there was no doubt that the duct tape covered Caylee's mouth and nose from the pictures they viewed. We never saw them so we can only rely on those that have.

They also said they were unable to determine how or when she died which went towards their decision. Jury instructions were quite clear that the State did not have to determine when Caylee died or how she died, I believe. So they did not follow their instructions. Those instructions were written so I doubt any of them bothered to read them and were just going on what they recalled the judge said. jmo

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

That was my whole point thedevilsadvocate - what information makes you think they did their duty with due diligence. What specifically did these three (or four as you say) tell you that indicates they both understood their jury instructions and then followed through on any actual deliberations once they were sent out?

I've asked that question a number of times now, and all I get back is a question asking the same thing - like there is an echo in here or something.

Specifically, all 12 jurors unanimously rendered a not guilty verdict on the first 3 charges, which indicates to me they understood their jury instructions.