The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #4

[LinasK]

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

What idiots!!! Does anyone really believe that if a child really does accidentally drown (which, by-the-way is another way of blaming the victim Caylee in this case), why would anyone then duct tape them and dump them in the woods?????:banghead::banghead::banghead:
And... there was still no explanation, other than by way of Casey how Caylee got to the woods. Roy Kronk had no access to the Pontiac Sunfire. George didn't have possession of the car at the time, or he wouldn't have commented on the smell of death inside it. Use common logic people!!!

 

[LambChop]

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

I think anyone who has ever watched American Idol would know how to vote but that does not mean this jury understood those instructions or even looked at them. Now if they did understand all their instructions from the judge then they deliberately ignored them while considering Caylee may have drowned because there was no proof presented that Caylee drowned. Dr. Spitz said he noticed the pool in the backyard and came to the conclusion that Caylee drowned. That is not proof and Dr. Spitz did not provide any proof, it was just an observation. Just because you have bananas in a bowl on the counter and you've slipped and fallen does not mean it was on a banana peel. jmo

 

[TexanMom]

What idiots!!! Does anyone really believe that if a child really does accidentally drown ( which, by-the-way is another way of blaming the victim, why would anyone then duct tape them and dump them in the woods?????:banghead::banghead::banghead:
And... there was still no explanation, other than by way of Casey how Caylee got to the woods. Roy Kronk had no access to the Pontiac Sunfire. George didn't have possession of the car at the time, or he wouldn't have commented on the smell of death inside it. Use common logic people!!!

I kind of got the feeling Mr. Jury Foreman thought nothing wrong with wrapping duct tape around a toddlers face, bagging her up, and then dumping her body in a swamp. :sigh:

 

[MissJames]

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.

It should be held to the same standard every time ,regardless of the crime or the sentence.The SA's didn't have to prove MORE because it was a murder charge and not a theft .
That's why there are jury instructions.

ETA: Most juries don't know at that point if the defendant will get the DP,but JF's statements indicate they believed she would ,for anything other than the lies.

 

[pcrum12]

A toddler climbing a ladder being supported by her grandmother and a child reaching for a sliding door she is unable to open? A picture that had been stretched by photoshop to make the child appear taller than she actually was?

So? That had nothing to do with duct tape, triple bagged, decomp in trunks and scattered remains in a swamp land. Why go with the answer that has no logic or evidence to support it? I never understand taking the easy road...

I don't think it's taking an easy road. You have your THEORY, I have mine. Nothing was proven beyond a reasonable doubt during the trial.

 

[pcrum12]

It's fact, not speculation or inference that
1-KC never reported her child missing (something that murderers do.)
2-KCs never reported an accident or called 911 (something good mothers and innocent witnesses do when there is a real accident.)
3-KC's car smelled of death. (She and other's smelled it.)
4-Caylee's baby doll wasn't on Hopespring Drive. It was in KC's car.
5-A hair of Caylee's with death banding was in the trunk of KC's car.
6- KC lied and led police astray (something murders do.)
7-KC never buried or cremated her child (something good mothers do after an accident.)
8-KC's baby ended up discarded in the woods, left for nature and animals to ravage (something murders do.)
9-KC's only explanation for all this for three years was Zanny and Zanny doesn't exist.

1-9 --Doesn't prove murder

 

[MissJames]

I kind of got the feeling Mr. Jury Foreman thought nothing wrong with wrapping duct tape around a toddlers face, bagging her up, and then dumping her body in a swamp. :sigh:

Yes, somehow he found it completely understandable. Of course that what's you do if your child accidently drowned and your father sexually abused you at 13 before school in the morning :maddening:

 

[MiraclesHappen]

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

Oh the fact that this jury rendered a verdict is evidence that they rendered a verdict. I reach this conclusion based on the evidence before us.

There is no evidence presented by way of the rendering of a final verdict that the jury understood the instructions.

There is no direct evidence and there is no circumstancial evidence presented by their reaching a verdict that they grasp the instructions that were before them.

I would apply the same rationale had there been a guilty verdict.

Perhaps they didn't understand the instructions but the verdict is their conclusion.

To say that reaching a unanimous verdict implies that they, the jury, understood the instructions is supported by the same amount of evidence which says that they reached a unanimous verdict by throwing darts at a dartboard.


Their final conclusion does not contain direct or circumstancial evidence which sheds light on this purported understanding of instructions.

However, statements after the trial do present evidence that the instructions were not understood.

MH :wolf:
opinion

 

[MissJames]

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

If they had considered a time line during deliberations ,looked back at the evidence or testimony about that day ,they would have seen who had custody.
They let the JB's opening statement become evidence and used it .Of course they weren't supposed to ,but they did.

 

[pcrum12]

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

BBM: Can anyone provide a link?

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

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

In his GVS interview, he did talk about the duct tape. He said, "there was one area where the duct tape was connected, but that was more the hair than the skull. It was not attached to the bone, but it was in the vicinity of the nasal cavity and mouth area. He mentioned several times that they knew the vicinity of the duct tape. The prosecution explained the purpose for the duct tape was for suffocation. We had to take a good hard look at the duct tape, there was a lot of discrepency there, but where it was from the get go, we don't know. It was a situation where we knew the vicinity of where that tape was, but we just didn't know exactly where."

GVS asked how they thought the body got from where the child died to the remains site. He said, "there was a lot of gray area, a lot of speculation as to how it got there, who took it there, and uh just a lot of unanswered questions in that regard. I can't really tell you how Caylee got there, I can't tell you how or who, but ultimately the body ended up there.

GVS asks,"were you ever convinced how she died?" He said, "No, never. That was one of the major issues we had addressed, we don't know the cause of death, everything was speculation."

GVS asks, "did the body decompose in the trunk?" He said, "Some officers smelled decomp, others didn't. There was evidence that there could have been the decomp in there, but again, you know, we were looking more at the cause and the who, and the how. A number of people had access to that trunk. You don't know who put the body in the trunk or how long the body was in the trunk." Juror 11 felt that GA's actions at the towyard and immediately after raises a lot of questions.

The jurors did not believe GA or LA molested KC. GA's behavior on the stand was suspicious, and this brought in to question whether or not he was involved.
GVS asked about being suspicious of GA "suspicious that he was involved in covering up the death, suspicious that he was involved with an accidental death, or suspicion that he was a murderer?" The foreman answered "All three."

It sounds like they did a lot of deliberating. As far as the legality of how and when she died, that isn't necessary to prove murder, but it caused many gray areas for the jurors. When there are gray areas, in my opinion, there is reasonable doubt. It was the prosecutors job to remove all reasonable doubt, and in this case, with this jury, the prosecutors were unsuccessful.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

 

[pcrum12]

In his GVS interview, he did talk about the duct tape. He said, "there was one area where the duct tape was connected, but that was more the hair than the skull. It was not attached to the bone, but it was in the vicinity of the nasal cavity and mouth area. He mentioned several times that they knew the vicinity of the duct tape. The prosecution explained the purpose for the duct tape was for suffocation. We had to take a good hard look at the duct tape, there was a lot of discrepency there, but where it was from the get go, we don't know. It was a situation where we knew the vicinity of where that tape was, but we just didn't know exactly where."

GVS asked how they thought the body got from where the child died to the remains site. He said, "there was a lot of gray area, a lot of speculation as to how it got there, who took it there, and uh just a lot of unanswered questions in that regard. I can't really tell you how Caylee got there, I can't tell you how or who, but ultimately the body ended up there.

GVS asks,"were you ever convinced how she died?" He said, "No, never. That was one of the major issues we had addressed, we don't know the cause of death, everything was speculation."

GVS asks, "did the body decompose in the trunk?" He said, "Some officers smelled decomp, others didn't. There was evidence that there could have been the decomp in there, but again, you know, we were looking more at the cause and the who, and the how. A number of people had access to that trunk. You don't know who put the body in the trunk or how long the body was in the trunk." Juror 11 felt that GA's actions at the towyard and immediately after raises a lot of questions.

The jurors did not believe GA or LA molested KC. GA's behavior on the stand was suspicious, and this brought in to question whether or not he was involved.
GVS asked about being suspicious of GA "suspicious that he was involved in covering up the death, suspicious that he was involved with an accidental death, or suspicion that he was a murderer?" The foreman answered "All three."

It sounds like they did a lot of deliberating. As far as the legality of how and when she died, that isn't necessary to prove murder, but it caused many gray areas for the jurors. When there are gray areas, in my opinion, there is reasonable doubt. It was the prosecutors job to remove all reasonable doubt, and in this case, with this jury, the prosecutors were unsuccessful.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

thank you!

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

Oh the fact that this jury rendered a verdict is evidence that they rendered a verdict. I reach this conclusion based on the evidence before us.

There is no evidence presented by way of the rendering of a final verdict that the jury understood the instructions.

There is no direct evidence and there is no circumstancial evidence presented by their reaching a verdict that they grasp the instructions that were before them.

I would apply the same rationale had there been a guilty verdict.

Perhaps they didn't understand the instructions but the verdict is their conclusion.

To say that reaching a unanimous verdict implies that they, the jury, understood the instructions is supported by the same amount of evidence which says that they reached a unanimous verdict by throwing darts at a dartboard.


Their final conclusion does not contain direct or circumstancial evidence which sheds light on this purported understanding of instructions.

However, statements after the trial do present evidence that the instructions were not understood.

MH :wolf:
opinion

I will bow to your legal wisdom, and agree with your entire post, with the exception of the final statement.

statements after the trial do present evidence that the instructions were not understood

I would appreciate it, if you could supply the statements that present evidence of the instructions not being understood. I have read, reread and watched the interviews several times, and not being a lawyer, I do not know which instructions they didn't understand. Thanks.

 

[LambChop]

The first piece of duct tape was wrapped around the jaw area holding it in place the second piece was on top of that and the third piece joined the second. If the first piece held the jaw, the mouth is directly above the jaw and the nose above the mouth. It does not take an engineer to figure out where the tape was placed on Caylee's face. Duct tape is about 2 inches in height and even overlapping it would cover her mouth and nasal area easily.

I can remember when credibility meant something in a court room. I guess today everyone wants things in neat little packages so they don't have to use their brains. Let's hope KC learned her lesson but statistics show that those who get away with murder usually try it again. Better hope she doesn't show up in your neighborhood. jmo





The jurors did not believe GA or LA molested KC. GA's behavior on the stand was suspicious, and this brought in to question whether or not he was involved.

Okay. DT called GA constantly to the stand, accused him of unthinkable acts against his daughter and he clearly was unhappy with JB's constantly calling him up to testify because logic would tell a fairly intelligent person that DT was targeting GA to take the blame to save KC. Somehow this slipped under their radar. If they did not believe that GA or LA molested KC than she was lying. So you feel KC lied, you know KC lies and yet for feel GA may have murdered Caylee.

[GVS asked about being suspicious of GA "suspicious that he was involved in covering up the death, suspicious that he was involved with an accidental death, or suspicion that he was a murderer?" The foreman answered "All three."]

There was no evidence that GA had anything to do with it. This statement has no logic to it whatsoever. This is what went wrong with this jury.

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

I think anyone who has ever watched American Idol would know how to vote but that does not mean this jury understood those instructions or even looked at them. Now if they did understand all their instructions from the judge then they deliberately ignored them while considering Caylee may have drowned because there was no proof presented that Caylee drowned. Dr. Spitz said he noticed the pool in the backyard and came to the conclusion that Caylee drowned. That is not proof and Dr. Spitz did not provide any proof, it was just an observation. Just because you have bananas in a bowl on the counter and you've slipped and fallen does not mean it was on a banana peel. jmo

I have watched American Idol, and America got it wrong, Haley should have won LOL

As far as the jury, I really do not believe they intentionally did not follow instructions. If they did make mistakes, and not follow certain instructions, well, if they thought they were doing it correctly, they would not have asked the judge for guidance, because they thought they were doing what they had been told to do.

I really don't think they were lazy. It sounds like they deliberated. They took votes, they did round tables. Initially they were not unanimous, so they had to deliberate to come to a unanimous decision.

I don't think they allowed thoughts of going home to influence their verdict.
It sounded like, from JF's interview, that she and the foreman were on opposite sides on counts 2 and 3. So some of the remarks that the foreman and JF strongarmed the others into a not guilty verdict doesn't make sense to me.

Anyway, on AI, Scotty was very good, but Haley was the bomb LOL.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

I kind of got the feeling Mr. Jury Foreman thought nothing wrong with wrapping duct tape around a toddlers face, bagging her up, and then dumping her body in a swamp. :sigh:

I didn't get that feeling at all about the jury foreman. He sounded to me like he thought KC was in some way responsible, but he along with the other jurors struggled with the evidence presented, and together they reached the verdicts they reached. He sounded bothered when talking about the dumping of Caylee's body in the swamp.

 

[LambChop]

GVS asked how they thought the body got from where the child died to the remains site. He said, "there was a lot of gray area, a lot of speculation as to how it got there, who took it there, and uh just a lot of unanswered questions in that regard. I can't really tell you how Caylee got there, I can't tell you how or who, but ultimately the body ended up there.

Oh, I just love this one. The gray area was presented by JB in his opening statement never to be touched on again. The state however told the jury how Caylee got there in the trunk of KC's car. KC is the only person left who could have done this. DT never proved RK had any knowledge of KC before Caylee went missing, made no connection even while DT had him on the stand. Nothing. And this was a gray area. It appears Mr. Foreman was trying to justify any reason he could find, no matter how ridiculous, to find KC not guilty.

There was a total disregard for those who claimed to have smelled death in the car because some officers (a couple) said they did not smell it. So were those trained officers liars who claim they did smell it. You discount testimony because some smelled it and some did not. The officers who claimed they did smell it also claimed they have smelled decomp before and know the smell. Dr. Vass testified it was decomp and he should know it's his job to know the smell. But this was a "gray" area.

Sounds like a "gray matter" issue to me. lol jmo

 

[LinasK]

GVS asked how they thought the body got from where the child died to the remains site. He said, "there was a lot of gray area, a lot of speculation as to how it got there, who took it there, and uh just a lot of unanswered questions in that regard. I can't really tell you how Caylee got there, I can't tell you how or who, but ultimately the body ended up there.

Oh, I just love this one. The gray area was presented by JB in his opening statement never to be touched on again. The state however told the jury how Caylee got there in the trunk of KC's car. KC is the only person left who could have done this. DT never proved RK had any knowledge of KC before Caylee went missing, made no connection even while DT had him on the stand. Nothing. And this was a gray area. It appears Mr. Foreman was trying to justify any reason he could find, no matter how ridiculous, to find KC not guilty.

There was a total disregard for those who claimed to have smelled death in the car because some officers (a couple) said they did not smell it. So were those trained officers liars who claim they did smell it. You discount testimony because some smelled it and some did not. The officers who claimed they did smell it also claimed they have smelled decomp before and know the smell. Dr. Vass testified it was decomp and he should know it's his job to know the smell. But this was a "gray" area.

Sounds like a "gray matter" issue to me. lol jmo

What idiots!!! Does anyone really believe that if a child really does accidentally drown ( which, by-the-way is another way of blaming the victim, why would anyone then duct tape them and dump them in the woods?????:banghead::banghead::banghead:
And... there was still no explanation, other than by way of Casey how Caylee got to the woods. Roy Kronk had no access to the Pontiac Sunfire. George didn't have possession of the car at the time, or he wouldn't have commented on the smell of death inside it. Use common logic people!!!

Quoting myself in response, not directed at you.

 

[lauriej]

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

..they also all said at some point or another in their various interviews that they thought she was guilty of "something"!-- "wished there were additional charges that they could have charged her with" -- "sick to their stomachs" when they reached their NG verdict--"not guilty doesn't mean innocent!"....etc.

..what about the 5 lesser charges on the jury instructions then? they couldn't even convict her of the least serious option available to them---child abuse?

..i don't believe they even considered the "lessers".

..just signed off NG on counts 1-3 of the indictment and G on counts 4-7......without going further to the "lesser included crimes" section #'s 8, 9,10,11 and 12....on the jury instruction sheets.

..or the foreman---saying that yeah, kc's behaviour was bad ,disgusting, over the 31 days------but----they weren't allowed to consider anything but her behaviour on june 16th . ( huh???)

..the jury instructions said they were to consider (ONLY) the evidence presented ----well, the "31 days" and everything she did during those days WAS presented through testimony/pics etc. and entered as evidence-----apparently their fearless leader the JF didn't "get" that..

..that was a critical mountain of evidence right there-----which the JF did not consider, clearly he did not understand the jury instructions as to what was and what wasn't to be used in deliberating their verdict.

..and if you are not considering all of the evidence that you should be considering in deliberations-----how can the arrived at verdict be correct?

 

[TexanMom]

If these jurors had any kinds of doubts, they were always free to ask for a review of transcripts and evidence. What we had here were 12 Emily Litella's that took the easy way out, and did not do their duties to the best of their ability. JMO, of course!