The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #4

[RANCH]

This thread proves to me that believe it or not, the 12 (18?) people in that jury room weren't the only people on the planet who would of found her NG. And because the jury gets called every name in the book these days, people who are pro verdict probably feel they might as well be getting called names too (stupid, lost, etc).

Sometimes two people read the exact same stuff and hear the exact same stuff as you do and have a different opinion. The 'how's' and 'why's' of that opinion can be debated still the end of time, but it's still an opinion.

I'm sorry that you take disparaging remarks about the jury as a personal attack. I did a keyword search on this thread of the word "stupid". I found it used once in describing this jury. Perhaps there were more that were removed by moderators. An alert is probably the best way to handle it.

 

[2goldfish]

the key word is THEORY

well now, that sounds like it could be the way people say evolution is a theory....there is a large difference between a theory and a hypothosis.

the defense "theory" was actually a hypothosis.

 

[LambChop]

Jurys are not suppose to speculate they are suppose to use common sense and logic. LDB even instructed them to do so. Someone whom lies time, after time, after time is not credible. The child is dead, there is duct tape on the skull in the area of the mouth and nose. The child was not reported missing specifically by the mother. Add in all the other evidence. Common sense tells you when the ground, pavements and water is falling off of leaves but no rain is visible that it rained last night. That is what the jury was suppose to do, use that type of common, not claim they couldn't figure it out because there was no CSI moment for them.

I would guess 95% plus of us here at WS got it because it's just commone sense. Could the State have done more? Yes, of course they could but with the jury away from home for six weeks they presented what they thought the jury needed to come to a guilty verdict. Basically the jury based their decision of guilt on evidence the State wasn't even required to provide them with then claimed the state did not prove their case. The jury foreman believes GA could have murdered Caylee but believes KC was lying about the molestation. GA was not sitting at the defense table for a good reason. LE never believed he had anything to do with Caylee's death. But the foreman claims to be a good judge of character and figured that out all by himself. Failed to notice the number of times GA was called to the stand and was obviously the target of DT to take a fall for KC. Did the foreman expect GA to act like Mr. Congenialty??? Same man who was upset with JA not saying "Good Morning".

So in the end KC is free and we will just have to live with the jury's decision. And when she reoffends (and she will) it will be the jury who will have to live with setting her free. jmo

 

[LambChop]

JB loved the word "could" during this trial. Somehow the jury did not catch it... jmo

 

[MarthaM]

Some longer posts snipped when I'm only responding to one part:

This case was lost when the DT moved the table to rest in front of the jury, giving the opportunity to see how the DT interacted with the defendent. The jury bonded daily with the DT, they considered the defendent a victim and delivered a verdit to prove it. They detested the prosecution. What you will never hear them say is that they liked the felon. They liked her and they liked baez and mason. Because they liked her, they let her walk. They justify it by telling us the prosecution didn't prove their case. I will get out my violin. I heard it before from a jury in LA about 15 yrs prior. There was another bunch of emotionally laden people who also fell in love with the defendent.

Any case that a prosecutor loses because of the placement of furniture in the courtroom isn't much of a case to start with. And while this isn't the first time that I've heard a jury criticized for finding a defendant NG just because they liked him/her, I just don't believe that. The only role I see 'liking' one side or another playing is that a likeable, personable, watchable attorney or witness is easier to pay attention to. Attorneys do have to consider how they're coming across to a jury, not just what their evidence says, because a jury is made up of people, not robots or computers.

How it works is someone kidnaps, kills or your child accidently dies and you don't report it for 31 days....yes that makes the Mom responsible. You are responsible to know where your child is and with whom. You place your child in the hands of someone you know is negligent you are responsible. It is how it works. jmo

Not in the law. None of that meets any of the definitions in the jury instructions, other than the 'lying to law enforcement' part.

It is fascinating for me to read this thread and see the various reasons why the not guilty verdict has been defended.

Lawyers, judges and trial experts have called the evidence in this trial - a mountain of evidence - so much so rarely seen in trials - so much it is almost indefensible. Opinions of those very well versed in the law and not involved in this particular trial process. Opinions that have been expressed in articles over and over again, during the trial and since the verdict.

Actually, in the days and hours immediately after the verdict, many comments I heard from lawyers and trial experts (I didn't hear any judges that I recall) said that they could see how this jury arrived at this verdict and that it seemed to be the right one. They also recognized that it would not be a popular one.

Now, I don't watch cable TV shows. I listen to local talk radio and saw only shows like Nightline and snippets on the news shows that air on the main networks like NBC and ABC. I think that has been a big help in this case, and why I can easily see how the jury arrived at their verdicts.

acandyrose has been recommended and utilized on ws the 3 yrs I've been here. As has hinkymeter

I've seen both mentioned here and have never been to either. I don't use sites like that.

The State did not present theories - the Defense did and Baez has been quoted as recently as several weeks ago saying what he presented at trial was possible theory.
The state presented facts in a logical order. Facts defined by irrefutable evidence and testimonies.

The Defense - well - something similar to FCA's imaginary friends.

Every trial is made up of two theories, the prosecution theory and the defense theory. Something happens and the prosecution investigates and comes up with their theory of what happened, then presents that it court to prove it to a jury. The defense never has to present or prove their own theory, but sometimes they do.

The state presented their theory of the case, and while some think the evidence they presented was clear and irrefutable, not all of us believe that.

 

[pcrum12]

The State did not present theories - the Defense did and Baez has been quoted as recently as several weeks ago saying what he presented at trial was possible theory.
The state presented facts in a logical order. Facts defined by irrefutable evidence and testimonies.

The Defense - well - something similar to FCA's imaginary friends.

The PT presented inferences and speculation. And a theory to try to tie it all up. The circumstantial evidence was vague and the testing was not thorough. You had to speculate to het there. IMO.

 

[Whisperer]

It makes perfect sense to me. Rereading the jury instructions makes it even clearer.

Per the judge's instructions, I would have to believe that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey killed Caylee to convict her of any of the homicide charges. They didn't. And again per the judge's instructions, I'd have to believe that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey intentionally injured Caylee to convict on Aggravated Child Abuse. They didn't. So yes, I'd need essentially the same evidence for any of those charges; they'd have to have proven that she did it, and they failed.

And that's what the jury decided, too.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59297005/Jury-Instructions-Casey-Anthony

What is reasonable doubt? In your own words.

 

[RANCH]

Martha M, I think your missing out by not reading "The Hinky Meter". Val has many excellent articles on her site. You may gain some insight to this case.

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/

 

[Whisperer]

Some longer posts snipped when I'm only responding to one part:



Any case that a prosecutor loses because of the placement of furniture in the courtroom isn't much of a case to start with. And while this isn't the first time that I've heard a jury criticized for finding a defendant NG just because they liked him/her, I just don't believe that. The only role I see 'liking' one side or another playing is that a likeable, personable, watchable attorney or witness is easier to pay attention to. Attorneys do have to consider how they're coming across to a jury, not just what their evidence says, because a jury is made up of people, not robots or computers.

Not in the law. None of that meets any of the definitions in the jury instructions, other than the 'lying to law enforcement' part.

BBM. That is incorrect. The psychology of putting the defendent directly in front of the jury is strategic and it worked. They liked Baez,imo, the underdog, and I will say some were smitten with the felon. This also happened with OJ. The jury liked OJ and paid no attention to the evidence. They dismissed it entirely. This jury did not consider the evidence in this case either.

So, it is now a possibility that the jury didn't like j. ashton and that is why they dismissed the evidence. Is that what is being said in the post. Is it being suggested that they believe baez was more likeable?

To suggest the prosecution did not have a good case is absurd. They had a great case. They did not have a great jury, however.

 

[LambChop]

The jury had a problem with the custody issue. In KC's own words she put Caylee in her soul possession when leaving the home on 6/16. GA confirmed that statement also in his own words that KC left with Caylee and that was the last he saw of Caylee. KC admits having Caylee as a statement of fact and verbally confirmed in her taped interview with LE. She showed up at TL's that evening without Caylee. The DT never proved their other theory. Yet the jury never considered that KC had already told them who had Caylee. They ignored it.

All they had to do was read that statement and they had their answer but obviously did not bother. This was an important piece of evidence and the only one that could be verified at the time because GA backed it up with his statement to LE. KC never made an attempt to change her story at the time. Yet the jury disregarded this important piece of critical evidence. If this were their jumping off place everything else the state presented would have made sense.

It's common sense. jmo

 

[RANCH]

Making remarks against other WS posters is against the TOS. Is the rule the same for the jury? If you don't think disparaging remarks have been made against this jury, I don't know what to tell you.

I don't take anything as a personal attack. I was simply making a point. I'm also not pro-verdict (at least not 100%).

Where in my post did I say that disparaging remarks have not been made. I'm sorry I misunderstood your personal feelings about those posts.

 

[nursebeeme]

entirely too much snark going on around these parts. Please remember to attack the post not the poster...

 

[M.James]

You don't report your kid missing, or explain truthfully the circumstances of child's disappearance or demise, the presumption should be foul play. Otherwise, it's open season on children...

**Hear, hear. Say it out loud, spit it out, spell it out, and some still don't understand.

There's always something immoral waiting at the end of a road that was paved with lies.

Have I mentioned, lately, that I disagree with the verdict?

 

[MarthaM]

What is reasonable doubt? In your own words.

The jury instruction on that is very clear and it's what I go by. I'm not sure why I would have to rephrase it in my own words, since I understand the instruction very well, but I can do that very briefly:

If I can't vote 'guilty' and walk away from this case knowing that I have made the right decision based on the evidence, I have reasonable doubt. If I will look back and still not be sure, then I have reasonable doubt. If I go back and forth about the defendant's guilt, thinking one minute that she's guilty and the next that she's not, I have reasonable doubt.

The actual instruction:

Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following:

A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt.Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding convictionof guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence,there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable butone which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt andyou must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.

It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.

A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict inthe evidence or the lack of evidence.

If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have noreasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.​

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59297005/Jury-Instructions-Casey-Anthony

Martha M, I think your missing out by not reading "The Hinky Meter". Val has many excellent articles on her site. You may gain some insight to this case.

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/

Thanks for the link. I checked it out, but I don't like to use blogs when I'm following a case.

BBM. That is incorrect. The psychology of putting the defendent directly in front of the jury is strategic and it worked. They liked Baez,imo, the underdog, and I will say some were smitten with the felon. This also happened with OJ. The jury liked OJ and paid no attention to the evidence. They dismissed it entirely. This jury did not consider the evidence in this case either.

So, it is now a possibility that the jury didn't like j. ashton and that is why they dismissed the evidence. Is that what is being said in the post. Is it being suggested that they believe baez was more likeable?

To suggest the prosecution did not have a good case is absurd. They had a great case. They did not have a great jury, however.

I'm not sure if you're asking whether *I'm* saying that the jury dismissed the evidence because Baez was more likeable, but in case you are... No. What I'm saying is that a jury is often more likely to grasp what an attorney is presenting and more likely to find them credible based on the attorney's demeanor.

 

[RANCH]

Thanks for the link. I checked it out, but I don't like to use blogs when I'm following a case.

I'm sorry that you couldn't find anything beneficial on her site. I've read many well thought out articles backed up by research and links. Some very good reads.

 

[LambChop]

The jury instruction on that is very clear and it's what I go by. I'm not sure why I would have to rephrase it in my own words, since I understand the instruction very well, but I can do that very briefly:

If I can't vote 'guilty' and walk away from this case knowing that I have made the right decision based on the evidence, I have reasonable doubt. If I will look back and still not be sure, then I have reasonable doubt. If I go back and forth about the defendant's guilt, thinking one minute that she's guilty and the next that she's not, I have reasonable doubt.

The actual instruction:

Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following:

A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt.Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding convictionof guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence,there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable butone which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt andyou must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.

It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.

A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict inthe evidence or the lack of evidence.

If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have noreasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.​

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59297005/Jury-Instructions-Casey-Anthony




Thanks for the link. I checked it out, but I don't like to use blogs when I'm following a case.



I'm not sure if you're asking whether *I'm* saying that the jury dismissed the evidence because Baez was more likeable, but in case you are... No. What I'm saying is that a jury is often more likely to grasp what an attorney is presenting and more likely to find them credible based on the attorney's demeanor.

If they were paying attention to JB's demeanor I would think they would have realized nothing he presented to them was based on fact. Not RK, not GA, not KC because he admitted she was a liar. Defense attorneys are by nature are more passionate because they are defending a client. SA just presents the facts of the case they put together. SA is responsible for connecting the dots which I believe they did.

In KC's statement she had the child at 1 and did not have the child by 7 when she met TL. CA was at work, GA went to work and KC "went to work" with Caylee in tow. If KC were not home Caylee did not drown. Something happened and KC is responsible she put it in a statement and tried to blame someone else that does not exist. That leaves KC alone to be responsible. The question should have been what did KC do to cause Caylee's death. That is the reasonable doubt of this case. The fact that KC can't be truthful leaves one to believe she is covering up a murder.

This is how you deliberate. You write down the facts that you know are true. You then write down the questions you have and try to see if there are answers in the evidence that was presented. You try to figure it out. From information we received all they did was argue about who was right, who was wrong. They were suppose to use their skills to get some of those answers because they were there right in front of them.

The custodial issue makes me laugh. How much more information did they need than her signed statement that Caylee left with her and that was verified by her father?

The jury foreman was telling everyone not to use their emotions, not to speculate the state's evidence yet he did the very thing he preached to the other jury members not to. He speculated that GA may have killed Caylee even though no evidence was ever presented. The shame of it all. jmo

 

[logicalgirl]

The PT presented inferences and speculation. And a theory to try to tie it all up. The circumstantial evidence was vague and the testing was not thorough. You had to speculate to het there. IMO.

What testing do you speak of? I know of no "testing" presented by the State that didn't meet exceptionally high standards prior to the trial. So high in fact that although the Defense team challenged it, they were unable to refute it.

 

[LambChop]

[/B]

What testing do you speak of? I know of no "testing" presented by the State that didn't meet exceptionally high standards prior to the trial. So high in fact that although the Defense team challenged it, they were unable to refute it.

And it passed the Frye Hearings with flying colors. Can't get much more credible than that. Even Dr. Huntington (sp??) admitted the car still smelled of decomp after 2 years. And yet the actual trash contained in the bag in the trunk did not. lol jmo

 

[Solace]

Then the law needs to be changed. That makes no logical sense. She lied and continues to lie and somehow that's okay. That is just not right and yes, I am very angry about it. And I have seen other cases where people have been convicted because they lied and it was proven they lied. So apparently it's not every case where lying gets an acquittal, just this one for some ungodly reason that makes no logical sense. And there was a lot more than just a freaking inference here. I get tired of seeing that. Just because people ignore glaring evidence doesn't mean it never existed.

Aedrys,

This jury could have convicted on the prosecution's case if they saw fit. I believe some did see fit to do it and voted guilty. The entire jury did not vote innocent to begin with. Their minds were changed by the very same that said they would not try to change anyone's mind to guilty when they were asked that in Voir Dire.

Ashton was not liked by this jury. He did not say good morning to them and they or some of them, most definitely the one who was interviewed by Greta, took umbrage.

KC was proven guilty. And the chloroform was NOT junk science no matter what Linda Baden says - I cannot stomach that woman.

They were done in a day and a half. Yes, I can see how they spent an enormous amount of time looking at this case. A day and a half. A day and a half.

We are supposed to believe that George found Caylee and brought her to KC, who had a seizure NOW according to Cindy (can't make this up) and is able to drive around Orlando for the rest of the day and not get in an accident and has her baseball cap on and her arm around Tony at 7:30 pl.m. that evening.

This jury did not like Ashton - no doubt about it.

 

[logicalgirl]

Some longer posts snipped when I'm only responding to one part:



Any case that a prosecutor loses because of the placement of furniture in the courtroom isn't much of a case to start with. And while this isn't the first time that I've heard a jury criticized for finding a defendant NG just because they liked him/her, I just don't believe that. The only role I see 'liking' one side or another playing is that a likeable, personable, watchable attorney or witness is easier to pay attention to. Attorneys do have to consider how they're coming across to a jury, not just what their evidence says, because a jury is made up of people, not robots or computers.



Not in the law. None of that meets any of the definitions in the jury instructions, other than the 'lying to law enforcement' part.



Actually, in the days and hours immediately after the verdict, many comments I heard from lawyers and trial experts (I didn't hear any judges that I recall) said that they could see how this jury arrived at this verdict and that it seemed to be the right one. They also recognized that it would not be a popular one.

Now, I don't watch cable TV shows. I listen to local talk radio and saw only shows like Nightline and snippets on the news shows that air on the main networks like NBC and ABC. I think that has been a big help in this case, and why I can easily see how the jury arrived at their verdicts.



I've seen both mentioned here and have never been to either. I don't use sites like that.



Every trial is made up of two theories, the prosecution theory and the defense theory. Something happens and the prosecution investigates and comes up with their theory of what happened, then presents that it court to prove it to a jury. The defense never has to present or prove their own theory, but sometimes they do.

The state presented their theory of the case, and while some think the evidence they presented was clear and irrefutable, not all of us believe that.

Thank you for this information - the picture is becoming clearer. I did not take into consideration any verbal statements from Judge's or lawyers, but written ones - which can be read and reread to be sure I understand completely what they are saying and what specifically they are using as the foundation of their comments.

I also watched the news commentators on ABC, NBC and the like. Unfortunately, none I saw had actually watched the trial or were giving their own observations - but simply giving canned blanket homogenized statements. Even CNN's were very disappointing as they seemed to use the basis of their reporting from HLN.