..thank you for the new thread.
..personally-----i do disagree with the verdict ( and not JUST b/c i find her to be guilty of murder ) but b/c also of what the jurors that HAVE spoken, have said.
..both juror #3 (jennifer ford) and the jury foreman have SAID that they wished there had been other charges that they could have used to find her guilty of! "not guilty doesn't mean innocent"!
( there WERE a ton of "lessers" included ------why on earth didn't they use them ?)
-----------Good Morning America: " Do you think if the prosecutors had not been seeking the death penalty, it would have affected how you deliberated about this case"?
JenniferFord: "Absolutely! We were ..uh. I think it was mentioned even a few times, if they charged her with other things, we probably could have convicted her or you know got her a guilty sentence, but not for death, not for first degree. There's not enough to substantiate that. That's a very serious charge".
..that alone tells me that at least ONE juror--------jennifer ford--------did NOT understand the instructions.
..and had she------she could have been the ONE to hold out for guilty and the outcome would have been different.
..they were NOT to factor in the Death Penalty-------while deliberating the GUILT phase---------and yet she did.
..both jennifer ford and the jury foreman have publicly lamented------there was no cause of death!
--------------clearly neither were aware that the state did NOT need to give them one.
( had they KNOWN that-----the verdict may have been different.)
..i was following "verdict watch" LIVE on wftv----commentary with bill shaeffer and the reporter----we were waiting for the jury to 'buzz'---meaning they were requesting a portion of testimony to be read back, perhaps view a (jail) video, review pictures...ask the judge for clarification on "legal-lingo".....
..( all of the thing that were NOT available to them in the jury room----the physical pieces of evidence were in there with them-----except for the sealed cans/carpet--------everything else that they wanted to review they needed to 'buzz' the deputy for-----------and we would have all known if they did.. ).
..i find it shocking (!) that 12 people ( who claimed to have barely followed the case before making the jury ) heard ALL of that testimony/saw ALL of the evidence submitted/heard LENGTHY expert detailed forensic /scientific details----------and yet were able to go into that deliberation room after WEEKS, and not ask for ANY of it to refresh (anyones!) memory?
..wow! in my next life---------i want THAT total recall!
..it's absurd that with a trial this LENGTHY, that the jury was ( or members of the jury were..) arrogant enough to "go it alone"----and not do the RIGHT thing by asking to review----or ask for ANY legal interpretation...
( oh wait---who needs to buzz for the judge-----a high school GYM teacher can break this down for them ?? )
..rendering a verdict---in a murder case----when they clearly did not fully understand the instructions-----is just seriously wrong.
..you end up with--------a wrong verdict.
I'm sorry to quote the entirety of this post instead of "snipping" some aspects - I found it impossible to do that, because all the elements are relevant to the point - which, as I understand it - is that she was "overly charged" (my wording), so therefore the jurors had no other option but to render a 'not guilty' verdict.
I'd be grateful if someone would explain why the jury couldn't have found her 'guilty' of a lesser charge, such as criminal neglect or similar (?), instead of guilty for misleading the authorities (not sure of the exact wording). If they found her guilty of misleading or interfering with an investigation, didn't they think that there was a reason for her to do that?
This is touching another topic, re the proposed Caylee's Law. Why would a mother not report a missing 2 year-old and make up all sorts of stories as to who she was with, where she was and why she couldn't come to the phone, until all the lies came tumbling down?
Didn't the jury ask themselves that? and if they did, how did they reach the conclusion that Casey is not guilty of anything of anything except for lying to the authorities and obstructing an investigation?
It's a vicious circle - she lied for a reason, but that reason wasn't "proved" to the jury's satisfaction.
The question remains - why did she lie to so many people for so long about something so basic to any person, let alone a mother, when their toddler goes "missing"?
I believe the defense invoked a "tragic accident". I have two problems with that defense:
1. "accident" - certainly it could have happened, as it does all over the world, but people don't try to hide accidents, they try to help the victim - any victim - especially their own defensless toddlers, unless...
2. "tragic" - I don't think so, considering how she partied and shopped and tattooed and... whatever else, while her 2 year old daughter was "missing" or "kidnapped".
The argument that everyone grieves in different ways doesn't cut it, IMO - it's just the first line of defense for inappropriate behaviour and/or affect from a guilty party - or at least a party who is guilty of something which would drastically affect their chances of an acquittal.
My opinion: I strongly disagree with the verdict.
