The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?

[cityslick]

The location set up for Casey was very important. Goofey almost pathetic looking hairstyles, well timed fake crying and temper tantrums, the stone face poor me look, tiny low in the seat look....what does the average person think about this display? Oh, how could this innocent looking girl possibly do what the prosecution is suggesting? They better have some hard evidence for me to put this girl in jail. As a matter of fact they probably felt sorry for her.
That cake was baked within 2 hours in deliberation of the first day I bet. Not guilty.....

The first thing I would ask the jury members would be "do you believe all the tears from Casey were genuine?" If they say yes I stop...If they say no I move to next question.

The thing is you make the determination that she was faking all that time because you know the whole back history. The jury knew none of it. If you see someone crying on the street, do you automatically assume they are faking it? Maybe you can, but most take a picture at face value.

 

[logicalgirl]

Still trying to duct tape my skin after a shower or a bath to simulate post-drowning - still not successful. So after Caylee "drowned" - I guess "George" set her down in the sun to dry off her skin and hair before "he" duct taped her and put her in the bags.....would that be how the story goes.......?

 

[rollinginit]

If I was on the jury...I wouldn't have voted to put her to death or Life.

Not sure of all the different charges they could have charged her with.....but I would have found her guilty of lesser charges.

I only watched the trial and during breaks...the talking heads on HLN or INSession.

Many may disagree but I found Baez easy to follow. Yes, he seemed bumbling at times but passionate about the case. He was like-able IMO. (now after reading some of the threads on here...I do understand why others don't like him) I did like Linda a lot. Mr. George bored me to death. JA was very nice to look at...but at times I thought he was a bit harsh. He kind of spoke down to people. IMO.

I actually think the older man Spitz was a credible witness. At the time, I thought it made more sense to open the skull. Yes, I do understand the arguments now on why it wasn't necessary. It's just what was going through my mind at the time watching this. I think this is when I might have felt my first doubt

Just my opinion.

 

[natsound]

If I was on the jury...I wouldn't have voted to put her to death or Life.

Not sure of all the different charges they could have charged her with.....but I would have found her guilty of lesser charges.

I only watched the trial and during breaks...the talking heads on HLN or INSession.

Many may disagree but I found Baez easy to follow. Yes, he seemed bumbling at times but passionate about the case. He was like-able IMO. (now after reading some of the threads on here...I do understand why others don't like him) I did like Linda a lot. Mr. George bored me to death. JA was very nice to look at...but at times I thought he was a bit harsh. He kind of spoke down to people. IMO. I actually think the older man Spitz was a credible witness. At the time, I thought it made more sense to open the skull. Yes, I do understand the arguments now on why it wasn't necessary. It's just what was going through my mind at the time watching this. I think this is when I might have felt my first doubt

Just my opinion.

I thought LDB and JA got a little too sure of themselves at times, even snobby, but I thought the defense's performance was nothing short of an unfortunate comedy.

 

[1Chump]

The few jurors who have spoken all said the same thing. They were SHOCKED when the State rested their case.

Even the TH's on tv were shocked when the State rested. Over and over I heard them ask why the State did not put on this witness or that witness. I heard them say the State must be saving witnesses for the rebuttal case.

IMO, if the State had proved their case, neither the jury nor the talking heads would have been shocked and wanting more when the State rested.

IMO, I was really hoping that the defense would have rested without putting on any evidence and/or witnesses. I think the verdict would have been the same.

 

[Ssejors]

Sure, it's possible that they didn't understand the testimony of Dr. Vass. But what do you do if you're reading a book and don't understand a particular section ... I personally go back and reread it, perhaps a few times, until I get it. The jurors never even made an attempt to go back over that testimony. How you discount something if you don't even try to make sense of it ?

BBM - As we say in Canada Fricking EH!

I reread over and over and over again, I compare what I know to what Im reading, I read OTHER sources of info, I GOOGLE, I use a dictionary, I ask questions. I will not sit still till i understand, and CLEARLY for these jurors, it was more important that they just get out of there. It seems the only thing they did RIGHT, was not sentence her to the death penalty with out thinking.

They wanted out of there, and knew the best thing for their own conscience would be to find her not guilty. Cant PROVE how CAYLEE died anyway, so let's just find her not guilty and get out of here. That was the safest and fastest way out of there... but what they dont realize is now they will have to live with their sloppy, lazy decision for ever. Those Jurors dishonored poor baby Caylee. HOW DISGRACEFUL! AND Disheartening. I am so disgusted and outraged!

 

[logicalgirl]

The few jurors who have spoken all said the same thing. They were SHOCKED when the State rested their case.

Even the TH's on tv were shocked when the State rested. Over and over I heard them ask why the State did not put on this witness or that witness. I heard them say the State must be saving witnesses for the rebuttal case.

IMO, if the State had proved their case, neither the jury nor the talking heads would have been shocked and wanting more when the State rested.

IMO, I was really hoping that the defense would have rested without putting on any evidence and/or witnesses. I think the verdict would have been the same.

Interesting that none of the talking heads or legal folks who were actually in court watching the trial day to day were at all shocked. None of the legal minds such as higher court judges, law professors etc., who have commented on the case post verdict, were shocked. I as a layperson was not shocked.

But then I don't need pictures to accompany words to follow what an expert is saying during testimony. But then I was very clear about what was required as circumstantial evidence as the trial progressed.

And I have to admit I was shocked that Dr. Spitz would expose his inability to maintain his education in the med/surg equipment techniques and his loss of memory about the case and recent events (and I've been kind in that statement) on the stand after what has been a fine career in his earlier days. He appeared to be a typical bumbling old dog who refuses to admit his day in the sun is over. Very sad really.

 

[Ssejors]

And I think it's a fair assumption given what I know about the deliberation time ... 10 hours clock time minus lunch breaks minus bathroom and smoke breaks. A rough estimate of actually time deliberating .. 6 hours. OK, toss in the fact that the jury came to court the 2nd day dressed up as if ready to leave ( they didn't dress up any other day). That to me means they had arrived at their verdict the 1st day.

The State's case was based on a lot of circumstantial evidence, a lot of it very scientific. I hardly think a group of 12 could master all of that evidence in 6 hours and if you believe they made their minds up the 1st day, 3 hours.

Yes, They had a unanimous decision before dinner on the first night. IMHOO!

There was NO discussion, there was no REREADING of evidence.

If i had been on that jury, I would not have budged, No way would i have found her NOT GUILTY. There i no WAY I could hear all that testimony over the course of 6 weeks and NOT NEED to go back and reread testimony, transcripts, look at pictures close up, SEE the TAPE! See the evidence in my hand. Once the DT and PT rested, the jury figured they were done. GAWD IM STILL SO MAD

 

[logicalgirl]

Yes, They had a unanimous decision before dinner on the first night. IMHOO!

There was NO discussion, there was no REREADING of evidence.

If i had been on that jury, I would not have budged, No way would i have found her NOT GUILTY. There i no WAY I could hear all that testimony over the course of 6 weeks and NOT NEED to go back and reread testimony, transcripts, look at pictures close up, SEE the TAPE! See the evidence in my hand. Once the DT and PT rested, the jury figured they were done. GAWD IM STILL SO MAD

Agree - how hard would it have been to send a note to the Judge to ask that the definition of circumstantial evidence be given to them again? Among the many many other questions of course....

 

[Ssejors]

Still trying to duct tape my skin after a shower or a bath to simulate post-drowning - still not successful. So after Caylee "drowned" - I guess "George" set her down in the sun to dry off her skin and hair before "he" duct taped her and put her in the bags.....would that be how the story goes.......?

Yer so cute, I keep trying to picture your self, Duct taping your self, soaking wet on yer bath mat!

I said to my Hubby the other day, I was going to do some experiments with the mice that my cat keeps dragging home. He said "Oh yeah?" I said yes "First I need a container that closely resembles a trunk in relation proportionally to the size of a mouse. Tupperware!" "Dont be wasting good tupperware" ... Still looking for the right container.

 

[EPfan]

happened "accidently" as in "not intentionally" similar to if the jury had believed Casey OD'd Caylee on the chloroform. While that would have essentially been an "accident" on Casey's part, as she had not intended to kill her, it is not an "accident" for legal purposes and would have been aggravated child abuse.

There is a difference between an "accident" and what is treated as an accident for purposes of legal responsibility. So, yes, deaths could be accidental and yet a person could still be liable.

If Casey had given Caylee chloroform to be put to sleep while she partied and as the result, she died, that would be by law, Involuntary manslaughter, not aggravated manslaughter, or aggravated child abuse. There is a difference. Aggravated manslaughter means that she would have given her the chloroform with the intention of killing Caylee. Aggravated mean with intent to murder. Aggravated child abuse, mean with the intent to abuse/harm the child. I think this is why so many people didn't understand the verdict. Even though everyone really believes (knows) KC was somehow involved, you have to know what she did to convict her, this is the reasonable doubt, I believe, that partly found her-- not guilty--.
Was it child abuse? I think it was, but the charge was Aggravated Child Abuse.

 

[sacrablue]

The thing is you make the determination that she was faking all that time because you know the whole back history. The jury knew none of it. If you see someone crying on the street, do you automatically assume they are faking it? Maybe you can, but most take a picture at face value.

I have to admit, the head shaking no or yes, the attorney hugging, the hankie nose wipe and examination, the hide head look, the can't look at disturbing evdence look, the pat on the back by attorney look, the nose squeeze until face turned red look would not have worked with me. No, I see a total fake. I cried harder when I put my dog to sleep. I would say I can tell when there is a act going on. And that is pretty sad if you got to act remorse for your dead child.

 

[gxm]

I have to admit, the head shaking no or yes, the attorney hugging, the hankie nose wipe and examination, the hide head look, the can't look at disturbing evdence look, the pat on the back by attorney look, the nose squeeze until face turned red look would not have worked with me. No, I see a total fake. I cried harder when I put my dog to sleep. I would say I can tell when there is a act going on. And that is pretty sad if you got to act remorse for your dead child.

ITA. And let me add that I found GA's emotional breakdown on the stand much more convincing. It was raw, real, and very difficult to watch. I couldn't hold back my own tears listening to his testimony.

 

[sacrablue]

If Casey had given Caylee chloroform to be put to sleep while she partied and as the result, she died, that would be by law, Involuntary manslaughter, not aggravated manslaughter, or aggravated child abuse. There is a difference. Aggravated manslaughter means that she would have given her the chloroform with the intention of killing Caylee. Aggravated mean with intent to murder. Aggravated child abuse, mean with the intent to abuse/harm the child. I think this is why so many people didn't understand the verdict. Even though everyone really believes (knows) KC was somehow involved, you have to know what she did to convict her, this is the reasonable doubt, I believe, that partly found her-- not guilty--.
Was it child abuse? I think it was, but the charge was Aggravated Child Abuse.

Reasonable doubt confusion...I would have backed up and thrown all the legal mumbo jumbo out the window. Total cofusion, who needs it?
Here you go Casey, you had a chance to say your child died from an accident plenty of times. That option is over...gone. Now your child died under your watch so lets here it. No response 30 years, tell the truth 10 years. Remember accidental death is not an option.

 

[RANCH]

If Casey had given Caylee chloroform to be put to sleep while she partied and as the result, she died, that would be by law, Involuntary manslaughter, not aggravated manslaughter, or aggravated child abuse. There is a difference. Aggravated manslaughter means that she would have given her the chloroform with the intention of killing Caylee. Aggravated mean with intent to murder. Aggravated child abuse, mean with the intent to abuse/harm the child. I think this is why so many people didn't understand the verdict. Even though everyone really believes (knows) KC was somehow involved, you have to know what she did to convict her, this is the reasonable doubt, I believe, that partly found her-- not guilty--.
Was it child abuse? I think it was, but the charge was Aggravated Child Abuse.

Would placing three pieces of duct tape over a child's airways be considered aggravated manslaughter/aggravated child abuse?

 

[Little Black Dress]

Agree - how hard would it have been to send a note to the Judge to ask that the definition of circumstantial evidence be given to them again? Among the many many other questions of course....

I share your frustration, really I do. But I can't get past the idea that the jurors came to their decision so quickly and didn't ask for clarification on anything because they didn't understand that they didn't understand some things...some of which were required of them by law. Specifically, it's clear that they didn't follow the judge's instructions. Do I think they did that knowingly? No. I'm sure they THOUGHT they understood them quite well...and that's why they didn't seek clarification...even though it's obvious to most here that they did not understand the limits of their obligation stated in those very instructions.

Sad, sad.

JMO.

 

[Italy]

If Casey had given Caylee chloroform to be put to sleep while she partied and as the result, she died, that would be by law, Involuntary manslaughter, not aggravated manslaughter, or aggravated child abuse. There is a difference. Aggravated manslaughter means that she would have given her the chloroform with the intention of killing Caylee. Aggravated mean with intent to murder. Aggravated child abuse, mean with the intent to abuse/harm the child. I think this is why so many people didn't understand the verdict. Even though everyone really believes (knows) KC was somehow involved, you have to know what she did to convict her, this is the reasonable doubt, I believe, that partly found her-- not guilty--.
Was it child abuse? I think it was, but the charge was Aggravated Child Abuse.

Wrong.

Judge Perry explained to the jury that there are two elements to aggravated manslaughter.
#1 Child is dead;
#2 Person charged acted with culpable negligence - when you do an act or follow a course of conduct that you should have known would cause harm.

So, if you administer chloroform to another (which is illegal in itself - exception medical personnel & there are stringent requirements on medical use due to its inherent danger) and that person dies - it is culpable negligence.

Judge also told the jury that Casey was the caretaker of the child.

 

[Desdemona]

The few jurors who have spoken all said the same thing. They were SHOCKED when the State rested their case.

Even the TH's on tv were shocked when the State rested. Over and over I heard them ask why the State did not put on this witness or that witness. I heard them say the State must be saving witnesses for the rebuttal case.

IMO, if the State had proved their case, neither the jury nor the talking heads would have been shocked and wanting more when the State rested.

IMO, I was really hoping that the defense would have rested without putting on any evidence and/or witnesses. I think the verdict would have been the same.

There is no source cited in your post, and no link for your assertion (BBM) that all the jurors who have spoken to the media so far have stated that they were shocked when the prosecution rested. I had not heard this. So I Googled, "casey juror shocked state rested case" and the only matching hit was your post above.

http://bit.ly/qtabMi

Respectfully, would you mind stating where you have heard this from "all" the jurors who have spoken? TIA

 

[KarmaGet'em]

If Casey had given Caylee chloroform to be put to sleep while she partied and as the result, she died, that would be by law, Involuntary manslaughter, not aggravated manslaughter, or aggravated child abuse. There is a difference. Aggravated manslaughter means that she would have given her the chloroform with the intention of killing Caylee. Aggravated mean with intent to murder. Aggravated child abuse, mean with the intent to abuse/harm the child. I think this is why so many people didn't understand the verdict. Even though everyone really believes (knows) KC was somehow involved, you have to know what she did to convict her, this is the reasonable doubt, I believe, that partly found her-- not guilty--.
Was it child abuse? I think it was, but the charge was Aggravated Child Abuse.

I think the definition of Aggravated Manslaughter covers it.

A person is guilty of aggravated manslaughter if (he/she) recklessly causes the death of another person under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life.
In order for you to find the defendant guilty of aggravated manslaughter, the State is required to prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(1) that the defendant caused (insert victim's name) death, and
(2) that the defendant did so recklessly, and
(3) that the defendant did so under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life.
One element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant acted recklessly.
A person who causes another's death does so recklessly when he/she is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death will result from his/her conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of defendant's conduct and the circumstances known to defendant, (his/her) disregard of that risk is a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would follow in the same situation.
In other words, you must find that defendant was aware of and consciously disregarded the risk of causing death. If you find that defendant was aware of and disregarded the risk of causing death, you must determine whether the risk that (he/she) disregarded was substantial and unjustifiable. In doing so, you must consider the nature and purpose of defendant's conduct, and the circumstances known to defendant, and you must determine whether, in light of those factors, defendant's disregard of that risk was a gross deviation from the conduct a reasonable person would have observed in defendant's situation.

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/criminal/charges/homicide7.pdf

Every web page I have seen regarding chloroform has a specific warning that it could cause death. If KC applied chloroform and Caylee died as a result, then KC disregarded the warning that chloroform can cause death. That is not involuntary. Sounds aggravated to me.

(disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and never slept at a Holiday Inn Express)

 

[Nietzsche1988]

I have to admit, the head shaking no or yes, the attorney hugging, the hankie nose wipe and examination, the hide head look, the can't look at disturbing evdence look, the pat on the back by attorney look, the nose squeeze until face turned red look would not have worked with me. No, I see a total fake. I cried harder when I put my dog to sleep. I would say I can tell when there is a act going on. And that is pretty sad if you got to act remorse for your dead child.

Right, no one opens up their wet hanky after blowing their nose in it, looks it over, then proceeds to wipe their eyes with it and then blows their nose in it again, opens it and looks it over then dabs again at allegedly wet eyes, then blows again, looks into the hanky again, and again--never once reaching for a new hanky! notice this? Made me sick...