Through a Juror's Eyes/What do those who haven't followed the case believe? (Merged)

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
I concur that we're definitely in the minority here, Golden, but I haven't felt unwelcome. This is such an provocative case, emotionally, that I don't take it personally when people disagree with me. Unless of course, they make it personal, but so far I've found that not to be the case. ITA that it's quite possible that one, if not more, of the jurors might have the same reservations we do, especially with the weight of the DP on the case. Personally I would go as far as to say that the SA has made a reasonable case for Casey's culpability in the death, but I'm still on the fence regarding the charge of murder.

I also have expressed my feelings that the prosecution would not have convinced me of its case if I were a juror. People who have responded seem to be either reminding me of something that was said during the trial or are just frustrated that this trial might have a happy ending for Casey. If I had been following this case for three years, I would be frustrated, too. There is no question that someone in this family caused Caylee's death and we all want the jury to come to the correct conclusion.

It's tough knowing all the other crimes Casey committed will not be considered by the jury, because that's why many of us think she is capable of more than just lying to her parents and friends.

Golden, you will not be kicked off this forum for having a differing opinion. I am sorry you are nervous about that, because I think we all benefit from hearing the the perspectives of others. The mods here are great about making sure that everyone feels welcome...and they help out in a way that is very unobtrusive.
 
...you will not be kicked off this forum for having a differing opinion. I am sorry you are nervous about that, because I think we all benefit from hearing the the perspectives of others.

Absolutely! The title of the thread is "what do those who haven't followed the case believe", and thus invites those opinions, whatever they are.

This case has incited powerful emotions in many people. As we all know, emotion often interferes with reason, and also can ignite a desire to punish the accused even if the available evidence is inadequate to convict them of the offense they are charged with. I'm very interested to read the opinions of people that are more like the jurors who haven't followed the case, because they reflect the degree of "blindness" required to fairly decide the fate of any defendant within the American system of justice.

Casey deserves to have her fate adjudicated by an impartial, "disinterested" group of citizens, just as any one of us does. Most people in this forum, I think, genuinely want these proceedings to be fair to Casey, if for no other reason than to avoid a mistrial. Very few people that read and post here could be impartial to Casey as jurors, even if we mandated ourselves to be fair to her. People who don't know the case could meet those two standards in ways that most of us that post here cannot.

Thank you for being honest about what you believe. Your opinion is welcomed and is just as valid as anyone else's.

FWIW, I'm not convinced yet that the evidence presented so far proves Casey is guilty of premeditated murder. I do, however, think that there is enough evidence to convict her of second degree murder, which in Florida can place a defendant behind bars for life (and is probably the punishment she will receive).
 
I don't feel the prosecution has produced enough circumstantial evidence to get a 1st degree murder conviction.

Do I think she did it? Yes
Do I think there was a cover up? Yes

This is Florida, not Texas, my hope at this point is for at least aggravated manslaughter with HHJP giving her the maximum sentence.
 
I agree with everything you said. I also feel like giving my opinion on here is not welcomed and I am going to be "removed" from this forum, but I am respectfully disagreeing with the majority here, it is only my opinion, and I think it is necessary so we can all see that different people hear and interpret the same testimony differently. that is what will happen with the jury also.
That is why I do not feel this is a slam dunk case. I also do not feel the SA has proven the 1st degree murder charge beyond a reasonable doubt. I do believe they have more than proven the charges about giving false info. to the police, but that is about it.

WTH? Removed from the site? What in the world justifies that kind of statement. I've argued with people about CA and it's been a discussion. No one threatened to remove anyone.


Bottom line to me the Death Penalty is not something I'd agree with anyway. So I guess it's an easier idea to me. I'd never sentence someone to the death penalty.

Did she murder her child accidentally, sure as heck seems like it. And willful indifference in the face of a child that depends on you ESPECIALLY when you have two capable grandparents who would have stepped in immediately if KC needed help, is just disgusting and selfish.

Life in prison without parole works for me.
 
I've tried to look objectively too. I do believe the prosecution has proven that there was a dead body in Casey's trunk. Since her daughter was missing and later found dead, the logical conclusion, to me, I think if I was a juror, is that the body must have been Caylee's. The duct tape and Casey's actions after the fact, would, I think if I was a juror, be proof of child abuse resulting in death. Premeditation? I'm not sure the state has proven the link between Casey's possible making of Choroform and the level of Chloroform in the trunk.

I think i could convict of aggrevated manslaughter or aggrevated child abuse resulting in death. As someone mentioned, premeditation doesn't have to be months, it can just be the time between cutting the 1st piece of duct tape and the 3rd.

I don't know if I"m really looking at it through "fresh" eyes or not.

I don't care if she gets the DP or not. LWOP would be nice. 30 to 40 years would be okay too.

All that said, Scott Peterson's jury did convict of premeditated murder and he got the DP. I actually wasn't expecting that. So we'll see.
 
I'm shocked by the case the prosecutor presented. Their own experts were contradicting themselves in direct testimony. The bug testified that the paper towels in the trash were used to wipe up the human decomp in the trunk. The chemist or air guy testified that there was no human decomp on the paper towels, just fatty acids. So which was it?

IMO, I am just shocked that they are almost finished presenting the State's case. The only thing I do not question right now is Casey lies and Caylee died. Everything else, I just thought by the little comments/coverage prior to trial that there was going to be a lot more.
 
I have followed this case since the beginning and I do believe Casey killed her child. I do NOT believe George had anything to do with it and the defense should have left him and Kronk out of it.

However I do not believe the State proved premediated murder. I believe Casey was drugging Caylee and keeping her in the trunk. Perhaps with that duct tape to keep her quiet should she wake up and that she died during the last episode of this. I think Casey was desperate to have her relationship with Tone and her other friends and her mother was refusing more and more to watch Caylee and wanted Casey to take responsibility for her. So to keep up with her friends she was just drugging the baby and keeping her in the trunk. I would be more apt to convict her of the aggregious child abuse resulting in death charge and of course lying to cops that she is up for. I believe that still commands the DP too and she deserves that! Most likely they will vote for LWOP. Thats my guess and its a fair outcome. I think some of you will need to listen to the judge's instructions on what these charges mean and what the penalty is for each one. I do think it is also possible she killed the baby to get back at her mother for that fight which would be 1st degree premediated murder but the State did not prove this charge. They would have to go much further in what they showed the jury in order to win that charge.
 
I have followed this case since the beginning and I do believe Casey killed her child. I do NOT believe George had anything to do with it and the defense should have left him and Kronk out of it.

However I do not believe the State proved premediated murder. I believe Casey was drugging Caylee and keeping her in the trunk. Perhaps with that duct tape to keep her quiet should she wake up and that she died during the last episode of this. I think Casey was desperate to have her relationship with Tone and her other friends and her mother was refusing more and more to watch Caylee and wanted Casey to take responsibility for her. So to keep up with her friends she was just drugging the baby and keeping her in the trunk. I would be more apt to convict her of the aggregious child abuse resulting in death charge and of course lying to cops that she is up for. I believe that still commands the DP too and she deserves that! Most likely they will vote for LWOP. Thats my guess and its a fair outcome. I think some of you will need to listen to the judge's instructions on what these charges mean and what the penalty is for each one. I do think it is also possible she killed the baby to get back at her mother for that fight which would be 1st degree premediated murder but the State did not prove this charge. They would have to go much further in what they showed the jury in order to win that charge.

I thought drugging her was a possibility too, until I read another post from the hinkeymeter that talks about how chloroform would need to be redosed every 15 minutes or so (per an anesthesiologist, so I believe it). Unfortunately the jurors won't see this, so I agree it leaves a hole in the states case.
 
I think those that have followed the media case have convicted her and many are not looking objectively at ONLY the evidence presented at trial. They are hearing it and interpreting it the way they want to. They are condemming JB for all his objections and motions, etc. The SA also has many objections. If they are so sure of their slam dunk case why keep objecting to JB's questioning of their witnesses? What are they afraid their own witnesses will say? He is only doing his job. I also am in the minority here thinking that he has done a pretty decent job discrediting some of the states witness testimony. In my eyes he has at least. Yes, Casey is a liar and this is a bizarre case..that we can all agree on, but what really happened? None of us know and neither does the prosecution or the Medical Examiner. I don't see how anyone could recommend a death sentence for so many unknowns or by Nancy Grace's bombshells.

I would say that the DT probably doesn't know what really happened either. The only person who knows for sure is ICA and as I juror I would be hesitant to "let her off" simply because she managed to let the body rot long enough that there was no way to determine how Caylee died. I would not want to reward ICA by soley allowing not knowing the cause of death be the reason not to vote for the DP.
 
I would say that the DT probably doesn't know what really happened either. The only person who knows for sure is ICA and as I juror I would be hesitant to "let her off" simply because she managed to let the body rot long enough that there was no way to determine how Caylee died. I would not want to reward ICA by soley allowing not knowing the cause of death be the reason not to vote for the DP.

I wouldn't want to let her off either, but IMHO there's no way I could vote for the DP with the case as presented so far. There are just too many unknowns.
 
Casey had the balls to go to court rather than to take a LWOP plea deal. The jury won't know this. But this might have been the smart thing for her to do. I'm pretty sure she will at least get aggrevated manslaughter. She probably won't get life for that. So that may be her best chance to not only save her life but get out of prison in a decade or two.

Again, this is me trying to imagine what the jury is thinking rather than what I am thinking.
 
I keep seeing "ICA" on this site. What does it stand for?
 
I think those that have followed the media case have convicted her and many are not looking objectively at ONLY the evidence presented at trial. They are hearing it and interpreting it the way they want to. They are condemming JB for all his objections and motions, etc. The SA also has many objections. If they are so sure of their slam dunk case why keep objecting to JB's questioning of their witnesses? What are they afraid their own witnesses will say? He is only doing his job. I also am in the minority here thinking that he has done a pretty decent job discrediting some of the states witness testimony. In my eyes he has at least. Yes, Casey is a liar and this is a bizarre case..that we can all agree on, but what really happened? None of us know and neither does the prosecution or the Medical Examiner. I don't see how anyone could recommend a death sentence for so many unknowns or by Nancy Grace's bombshells.
Good post.

At least for me this is true, I'm guilty of confirmation bias. It's good there are people here willing to say, 'But what about...' and see Baez from a different angle and discuss the holes in the State's case. I like being forced to think outside my own viewpoint, though it's hard to do with this case for me because I loathe KC.
 
Good post.

At least for me this is true, I'm guilty of confirmation bias. It's good there are people here willing to say, 'But what about...' and see Baez from a different angle and discuss the holes in the State's case. I like being forced to think outside my own viewpoint, though it's hard to do with this case for me because I loathe KC.

I am in the exact same boat Turn.A.Dot.

I WANT to hear all these variations on what peoples first impressions are. Because I had mine, and I've made up my mind. Post decision justification..I want to see fresh ideas that push my mind to think around things.
 
I have followed this case somewhat loosely before the trial that means that as a Florida resident I could not help but hear some bits of news here and there about ICA, but I never read anything about the case or followed it actively, my initial thoughts were that she was guilty of something because ICA was the last person to see her daughter alive and most importantly I saw that she waited over 31 days to report her daughter missing, that for me raises some very big flags and should to everyone as well.

I did see in the news 2 years ago that she was out partying while her daughter was missing and that she had made up the nanny story, those parts are certainly not normal behavior or typical of someone who is innocent, but I can set that aside and remain open minded since their are two sides to every story, I wanted to hear what ICA had to say and explain how we arrived at this point, so I decided to watch the trial, on the first day of the opening statements the defense managed to single-handedly incriminate their client with their preposterous story regarding what really happened.
I found the whole story bizarre and insulting to my intelligence.

I agree that the state does not have DNA, fingerprint or photographic evidence putting the duct tape directly in ICA's hand to prove that she killed her daughter, however the state has enough of a circumstantial case and if you connect all the dots it leaves little doubt that ICA killed her child and that she did have motive and that allows one to see how premeditation came into play here, imo that is enough to get a conviction.
I would say at this juncture that ICA killed her daughter and it was premeditated.
 
I have followed this case somewhat loosely before the trial that means that as a Florida resident I could not help but hear some bits of news here and there about ICA, but I never read anything about the case or followed it actively, my initial thoughts were that she was guilty of something because ICA was the last person to see her daughter alive and most importantly I saw that she waited over 31 days to report her daughter missing, that for me raises some very big flags and should to everyone as well.

I did see in the news 2 years ago that she was out partying while her daughter was missing and that she had made up the nanny story, those parts are certainly not normal behavior or typical of someone who is innocent, but I can set that aside and remain open minded since their are two sides to every story, I wanted to hear what ICA had to say and explain how we arrived at this point, so I decided to watch the trial, on the first day of the opening statements the defense managed to single-handedly incriminate their client with their preposterous story regarding what really happened.
I found the whole story bizarre and insulting to my intelligence.

I agree that the state does not have DNA, fingerprint or photographic evidence putting the duct tape directly in ICA's hand to prove that she killed her daughter, however the state has enough of a circumstantial case and if you connect all the dots it leaves little doubt that ICA killed her child and that she did have motive and that allows one to see how premeditation came into play here, imo that is enough to get a conviction.
I would say at this juncture that ICA killed her daughter and it was premeditated.

(I bolded & italicized the quote I'm responding to.)
Is it the jurors' obligation to connect the dots? Not everything that gets connected should be connected.
I also had a question about what exactly is the definition of "reasonable doubt."
 
I have followed this case somewhat loosely before the trial that means that as a Florida resident I could not help but hear some bits of news here and there about ICA, but I never read anything about the case or followed it actively, my initial thoughts were that she was guilty of something because ICA was the last person to see her daughter alive and most importantly I saw that she waited over 31 days to report her daughter missing, that for me raises some very big flags and should to everyone as well.

I did see in the news 2 years ago that she was out partying while her daughter was missing and that she had made up the nanny story, those parts are certainly not normal behavior or typical of someone who is innocent, but I can set that aside and remain open minded since their are two sides to every story, I wanted to hear what ICA had to say and explain how we arrived at this point, so I decided to watch the trial, on the first day of the opening statements the defense managed to single-handedly incriminate their client with their preposterous story regarding what really happened.
I found the whole story bizarre and insulting to my intelligence.

I agree that the state does not have DNA, fingerprint or photographic evidence putting the duct tape directly in ICA's hand to prove that she killed her daughter, however the state has enough of a circumstantial case and if you connect all the dots it leaves little doubt that ICA killed her child and that she did have motive and that allows one to see how premeditation came into play here, imo that is enough to get a conviction.
I would say at this juncture that ICA killed her daughter and it was premeditated.

I'm a Central Floridian and I was riveted by this case..not just because of the seemingly cold callous disguarding of such a precious baby...BUT more so because of the dysfunctional family CIRCUS the Anthony's presented PROUDLY ON TV. I truly believe Casey was abused but not by George...by Cindy. There is some hardcore mental and emotional abuse going back and forth between Cindy and Casey. Cindy has even said she was harder on Casey then she was on Lee...what does she mean by "harder"? Anyway, my point was...

I'm not seeing how the prosecution has presented solid evidence to get the Death Penalty. The heart sticker, the blow fly/flies/fatty acids, the chloroform, the lying/partying while Caylee is missing, the tatoo can all be "connected" to say:

the heart sticker is not related, it does not match, it was stuck onto something else and the evidence no longer exsists, was it really even there?....so how does this prove premeditation?

The blow fly/flies come not just when a human dies but when an animal dies too...the fatty acids were never identified as human, were they..hmmmm

The chloroform GOD only knows how such high levels of choloroform showed up in the air in the trunk that was left open for a few days BEFORE the LE came and towed it away. We will never know the extent of the clean up job done on the car once George and Cindy brought it home from the tow company. We also don't know what Casey did to attempt to rid it of the smell before she abandoned it. A mix of easily accessible household cleaning products could have been thrown in there by all three of them the result chloroform.

We all know that Cindy and Casey both respond to stressors with denial (think about the pregnancy and the years Casey stoled and lied and both George and Cindy excused or LIED it away).. Casey's partying could be "connected" to her pattern of denial of traumatic events..she just continued behaving like nothing bad actually happened. "If I act like it didn't happen then it didn't.." At least until your belly starts poking out too far...or the bones of your baby are found...

The tattoo could have been Casey's way of memorializing her daughter.. Casey's life and the life she was living wasn't beautiful but Caylee was truly a beautiful life.

The only thing we know to be true is that Caylee is dead and she was left in the woods to rot in two trash bags and a laundry bag with her favorite things. I honestly don't think we will EVER know beyond reasonable doubt what really happened to Caylee.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
154
Guests online
1,895
Total visitors
2,049

Forum statistics

Threads
601,087
Messages
18,118,195
Members
230,995
Latest member
truelove
Back
Top