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

[cluciano63]

Having followed the trial closely but not the case beforehand, I wish that the defense was made of of more competent attorneys. It is really hard to watch such an incompetent bunch. I can't help but feel that that, even if they are of her choosing, she is getting a poor representation. Maybe not poor enough to gain a new trial, but it makes me wish for better defense attorneys across the board, I guess. I am impressed by very few, overall.

I still can't shake the feeling that something will take place during the defense to cause a mistrial...perhaps something from Casey A. Either by her design or by a hint from one of her less-than-stellar lawyers to act out in such a way (screaming at her father that he is a molester in open court, for example) that would have to be gounds for a retrial. I think Casey can see the bus coming at her and may want to have another shot with a new jury. Maybe my imagination is overactive, but I can almost picture it, and even if JB was the one who told her to do it, that probably could never be proven and I am not sure he cares if he is disbarred or not. I don't see his future in lawyering anyway. I think JB very much wants to avoid being the lawyer who lost the case...causing a mistrial would not bother him as much.

 

[tamild]

For me, I am quite sure that she is guilty and that this was no accident. The facts just don't add up to anything else. I completely 100% believe there was a body in the car and that it was there for a few days. Since Casey was in possession of the car, that leaves her as the one who put the body there. Now, lets say that Caylee drowned and Casey panicked....I could believe that BUT I'd have to also believe that in her panicked state Casey had the presence of mind to stage a kidnapping via the duct tape. If she was staging a kidnapping, WHY would she keep the body in the car? No...it just doesn't make sense. Also,there is no way that Casey drove around with the body in the trunk, it started to smell, THEN she applied the duct tape before dumping Caylee. NO way, no way. Poor Caylee was in a decomposing state at that time. To put it delicately, the odor and degraded state of the body would've prevented anyone from wanting to be in direct contact with it. No...I think the most likely scenario is that Casey put duct tape on the child's mouth to "shut her up" and killed her in the process. Remember, little Caylee was almost 3, and I'm sure she was a handful. One of Casey's boyfriends testified that she had trouble getting Caylee to sleep. I would imagine she had trouble with her other times as well. Casey doesn't seem to be the most patient person, and Caylee was at the age where kids try your patience something awful. I think that in Casey's twisted, selfish mind, Caylee deserved it, so she had no problem carrying on with life as usual. Read between the lines in the jailhouse tapes.

 

[Gracenote]

My sister had not followed the case and only started watching the trial because I have it on. She told me this morning that she is not certain about Casey's guilt, and she does wonder about Roy Kronk. I did not slap her, but instead will wait until the end of the trial then get her "verdict." Then I might slap her. (no no no I won't. Websleuthers don't behave like that)

 

[mfcmom]

My husband has absolutely no interest in this case whatsoever, he even scoffs at my watching it, however, having caught glimpses of it, (probably when he was hungry) he looked at me this morning and said "Is it over, she did it, why is it taking so long, in my country she would have already been convicted" JMO

 

[nlseig]

I have been following this case every since Cindy Called 911. While I firmly believe she is guilty, I an uncertain as to whether it was premediated or an
accident.
I have friends that just got into watching this trial and you won't not believe
what their different thoughts are. Some believe George had something to do with it. So, who knows what the deliberation will be like in the Jury Room. Can
the Jury come back with a lesser charge than 1st degree. Dont' beat me up for this, but I am thinking 2nd degree or manslaughter.

 

[Peachy Keen]

My sister had not followed the case and only started watching the trial because I have it on. She told me this morning that she is not certain about Casey's guilt, and she does wonder about Roy Kronk. I did not slap her, but instead will wait until the end of the trial then get her "verdict." Then I might slap her. (no no no I won't. Websleuthers don't behave like that)

BBM

Thank you for making me laugh this afternoon. I needed it!

 

[Dragonlady]

(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'm not sure I understand what you mean about:

Not everything that gets connected should be connected.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+Doubt

Reasonable doubt is a standard of proof used in criminal trials. When a criminal defendant is prosecuted, the prosecutor must prove the defendant's guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. If the jury—or the judge in a bench trial—has a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the jury or judge should pronounce the defendant not guilty. Conversely, if the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.

Reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof used in court. In civil litigation the standard of proof is either proof by a preponderance of the evidence or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. A preponderance of the evidence simply means that one side has more evidence in its favor than the other, even by the smallest degree. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that establishes a high probability that the fact sought to be proved is true. The main reason that the high proof standard of reasonable doubt is used in criminal trials is that criminal trials can result in the deprivation of a defendant's liberty or in the defendant's death, outcomes far more severe than occur in civil trials where money damages are the common remedy.

Reasonable doubt is required in criminal proceedings under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In in re winship, 397 U.S. 358, 90 S. Ct. 1068, 25 L. Ed. 2d 368 (1970), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the highest standard of proof is grounded on "a fundamental value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free."

The reasonable doubt standard is not used in every stage of a criminal prosecution. The prosecution and defense need not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that every piece of evidence offered into trial is authentic and relevant. If a prosecutor or defendant objects to a piece of evidence, the objecting party must come forward with evidence showing that the disputed evidence should be excluded from trial. Then the trial judge decides to admit or exclude it based on a preponderance of the evidence presented. A similar procedure employing a preponderance standard is used when a party challenges a variety of evidence, such as coerced confessions, illegally seized evidence, and statements extracted without the furnishing of the so-called Miranda warning.

The reasonable doubt standard is inapplicable to still other phases of a criminal prosecution. Lower standards of proof are permissible in Parole revocation proceedings, proceedings to revoke Probation, and prison inmate disciplinary proceedings.

 

[Hali]

@Dragonlady:
What I mean by, "Not everything that gets connected should be connected," is a general statement I'm making, and not necessarily specific to this case. There are times when things that are tied together, or connected, are done so incorrectly.
Also, thanks for the definition of "reasonable doubt."

 

[moodyblue]

I mentioned in another post about my brother not knowing much about case until after the frye hearings started.

He has been following the trail everyday as well. He had doubts about her guilt until all those tapes were played. He said that and the 31 days was the turning point for him. Before that he said he believed it was an accident and she panicked, and that caylee either drowned or ICA overdosed her accidently. He does not believe any of the "Daddy molested me all my life and helped cover up".

 

[crimesnooper]

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.

I think all opinions are welcome, truly. For me there are many ways to look at things and I find, especially in this case, that there are so many facets. I am curious though what do you think happened to Caylee?
Do you think she is guilty but the SA just did not prove it?

 

[Soulmagent]

The media has convicted her for years, thanks to Nancy Grace. I really find it very interesting that this case is so high profile. Parents kill their kids everyday, but Casey was lucky to be the featured one, shes more evil than Shainya Davis' mom, who actually gave her daughter to men to rape for her debt, and they killed her, tossed her body, and the mother got out of jail. I didn't see a huge protest about that, to me thats just terrible, but for the past years Nancy has been exploiting the expensive bottled water that Casey was buying, acting like she contacted Evian directly, these are waters on a jail commisary, I mean what is the big deal? Its been stuff like this I just dont get.

Casey is a weird girl, there is probably something mentally wrong with her, but nothing here points to intentional murder, I don't think the State has proved it at all. It is possible for people to react badly and do something outrageous to coverup stuff, especially a person who denied a pregnancy and stuff like that. I do think a pattern has been shown to establish she does not handle things well.

jmo

Off topic

I do not think Casey is more evil then Shainya Davis's mother.
Nope not at all.

 

[Dragonlady]

@Dragonlady:
What I mean by, "Not everything that gets connected should be connected," is a general statement I'm making, and not necessarily specific to this case. There are times when things that are tied together, or connected, are done so incorrectly.
Also, thanks for the definition of "reasonable doubt."

Thanks for responding, I agree that innocent individuals have been wrongly convicted due evidence that was somehow incorrectly tied to them.
This case is difficult because it is based on circumstantial evidence so all we have are bits and pieces of statements and evidence, so it's up to the jurors to sort through and connect them together as reasonably as possible, the SA used what they could, the A's cleaned the car and withheld some evidence in the beginning and the elements washed away any fingerprints on the garbage bags and duct tape, finally poor Caylee was reduced to a skeleton so it made it very hard to determine the cause of death but Dr. G really brought it home for me, no child dead or alive should have wide duct tape wrapped around their face, the only reason this would be done is to prevent breathing and ICA knew this would kill her child, so at some point she decided to commit this act and this is where premeditation comes in, it does not matter when, it just matters that she decided to get a roll of duct tape from the home, and she then proceeded to wrap the duct tape around her daughter face, maybe Caylee fought back, who knows, but I bet that ICA would want to avoid getting hurt or scratched so it would make sense to sedate or chloroform her in order to wrap the tape around her, she also would not want to touch her deceased child's body especially after it began to decompose so after death makes no sense.
I hope that this somehow explains how I see this, but I appreciate other viewpoints.

 

[downport]

There is so much talk about juror # 4.
- She is a middle aged woman.
- Stated during jury selection that she cannot judge people due to her religious convictions.
- Often gave long looks at the defendant during the states presentation.
- Did not take notes during the state's presentation.
- Began taking copious notes from the start of the defense presentation this morning ( day 1 ).

What is your take on her ?

 

[downport]

My gut feeling is that she's been convinced of guilt & her reason for taking notes now is she takes her resposibilitu seriously & is looking for competeting evidence of something, anything so she can properly deliberate.

 

[Bittiness39]

I'd find an alternate...if everyone else is in opposition of what we may perceive her opinion to be...Well...that is the route it might go...if it is true that she "can't judge" and is "taking notes" during the Defense case (not the prosecution) so that she can back herself up during jury deliberations. All indications I have read point that the jury (mostly save one or two) is largely with the prosecution. If it comes down to one obstinate juror...that is what the alternates are for. If they refuse to deliberate.

 

[Beyond Belief]

I don't remember the 'judging because of religious convictions". I thought it was she didn't like to judge people because of what other people say about them. Or am I mixing her up with someone else?

 

[krkrjx]

Having followed the trial closely but not the case beforehand, I wish that the defense was made of of more competent attorneys. It is really hard to watch such an incompetent bunch. I can't help but feel that that, even if they are of her choosing, she is getting a poor representation. Maybe not poor enough to gain a new trial, but it makes me wish for better defense attorneys across the board, I guess. I am impressed by very few, overall.

I still can't shake the feeling that something will take place during the defense to cause a mistrial...perhaps something from Casey A. Either by her design or by a hint from one of her less-than-stellar lawyers to act out in such a way (screaming at her father that he is a molester in open court, for example) that would have to be gounds for a retrial. I think Casey can see the bus coming at her and may want to have another shot with a new jury. Maybe my imagination is overactive, but I can almost picture it, and even if JB was the one who told her to do it, that probably could never be proven and I am not sure he cares if he is disbarred or not. I don't see his future in lawyering anyway. I think JB very much wants to avoid being the lawyer who lost the case...causing a mistrial would not bother him as much.

Something happening like you describe might not necessarily mean mistrial. When I did jury duty something happened that was unexpected and was intended to disrupt, which it certainly did!, yet no mistrial was called. Instead, we jurors were polled about the incident; we were asked if it would negatively affect our doing our jobs of weighing the evidence and testimony given. Each juror replied that it would not negatively affect...and the trial continued.

Granted, this was not in Florida and it seems to me that court in Florida is different than almost anywhere else, but I doubt that even in Florida an intentional outburst by the defendant would automatically mean a mistrial ...if it did, defendants all over the state would be attempting to *throw* their trials as soon as things looked to be going not their way.

 

[krkrjx]

I don't remember the 'judging because of religious convictions". I thought it was she didn't like to judge people because of what other people say about them. Or am I mixing her up with someone else?

I took her comment the same way! To me, it sounded like she was trying to say she is not a gossip and doesn't like gossips. Even though she didn't phrase it that way, I have heard friends gossiping and one will say "...but who am I to judge?"

I am not too worried about Juror #4. And I don't worry about jurors looking at KC, even if it appears to be a favorable look. Also, I don't put too much into jurors taking notes or not taking notes because often they are just jotting down questions or thoughts to discuss with the others during deliberations.

I remember back in the 70s during the Charles Manson trial...one of the male jurors seemed taken with one of the female defendants, she would smile at him and he sometimes smiled back. He would look at her a lot during proceedings...stare even. Everyone was so worried he would not be able to convict her but in the end he did, and it was a DP case. ANd IIRC that trial lasted seven months, and jury was sequestered the entire time.

 

[LongtimeMedic]

I follow a few live trial cases and prefer live feed cases vs. talking head media so I can draw my own opinions as a case progresses. I have particularly avoided this case, as I did anything about the Phil Specter Case, so I could build my opinion based on what the jury heard and that only.

Day one of this trial, I proudly listened to the State Opening thinking... yeah, she'll get the needle for sure! Then... here came the defenses opening, and I was stunned with the concept that the story could actually have legs... that is, reasonable doubt might not be hard to find. Or as Jose Baez put it "Reasonable Doubt isn't sprinkled throughout this case, It lives here."

As I listened intently for a clear how/when/where/why/who about Caylee's "murder", it never arrived. Even with all the circumstantial evidence provided, the State, IMO (which I'm certain is not popular) failed to meet the burden of proof. Now one day into the defense, and reasonable doubt isn't just here and there, it's starting to grow all over.

Sorry for being the "odd out" here, but I'm just calling it as if I were a juror, and yes, I could have been an unbiased juror in this case... in fact when it started, I would have probably been picked by the State.

 

[cluciano63]

Ok, I have been watching the trial carefully and put out of my mind what little I knew coming in (probably less than these jurors knew) ..and I just have not seen anything convincing me of intentional murder or even intentional child abuse. Both may have occurred but no concrete proof, for me. I can see that Caylee was disposed of in a very harsh, even criminal manner once dead, but I don't know how she died.

Everything on the forensic side seems to be a list of "could haves" and "may haves". She may have been suffocated, she may have been poisoned. I just don't see how I could say, as a juror, that nothing else could have reasonably happened.

We are clearly NOT dealing with a "normal" defendant; the jurors have seen that much, though not as much as they still may, about her or her family. I can believe that Casey would think it a "good" idea to tape up Caylee with the duct tape and make it look like she was murdered, even if she did drown. No one else in the state of Florida would have done that, but no one else comes across quite like this defendant, IMO. So, not out of the question, for me.

And this family is just plain weird. I am not over seeing her father tiptoe around her even when she is behind bars. There is something there, and it could be abuse as much as anything else. I don't personally believe he abused her, but I can't case it aside 100% either.

Just saying, I think in my own mind that Casey is guilty of killing Caylee, but I don't know how she did it, when she did it, why she did it or if she did it without anyone else knowing.