Verdict Suggests Juries are Tired of Theoretical Justice & Circumstancial Evidence

[Eileen730]

I think in cases on a grand scale as this or maybe all murder cases the jurors should be seperated from each other all the time,, NO chit chating no dinners no bbq's no fireworks
nothing no deliberations let their opinions be their very own opinions not what maybe others are voting..
I think these ppl spoke among themselves all the time and came to this verdict before they ever walked intot he deliberation room.

I also think Jurors should never be able to make money off their experience.
No parties or trips to Disneyworld cause you let a child killer go free...
JMHO

 

[tehcloser]

My husband just sent me pic of the enquirer and it reads on the front page!

CASEY ANTHONY!!!!

I'M PREGNANT!!!!!!!

what next???

The Globe with the title: "Casey Anthony!!! I'm Pregnant!!! Daddy Is A Shape Shifter Who Snuck Into Her Cell Late At Night!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ?????????? :waitasec:

 

[Baznme]

To make it look like they drugged the child and put her in the trunk of a car with duct tape over her mouth while they kidnapped her. The nanny would have to move the child out of state. I'm speculating how CA thinks of course which is the thing I don't like to do. That's the stuff of gossip and discussion.

Since this is (IMO) how she died it makes it look the same.

Or if you want to take it a step further, she killed her this way on purpose to make it look like a kidnapping, thinking that's what it would look like.

I can see that argument.


The only reason I don't agree with that argument is why would she go to all that trouble to kill her when she could have just drowned her in the pool?

BBM - Good point!

Do we know where her car was when she and Tony were in Blockbuster? To me, that's important. If Caylee was in the trunk and the car was parked in the sun, 4pm hottest part of the day with the windows rolled up, highly likely she died of heat exposure. Temps in summer in Fla. can get up to well over 130 degrees within 10 minutes of a closed car. Forgotten kids in the car. Far too many children have died that way.

 

[Italy]

This is offensive - so reader beware


Geraldo stated that in July in Florida the temperature in the trunk of a closed car trunk would have reached as high as 170 degrees and that a body, wrapped in plastic, would have liquified in only a very few days.

No wonder the car stunk even after 2 years. Smell is not contained within plastic (and I can attest to that after accidentally leaving a ziplock bag of turkey gizzards - for the cat - in my car).

 

[com n sense]

I heard someone say on one of the talk shows that jurors should have to have enough education to understand the scientific data and that this jury couldn't put two and two together.

Sad thing is, George even told them 2 + 2 = 4 & they still didn't get it.

 

[Eileen730]

Did it show a picture of Jose Baez handing out cigars?

LOL they were a little closey touchy feeley dont ya think?
I am so sick of Casey Anthony!

but im a firm believer in what goes around comes around!!!!

 

[AnaTeresa]

I believe that we need to change laws and start video taping jury deliberations in order to ensure that the verdict reached is fair, and follows the judges instructions on the law and prevent juror fraud and bullying or coercion of jurors.

LEO video or audio tapes interviews and interrogations, why should jurors not be held to the same standard?

1) Because jurors may be less likely to render an unpopular opinion, because it's on tape who said what. Just because something is unpopular does not mean it is wrong.
2) What one person interprets as coercion, another would call real deliberation and discussion in the jury room. Who really should decide this issue?
3) How long before the media starts clamoring for their right to view the videotaped deliberations and it becomes even more of a circus?
4) If we don't like what they focused on in the jury room, are you going to invalidate it?

Video taping the jury would lead to a greater miscarriage of justice and would pander to mob mentality.

 

[Chewy]

This is offensive - so reader beware


Geraldo stated that in July in Florida the temperature in the trunk of a closed car trunk would have reached as high as 170 degrees and that a body, wrapped in plastic, would have liquified in only a very few days.

No wonder the car stunk even after 2 years. Smell is not contained within plastic (and I can attest to that after accidentally leaving a ziplock bag of turkey gizzards - for the cat - in my car).

Again, more speculation on my part, but this might be why she chose the swamp. She was in such a state of decomp. The important thing to Casey was that they FOUND Caylee, which is why she didn't bury her.


IMGO

 

[Eileen730]

Sad thing is, George even told them 2 + 2 = 4 & they still didn't get it.

Well they had to wake one Juror up gues he or she was very bored!

they may not have been able to add! JMO

 

[LaLaw2000]

Wait a minute didn't the guy who was forced out of his job because of those tainted records testify for the defense. Isn't that one of the defense experts? :waitasec:

This jury didn't think it was willful? So I might ask what evidence did they base that on? I do not recall Baez ever being able to back up his wild assertions in his opening statement. There was more evidence that this was in fact willful, the hiding of the body, the actions for 31 days, the lies, the way the body was found and the items that were found with Caylee, the smell in the trunk.

Now what did we hear about not willful. A woman who was allowed to give hearsay testimony that George allegedly said "This was an accident that snowballed........"

There has to come a time when Defense Attorneys are not allowed to come out with fantasy in their opening statements unless they know going in they can back up those statements.

This trial has nothing to do with what the jury saw as not enough evidence but the State being forced to not only prove it's case, but to fight the fabrications and emotional bunk that defense Attorneys are allowed to throw out (and not prove) to confuse and play on the emotions of a jury.

If the system is broken it is because jurors are not able to remove myth from fact.

And, because the family went into a CYA mode protecting Casey. lying in the earliest stages and trying to justify what had happened. It proves if you scream loud enough and confuse the truth with spin you can get away with crime.

All this trial did for me was tell me that if you are in a high profile case your defense attorney can fabricate stories and if you hide a body long enough you will get away with your crime because most of the evidence of what happened i.e. "cause of death" is lost.

This bears repeating! Great post and thoughts, grandmaj, and oh so true!

:applause::applause:

ETA: Had to come back and edit because ALL of your posts are great and make so much sense. I agree with all of them.

 

[Omachka]

If they hadn't asked for the death penalty I think they would have convicted her. When ask for the death penalty you should have an airtight case. In this one it wasn't.

The only thing is that they didn't have to give her the death penalty. There were other choices there. I'm not sure what you mean by "airtight" but the facts the prosecution presented supported first degree murder and that's why they asked for it. IMO the jury didn't even listen to the jury instructions given by the judge just before they went to deliberate. They even left their notebooks sitting on their chairs. To me their minds were made up. I won't speculate why they were made up but they were. The lady juror who is speaking out says she made up her mind early on... IMO right after they made up their minds, they closed them up tight to any other information presented.

 

[com n sense]

I agree - what is great though is that the public is raining down on this jury. Thanks to having this trial televised we know the jury completely blew it and people are really speaking out and boycotting any efforts to pay them.

This jury is not getting a pass and are being called out on the fact that they did not do what they swore they would do - consider the evidence and render a fair verdict.

Just like the evidence was there to convict little Miss Casey Anthony, the facts are there for calling out this jury - both on the evidence in the trial and their own statements post trial.

It is our responsibility to speak out on this. It is truly an outrage and I suspect it was done out of ignorance, laziness and financial motive.

Great post!!!!!

 

[Eileen730]

1) Because jurors may be less likely to render an unpopular opinion, because it's on tape who said what. Just because something is unpopular does not mean it is wrong.
2) What one person interprets as coercion, another would call real deliberation and discussion in the jury room. Who really should decide this issue?
3) How long before the media starts clamoring for their right to view the videotaped deliberations and it becomes even more of a circus?
4) If we don't like what they focused on in the jury room, are you going to invalidate it?

Video taping the jury would lead to a greater miscarriage of justice and would pander to mob mentality.

Keep them seperate and apart from each other thats all no talking to each other
they should not even know each other as i see it.
Each person comes to their own conclusion. Not what everyone else votes.
JMO

 

[magnolia]

I have been all over the place with my theories.

1. My first was that it was cold, premeditated murder.
2. My second was that it was a chloroform accident and coverup.
3. My third was that it was murder and GA caught FCA trying to bury Caylee in the yard and assisted with the coverup.

I have been all over the place but if I were a juror there would have been a mistrial. I am 100% certain that I would not have let off. I may have negotiated to a lesser degree than first but she would not have walked. Why? A child is dead and she is culpable.

Everyone loves HHJP and I thought I did too. Then I sat back and realized that he severely rushed the jury selction process, the trial, and gave the jury the impression (by working on a Holiday) to hurry up and get this done. He also gave way too much leeway to the defenses "theory" because of his fear of a mistrial.

JMO....

BBM So would I.

Magnolia and Juror#3 would have ended up butting heads. No doubt about it. I would love to debate this case with her. In a respectful manner, of course.:innocent:

 

[amysmom]

Good points. Another thing I found extremely disturbing was the way the female defense attorney, (was her name Sims, the same one that was jumping up and down after the verdict) kept fondling Casey during the trial. Hugging her, holding her hand, stroking her, I found it highly inappropriate and thought it was being intentionally done to make Casey look like the victim. I was waiting for the judge to put a stop to it.

I was desperately waiting for the judge to put a stop to the defendant constantly testifying by not just shaking her head "no" but mouthing 'words' especially whenever it came to the testimony of GA either by him or the state in OS/CA..How could that be allowed? And with her facing the jury head-on (extremely unusual) they had to see it but with this jury I'm sure they'd all deny it but that's beside the point..IIRC, JA was asked about this & he said they wanted the jury to see her "behavior" so they did not make an objection..That just did NOT make sense to me. :waitasec:

Even without an objection surely JP saw it himself & could've put a stop to it but he did not..Why I have no clue..I also didn't like him butt-kissing the jury all the time..He treated them like little children (turned out they had that mentality) & made sure they got 'special treats' to make up for what he obviously felt was an UNFAIR situation..He constantly made mention of these 'poor folks' being sequestered=he's not so keen on it.

One juror said they got to talk to their family with a deputy standing by..What good is that when they didn't know what was being said on the other end of the phone? I don't believe it was a 'speaker' call but it def should be! IIRC, juror #3 is the lawyer's daughter..I'm sure she was prepped by her dad but good prior to her leaving for Orlando..For all we know this one passed along her knowledge re: the evidence to the other jurors during deliberations & I can see this bunch falling for whatever she had to say even if she had it all WRONG!

One of the THs said when it was at 6-6 (which is what we heard it was) more often then not the jurors are swayed to 'guilty' vs 'not guilty'..He was very surprised it was butt-backwards but so was everything in this case!

Can someone post the explanation for 'child neglect'? If anything, she should've been found GUILTY of that..End of story! :banghead:

 

[thedeviledadvocate]

The simple answer as to why the jury acquitted on the 3 major charges is that the states evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that KC was guilty of these charges.
The simple answer as to why they did not at the very least find her guilty of the 3rd charge is that based on the evidence and the testimony of GA, is that either GA or KC could have been responsible.

The states theory that KC's actions of not calling the police for 31 days, was partying, and told lie after lie, could only mean that KC murdered her daughter. The defense negated the states theory here with the defense theory that something was wrong with KC, and these actions could be attributed to denial.

The states forensic evidence was weak to begin with, using untested (in the courtroom) science amongst other things, that the defense successfully negated with their own experts, at least to the point of reasonable doubt.

The states theory that Caylee's death could only have been caused by either the chloroform or the duct tape, was negated by the defense theory that Caylee drown in the pool, supported by photos.

The states theory that KC was the last one seen with Caylee alive, was negated by the defense theory that Caylee had drowned while both GA and KC were at home. GA's testimony on the stand seemed confrontational, evasive and that he may have been misspeaking, which leads to reasonable doubt.

If the jury's verdict had been guilty on all counts, very few would have been claiming they did not have time to deliberate all that evidence.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only

 

[Eileen730]

This jury found her guilty of lying!
Id love to know what they believed she was lying about?
If they believed she was lying to LE about the nanny and all the things she told LE
how in gods name did they come to their conclusion if they believed her lies?
It makes no sense at all!!!!!!

 

[com n sense]

Well they had to wake one Juror up gues he or she was very bored!

they may not have been able to add! JMO

Noooooooo, I didn't hear about the sleeping juror!!!!
I don't think they could add or read.

 

[Eileen730]

I agree Judge Perry did not read the jurors instructions very well i kind of tuned him out also... He is at fault also in this,,,,,JMO

he could have made it all very clear and easy to understand..

 

[Hisimage]

I am more perplexed than I am angry.

Maybe being inside the courtroom as in 'Judge Judy', or watching real life courtrooms 'in session' has seriously diluted our RESPECT for the courtroom, judge and the system that it represents.

I hear lots of people say that the jurors took their responsibility seriously, except I don't think they did. They ignored judges instructions about motive and COD, used their time supporting a complex and outrageous theory (As in the plot of a CSI or Law and Order episode).
I'd have no problem accepting a verdict that was contrary to my belief, IF I felt that they just read the evidence and testimony differently to me. However I am really struggling with some of the excuses (disguised as reasoning) that the jurors are offering in explanation.

I recall a day when if one was stopped by LE, you put on your 'yes sir' voice and were respectful to the uniform. On the way to court, you hid your head in shame.

Today, when stopped we call 1-800-lawyerPlease, and watch as the lawyer is disrespectful to the LEO and the rules he has sworn to uphold, and on the way into court we wave to the crowds and smile for our pics.

This is part of a steady decline. Instead of TV interviews, I'd like to see some serious studies of the jury system and how it works or fails in legal schools right now.

Sorry for being so long - I'm still confuzzled

Amen and well said!