Now Miss Plum, don't confuse the jurors. That is likely way too complicated, also they will just decide to throw it out as a "phantom code".
What do you want to personally say to the jurors?
- Thread starter Bainbridge
- Start date
- Status
Now Miss Plum, don't confuse the jurors. That is likely way too complicated, also they will just decide to throw it out as a "phantom code".
LambChop
Former Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2008
- Messages
- 21,160
- Reaction score
- 30
I guess the problem with the experts was that they were not given all the information by defense and told not to give their reports on what they viewed. Some admitted at the Frye Hearing that they had not seen certain photos that were released in Discovery (Dr. Spitz obviously only viewed the skull from one side with the tape on it because he testified to that fact). Another problem was that defense did not produce any reports and tried to sneak some things in even though HHJP forbid that behavior.
CA and GA were obviously very active with defense by their own admission and by letters sent to KC. JB was the only resource the A's had to get information to their daughter. That being said that fact that they lied to protect their daughter caught them off guard when GA became KC's newest victum. The depos were already given with their false testimony and either they set themselves up or they cooperated with KC's wishes to give the false answers they gave. CA had no problems lying, GA appeared to be conflicted about doing so. Scapegoats is how I would describe them and now they will have to live with it because KC will just cast them aside because they have no money. They will be discarded as easily as KC discarded her daughter. There is no love there, it's been gone for 3 years. jmo
Duckley
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 158
- Reaction score
- -1
I am so shocked and appalled I hardly know what to say. I guess unless there is a video tape depicting a murder, there can be no justice. I can only hope they will come to realize their mistake and try to make amends in some way.
This is a sad day for Caylee and a sad day for the USjustice system.
This is a sad day for Caylee and a sad day for the USjustice system.
Just Jayla
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2009
- Messages
- 3,222
- Reaction score
- 210
Hope your vacations are great, I know you couldn't be further hindered from them by some silly penalty phase deliberation in the murder of Caylee Anthony.
Remembering CJ
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2011
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 0
So you found her guilty on 4 counts of lying to LE. So why do you think she lied? To cover up an accident and make it look like a kidnapping? I could understand why you could not go with Murder 1 but cannot imagine what she did to Caylee that you think she lied about that wouldn't cause her to be guilty on a lesser charge.
Do you know the difference between "reasonable doubt" and "beyond the shadow of a doubt"?
Circumstantial evidence is evidence, is it not?
So as long as a killer has enough time (31 days) to cover their tracks and clean up, making evidence hard if not impossible to find, then they should be given a pass because they were so thorough and good at what they do?
Do you feel without a confession and/or a "smoking gun" that we should acquit all killers? Because without those two items you can always find room for a sliver of doubt.
Do you know the difference between "reasonable doubt" and "beyond the shadow of a doubt"?
Circumstantial evidence is evidence, is it not?
So as long as a killer has enough time (31 days) to cover their tracks and clean up, making evidence hard if not impossible to find, then they should be given a pass because they were so thorough and good at what they do?
Do you feel without a confession and/or a "smoking gun" that we should acquit all killers? Because without those two items you can always find room for a sliver of doubt.
Velouria
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,372
- Reaction score
- 36
Respectfully, which expert do you think the defense's "grief specialist" cancelled out?
norest4thewicked
True Crime Writer
I would like to tell them that now that Casey is free, I hope that since they all live in the area, hopefully Casey will meet one of their sons and hook up with him, get pregnant and have their first grand child. Then, after reading up on this case, they can look forward to being the grandparents of another Casey Anthony child.
I honestly don't know how in the world they came to that decision. It sickens me and makes me know for certain that there is no justice in this country!
I honestly don't know how in the world they came to that decision. It sickens me and makes me know for certain that there is no justice in this country!
bonniez451
Member
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2011
- Messages
- 111
- Reaction score
- 1
I question on how they say the police should have been called, I question who would sit the time for an accident, I question why the swamp, and I question 31 DAYS!
I'm not an emotional person. I guess in that way, I often seem stoned-face (like Casey Anthony) on the outside. And I didn't think I would care too much about this case one way or the other, no matter how it turned out.
But I want to know why the jury didn't take this case seriously. I'm not joking. Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning, really? That's it? Did they even review the evidence? From what I understand, they never made one request for any piece of evidence or transcription to be read back to them. In fact, I get a strong impression that what they cared about most of all was getting back to their lives, to their cruise plans or whatever other plans they have for the summer. They took very little notes during the trial. How is that being conscientious? For Pete's sake, they dressed up this morning...knowing when they woke up that they were going to render a verdict today after a disgracefully short period of time!
I served on two jury trials. Let me tell you, they were short, piddly little cases. Yet I took copious notes and fought for longer deliberations inside the jury room despite the fact that we all leaned toward a guilty verdict in the first vote. But I felt we owed it to both the defense and prosecution to take our duties seriously and go over every piece of evidence just to make certain we were making the right decision.
I want to ask the jurors to do their own research now that they're back home. Look up "reasonable doubt" and "circumstantial evidence." The prosecution did not have to prove this case beyond all doubt, nor did they have to prove the case beyond the doubts of, perhaps, a juror who felt that she didn't have the right to judge anyone (I'm looking at you, Juror #4). The doubt involved must only be beyond what A REASONABLE person would consider in acquittal. And circumstantial evidence, contrary to popular opinion, is a very powerful thing. It can be likened to a rope--each thread, taken apart, may not seem like much, but when put together can hold any weight. That is how strong circumstantial evidence is. And murder cases are ALMOST ALWAYS made up of solely circumstantial evidence. The only thing that could ever be considered direct evidence is if a witness actually saw the murder. As you may surmise, that is a rare event. So circumstantial evidence is what gets murder cases convicted.
But aside from there, the prosecution had powerful scientific and forensic evidence, no matter how much Jose Baez and his quack witnesses tried to confuse and deny that fact. In fact, much of the science was groundbreaking, and will doubtless be used more and more in future cases. Back in 1994, during the OJ trial, jurors thought that DNA was weird "fantasy forensics." And now look at how accepted it is. It's pathetic that fear and distrust of science will distract and scare a jury.
To paraphrase Prosecutor Ashton, no one is going to make an accident look like homicide. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I had brought in this verdict. It would have been a hung jury, because I have enough sense to put various pieces of evidence together and call it what it is.
I think we live in a current societal trend that disdains passing judgment on anyone. Although on its surface this seems like a good thing, we can see its detrimental effects here. As a society, we must keep some sort of a moral compass so that people who do awful, criminal things are appropriately punished. This jury let a conniving, lying, unfeeling, selfish woman get away with murder. Period. I hope they are satisfied in a few years when they see her on television with her riches from book and movie deals, partying with Paris Hilton, dancing on Caylee's grave.
This is why this country needs professional jurors.
I hope this doesn't offend anyone here, but this is truly what I would say to the jurors if I had the opportunity.
But I want to know why the jury didn't take this case seriously. I'm not joking. Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning, really? That's it? Did they even review the evidence? From what I understand, they never made one request for any piece of evidence or transcription to be read back to them. In fact, I get a strong impression that what they cared about most of all was getting back to their lives, to their cruise plans or whatever other plans they have for the summer. They took very little notes during the trial. How is that being conscientious? For Pete's sake, they dressed up this morning...knowing when they woke up that they were going to render a verdict today after a disgracefully short period of time!
I served on two jury trials. Let me tell you, they were short, piddly little cases. Yet I took copious notes and fought for longer deliberations inside the jury room despite the fact that we all leaned toward a guilty verdict in the first vote. But I felt we owed it to both the defense and prosecution to take our duties seriously and go over every piece of evidence just to make certain we were making the right decision.
I want to ask the jurors to do their own research now that they're back home. Look up "reasonable doubt" and "circumstantial evidence." The prosecution did not have to prove this case beyond all doubt, nor did they have to prove the case beyond the doubts of, perhaps, a juror who felt that she didn't have the right to judge anyone (I'm looking at you, Juror #4). The doubt involved must only be beyond what A REASONABLE person would consider in acquittal. And circumstantial evidence, contrary to popular opinion, is a very powerful thing. It can be likened to a rope--each thread, taken apart, may not seem like much, but when put together can hold any weight. That is how strong circumstantial evidence is. And murder cases are ALMOST ALWAYS made up of solely circumstantial evidence. The only thing that could ever be considered direct evidence is if a witness actually saw the murder. As you may surmise, that is a rare event. So circumstantial evidence is what gets murder cases convicted.
But aside from there, the prosecution had powerful scientific and forensic evidence, no matter how much Jose Baez and his quack witnesses tried to confuse and deny that fact. In fact, much of the science was groundbreaking, and will doubtless be used more and more in future cases. Back in 1994, during the OJ trial, jurors thought that DNA was weird "fantasy forensics." And now look at how accepted it is. It's pathetic that fear and distrust of science will distract and scare a jury.
To paraphrase Prosecutor Ashton, no one is going to make an accident look like homicide. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I had brought in this verdict. It would have been a hung jury, because I have enough sense to put various pieces of evidence together and call it what it is.
I think we live in a current societal trend that disdains passing judgment on anyone. Although on its surface this seems like a good thing, we can see its detrimental effects here. As a society, we must keep some sort of a moral compass so that people who do awful, criminal things are appropriately punished. This jury let a conniving, lying, unfeeling, selfish woman get away with murder. Period. I hope they are satisfied in a few years when they see her on television with her riches from book and movie deals, partying with Paris Hilton, dancing on Caylee's grave.
This is why this country needs professional jurors.
I hope this doesn't offend anyone here, but this is truly what I would say to the jurors if I had the opportunity.
KR2tonenow
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2007
- Messages
- 3,768
- Reaction score
- 21
Right, I say enjoy that cruise -------hope you can sleep at night!!
dog.gone.cute
Kyron Horman - Missing Since 6-4-10
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 15,653
- Reaction score
- 1,949
:waitasec:
What "flavor" and "how much" of the "KC" Kool-Aid did you "jurors" drink the past six weeks ?
Must have plenty because all of you were "taken in" by Casey Anthony's LIES LIES LIES and her family's LIES LIES LIES ... and the DT's LIES !
MOO MOO MOO ...
What "flavor" and "how much" of the "KC" Kool-Aid did you "jurors" drink the past six weeks ?
Must have plenty because all of you were "taken in" by Casey Anthony's LIES LIES LIES and her family's LIES LIES LIES ... and the DT's LIES !
MOO MOO MOO ...
surfinsue1029
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2008
- Messages
- 35
- Reaction score
- 0
I would like to ask them why they think that 99.9% of the rest of the world believed she was guilty and they didn't? Why are you people so different? Why did you not ask to review the evidence of the trial while you were deliberating? Why only a mere 11 hours of deliberation on a death penalty case. They deliberated for a full week during the Scott Peterson trial. Did you not take this as serious as you should have? Special request: The next time you are asked to serve on a jury........please decline!!!!!!!
Wholehearted
New Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2011
- Messages
- 721
- Reaction score
- 1
Why would she sit for 3 years in jail, if it was an accident?
- Status