Where did the prosecution go wrong?

[azscr4mbl3r]

Wow! I respectfully disagree with this post. Judge Perry let ALL the evidence come in that the prosecution asked for, even the air sample evidence that had never been admitted in court before. He overruled almost every defense objection and sustained almost every prosecution objection.

He let the air sample in? It sat on a shelf. He could have just as well let a signed confession in if nobody is allowed to look at it it really isn't evident. JB objected and didn't even know why on more than one occasion. Both sides used objections to break momentum. But really JB was questioning a witness about un-introduced evidence and asked the court to strike HIS questioning. The SA didn't say a word, he objected to himself for goodness sakes.
The SA let alot slide with JB I think I had a 90% average objecting to JB and I have never watched a trail b4 ever.

 

[Kelroy]

As a proud liberal myself, I find this summary simplistically offensive. There is no basis in fact to insinuate that liberals do not demand accountability or support our justice system.

I agree! I'm so dismayed by the unfailing tendency lately (everywhere, not just here) to bring politics into everything--the tendency to use political views to explain why someone does something you don't like.

There are so many threads on essentially the same topic that I hardly know where to put this, and I certainly haven't read all the threads.

But for the people who are saying "why didn't the prosecution present any evidence of the June 15 fight": what evidence? AFAIK there was no evidence of the fight, certainly no admissible evidence. AFAIK we have no real reason to think the fight even happened.

Is there some other item of evidence people think was "missed" by the SA that would have made the difference?

Yeah, this bears repeating. I asked weeks ago on this forum whether there was any evidence of the fight other than hearsay, and I don't think I got a response; maybe something about the neighbors hearing an argument? Anyway, it seems like the very definition of hearsay evidence, so certainly inadmissible. (I also wonder if that's largely why the general public has always been so convinced of her guilt--because the media has reported quite a bit of hearsay evidence that certainly wouldn't hold up in a court of law? Not that there wasn't also a lot of seemingly solid evidence in this case as well . . . )

All that said, I'm not sure where the prosecution went wrong; though I haven't followed the trial very closely the last couple weeks, I got the impression--although maybe I got it from biased sources--that the defense case was shoddy and that the state had at least proven manslaughter. I always had doubts about the chloroform evidence, but I'm not sure if leaving that out would have made a difference.

 

[Stargazer7]

I don't think the Prosecution did anything wrong.

What I think is a miscarriage of justice is a defense attorney putting George Anthony on trial in his opening statement. They infected him as a molester and a co-conspirator. The State ran a clean case. No matter what George Anthony did he was infected. If he told the truth or if he lied he already had a total disadvantage. That is a miscarriage of justice when a defense attorney can lay the blame at the feet of someone else without one ounce of proof. Something is wrong with our system of justice when this is allowed.

If George had any guilt, where is the proof? There is none. George and Cindy put their faith in Baez from very early on. They went along with his schemes. They lied in hearings and in depositions. And then once they were stuck with their testimony Baez went after George.

The jury listened to an actor rather than the evidence in my opinion.

Co-Sign. I full believe that is exactly what happened. Baez was allowed to put George on trial and what's worse, George had at least some access to everything in play in this case. That prejudiced the jury against George from the beginning and it did more damage than the state could fix. I'm convinced of this.

Now why this didn't cause an immediate mistrial is beyond me.

 

[songline]

they left too much unexplained doubt IMO.
Don't kill me but Baez actually did a decent job with what he was given.

I totally agree, but I also feel that in addition a lot of evidence went south very early on, making it very hard to tie KC to a dead baby.
JB knew it, so he can act dumb all day long - it may have worked in his favor HE KNEW THAT DID NOT HAVE IT ALL TOGETHER.

I still say it is GA who saved KC.
I think GA is wearing his peacock hat tonight

 

[goldenlover]

The prosecution, in my opinion, never humanized themselves. They were not friendly at all to the witnessess (even their own). They did not address the jury, like JB did. He greeted them every time he went up to the podium. JA was a bully. I also think his laughing during JB's closing statement was more unprofessional than anything JB did the entire trial. HHJP was obviously very biased, over ruling the defenses objections for the same types of things he let slide with the prosecution. I also think all the delays during the defenses case due to the many, many objections by the state made it seem to the jurors that the state was hiding things.

I think the biggest thing the prosecution did wrong was to try the case as a death penalty case or LWOP case in the first place. They simply did not have any evidence that a murder was commited, who commited it, where it was commited, when it was commited or why it was commited. They could not prove any of it. Just because someone lies and doesn't report someone missing does make them the murderer.

 

[pvaldez]

:maddening:
I really think the problem was with the jury. Some juries hear the instructions and begin to think that they must forget all common sense and become a computer (I have been on two juries).
If that is what our legal system called for then we would not need a human jury. We would just input the facts into a computer and have it spit out the verdict.
Currently, our system calls for a human jury. A human jury that has or should have common sense! Sadly, this jury did not use it. Linda tried to remind them that they could and should use common sense to come to the verdict.

 

[cluciano63]

Co-Sign. I full believe that is exactly what happened. Baez was allowed to put George on trial and what's worse, George had at least some access to everything in play in this case. That prejudiced the jury against George from the beginning and it did more damage than the state could fix. I'm convinced of this.

Now why this didn't cause an immediate mistrial is beyond me.

In many murder trials I have seen the defense puts someone else forward as a suspect; in one case a mother on trial tried to blame it on her daughter. And here the state knew what the defense intended to do, they were not blindsided. And meanwhile the state is making model citizens out of the defense's alternate perp.

And IMO Judge Perry tried way too hard to avoid a mistrial; there were plenty of opportunities including when the jurors asked for evidence mid-way through, proving they were talking to each other, IMO.

There is enough "blame" to go around, I guess. IMO the state should have built the case more around the Anthony family and especially Cindy and Casey and their heated relationship. The science was complicated and too "boring" for this jury, I guess and they weren't buying what the state was selling, basically. I am not condoning the verdict, but I don't think the state proved capital murder; I think they could have done so if the LEA in August had bothered to find Caylee. I thought the state came across as rude and condescending on many occassions, and JB, if clumsy, came across as more likable. These things should not matter, but they do.

 

[songline]

I don't think the Prosecution did anything wrong.

What I think is a miscarriage of justice is a defense attorney putting George Anthony on trial in his opening statement. They infected him as a molester and a co-conspirator. The State ran a clean case. No matter what George Anthony did he was infected. If he told the truth or if he lied he already had a total disadvantage. That is a miscarriage of justice when a defense attorney can lay the blame at the feet of someone else without one ounce of proof. Something is wrong with our system of justice when this is allowed.

If George had any guilt, where is the proof? There is none. George and Cindy put their faith in Baez from very early on. They went along with his schemes. They lied in hearings and in depositions. And then once they were stuck with their testimony Baez went after George.

The jury listened to an actor rather than the evidence in my opinion.

GA would not care if all eyes are on him - IMO he helped clean up behind KC, to set up all this doubt.
GA was a Murder investigator; he knew exactly how to set it all up for doubt. George and Cindy were questions from the very start, YES, they can be called to the stand. IMO the strategy was well executed and GA was the brain child behind it.

MO

 

[KR2tonenow]

The jury didn't get all the evidence. Baez was allowed to get away with unbelievable nonsense (lying, missing deadlines, etc). AND CA lied on the stand and was able to get away with it...their was so much unfairness toward the prosecution it was ridiculous. The jury was abysmal from the start imo.

And what's appalling is why was any of it allowed to happen? It seems the guy with the middle finger to the prosecution was treated worse then Casey. I personally think the judge allowed too much BS. MIS-TRIAL!! :banghead:

 

[animlzrule]

(snipped)
I think the biggest thing the prosecution did wrong was to try the case as a death penalty case or LWOP case in the first place. They simply did not have any evidence that a murder was commited, who commited it, where it was commited, when it was commited or why it was commited. They could not prove any of it. Just because someone lies and doesn't report someone missing does make them the murderer.

Agreed. Without the remains in a timely manner, they desperately needed to be able to PROVE the WHO, the WHAT, or the WHEN or a combination of the 3 to get the death penalty or LWOP. I bet if the DA could do it over again the charges would be different and a lot more people would feel that some measure of justice had been served today. I feel for JA and LDB tonight.

 

[kathyn2]

I can't remember if I answered this but I believe they went wrong by over charging the crime (not enough evidence for death penalty). And they also allowed the wrong people on the jury. They should have used some of their strikes or all of them. They let on uneducated, felons, young people, people that can't judge etc. Wrong jury.

 

[The Shoat]

I spoke about this case to my sister, who is an attorney, and she thought that it was slam dunk 1st Degree Murder. Why -- the 31 days, the chloroform searches, the smell in the trunk (she believes the cadaver dogs, BTW). She stated that after KC began doing her searches, given the availability of the chemicals in her house, the stage had been set for a murder to take place. She mentions that this precludes 2nd degree murder, which I favored - because I thought it was a rage killing.

But, IMHO, the Judge was so worried about the case being sent back on appeal that he let Jose Baez do all sorts of things he should have been sanctioned for. And, lets not forget that JP and CM are friends.

So, the jury - stupid though they were - were distracted by DT's antics and they decide not guilty.

<Also - let's not forget a real, true fact -- KC is an attractive (pretty) white, young woman, she's not a black woman, a black male, nor an older middle-aged worse-for-the-wear woman. That influenced their decision ... really>

 

[Bainbridge]

I hate to say it, but thinking back, perhaps they should have "dumbed themselves down" for the jury. They knew who these people were; obviously not too bright and unable to connect the dots on their own. Baez connected the dots FOR them. Not truthfully of course, but connect the dots he did. The SAs had confidence these people would put 2 and 2 together. Also-big thing- I wish they would have taken the jury to the remains site so they could see how dense and large it actually was.

 

[February]

i expect a hung jury on this case.. if i am a juror on this case, i will go for a hung jury and not hand down a NOT GUILTY verdict for 10 hours. If they have more brain, they will understand that the prosecution possibly gave her an exaggerated charges but no matter what, she is plain and guilty of child abuse - for me to see that she is NOT even guilty of that , tells me one thing, jurors on this case, wanted to end the case on their hands... and hopefully this is not all about MONEY... if they hand a guilty verdict, everyone goes home and casey goes back to jail... now- the case is all over the news, everyone is talking more about this, national enquirer will pay high dollars to talk to them..... if they are giving an excuse that they dont want to give a guilty verdict because they are not sure the cause of death, the time of death --- then go for a hung jury!... let the time and chance, justice do it on the other court

 

[Yellow]

I wonder if the last minute snafu with the chloroform searches caused the jury ro mistrust the prosecution. Both prosecutors failed to mention the chloroform searches in their closing, essentially conceding JB point. They should have addressed that issue instead of ignoring it.

The jury might have felt that if they were misled about that what else were they misled on, including car smell and placement of duct tape pre decomposition.

The jury obviously didn't believe ANY of the states forensics case. Doesn't make sense bc it seemed ironclad to me.

 

[TxMother67]

1. I think juries who are sequestered start to feel like prisoners themselves and empathize with the defendant, especially in a trial lasting longer than a week or two. Plus they tend to want their lives back and don't want to spend a lot of time deliberating.

2. Unfortunately a lot of jurors have short attention spans and cannot follow testimony that is longer than the average length of a People Mag. article.

3. "CSI-effect" has created an expectation that every crime must contain DNA linking the perp to the victim and the scene or else you have "reasonable doubt."

4. Circumstantial Evidence - is now seen as weak because of the CSI-effect.

5. I fear that Linda Drane Burdick's tough persona may have turned off the jurors. I loved it, but not everyone loves a tough/strong female prosecutor.

6. The open sniping between Jeff Ashton and Jose Baez seemed to hurt the state much more than the defense.

7. A young, cute, white, female defendant will be able to charm people no matter how much she is shown to be a liar. There are lots of gullible people in the world. Twelve of them were on this jury.

8. Parents who lie for their kids don't help justice. Cindy and George's antics and testimony allowed Baez to take advantage of the dysfunction and muddy the waters. Cindy's lies helped free her daughter.

9. The jury had too many choices and the case was not really a DP case. That jury should have been able to convict on 2nd degree or Manslaughter.

10. People are often confused by "reasonable doubt." They think that means they can't have ANY doubt whatsoever about anything. This trial outcome is why I believe we need to have professional juries, filled with intelligent people who understand the law and have an attention span longer than your basic 10 yr old.

11. Because OCSO did not respond to the calls made in Aug 2008, Caylee's body continued to decompose to the point where there was only a skeleton left. Valuable information was lost in those additional 4 months.

Couldn't agree with you more if I had said it myself!

 

[leophoenix]

Two things about LE I see that failed.

CA calls and says the car smells like a dead body....A dead body and nobody investigated it quickly.They also claim a missing toddler but, it was somewhere lost that the car smelled like death. I believe after the police left that car was cleaned extremely well.

RK-The police fumbled again by not coming out to see what he was looking at and let valuable evidence decompose away. Not only this but, when he got in contact with them again the officer yelled at him. By December RK's curiosity got the better of him and he couldn't help picking around to see what was up for himself while potentially contaminating evidence that was there.

I also watched GA be as evasive as crap about a piece of tape on a gas can. If it were me I would say something simple like, "Yeah I put it there to cover the gas vent." I think it was planned to have GA be evasive and confrontational to JB. Nobody has our duct tape in hiding so only one person may use it.

 

[kathyn2]

Another place the prosecutors went wrong is that they failed to show the true state of the relationship between cindy and casey. cindy was NEVER the prosecutors friend. But they tried to treat her like that thru most of the trial. They failed to talk about the big fight to show that Casey wanted to get back at Cindy and left in a huff. They failed to show all the anger in the family and the dysfunction that Baez used to his advantage. The Grunds were on nancy Grace and they insinuated the household was a huge mess and that that is why kc is the way she is. Actually Baez told more the truth of this situation than the prosecution. Hate to say it but he did. The only part they lied about was how caylee died but his story made more sense to this jury.

 

[milliac]

I agree. Great post.

Eta. To nocturnallady. Sorry, quote didn't work and I couldn't fix.

 

[smartsass]

I am going to go back and read all y'alls ideas, but here's mine.
Before they started the trial I was talking to my father and I told him the prosecution was trying to scare Casey into confessing with the idea of the duct tape used as a mode of murder but if they go to trial with that they will never get a conviction. I think if the jury had been given any other means of murder to deliberate they would have convicted.
I don't know how, in theory ,she killed Caylee but I am pretty sure the duct tape was supposed to hold in body fluids.
I don't think the jury could accept that as a means of murder.

I'll have to find it again in a min but I found multiple cases of people being suffocated by duct tape. I wondered if it were possibly the jury did too? I wish the state would have brought forth examples like that

Why didn't they have at least some kind of charge regarding improper disposal of a body?

CNN had a headline today that said the jury believed the defense's explanation. Is that true or just an assumption bc they found her ng? I mean 12 people believed GA pulled a dead Caylee out of the pool, handed her off to Casey and both played it off like this all of these years?

Casey will make a killing from this. If she budgets (ha! But maybe she's changed?) she will never have to work.