Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[BladeRunner]

Many of the jurors have said that they needed a motive, a concrete cause of death, a time of death, a place of death, etc., but legally, none of those things were required. Don't believe me? Take a look at their jury instructions.

Thank you x10000000000000..

I absolutely agree. These people on the jury obviously sympathized with Baez because they were for the most part just like him - they see them selves as above it all and that the rules of the court's instruction dont apply to them. The root of the problem was in jury selection -- Only the hopelessly uninformed would not have had exposure to or bias in this case. You probably could not have found a trully impartial jury for Casey Anthony in the mountains of Tibet !! That is how far reaching and horrific the consequences of her action are - imagine putting duct tape over a child's mouth and nose to suffocate her "good might my darling, sweet dreams".

Now isnt that the jury DIDNT follow instruction cause for a mistrial? WT*??

 

[goldenlover]

If you added up all of the times the prosecution's objections were sustained and the defense's objections were overruled, it will tell you that the DT were clearly the ones who were not abiding by the rules of the court.

JMHO

Or it showed that the judge was a tad bit biased towards one side. Also, the prosecution objected much more than the other. They clearly wanted to cripple the defense from presenting thier case as much as possible..possibly because they knew their own case was weak, at best.

Even JA did not say that the jurys decision was a miscarriage of justice. He knew his case was not iron-clad. I think they felt had a chance at winning due mostly by public opinion brought out by the media in the last 3 years.

 

[annalia]

Or it showed that the judge was a tad bit biased towards one side. Also, the prosecution objected much more than the other. They clearly wanted to cripple the defense from presenting thier case as much as possible..possibly because they knew their own case was weak, at best.

Even JA did not say that the jurys decision was a miscarriage of justice. He knew his case was not iron-clad. I think they felt had a chance at winning due mostly by public opinion brought out by the media in the last 3 years.

What did you expect JA to say? He did say in so many words that the evidence was there for a conviction so he did say pretty much the same thing.

The bolded is assuming facts not in evidence, but you're entitled to think that the judge was biased.

JMHO

 

[goldenlover]

I am disillusioned with this jury. I truly thought that they would review the evidence presented, ask a few questions, request some documents and generally be more curious about how Caylee died. I feel they had made up their minds to get out of there asap because of all the waiting they had to do. The time spent (I seriously doubt it was anywhere near 10 hours) was a slap in the face of all the witnesses and science presented to them. I think they just didn't want to do the work.

"Deliberations" can simply be a vote. They do not have to scour evidence for days. If they vote and arrive at a unanimous verdict...why continue to go over and over evidence? Whats the point? The evidence was not there for a conviction..pure and simple. I too, was a KC hater before the trial began, based on the talking heads, etc. I wanted to see her get the DP or at least spend her life in prison. Once I began watching the trial, and I watched every second of it, I realized they did not the evidence to find her guilty. Because I am able to have an open mind and not listen to the masses. Thank goodness jurors take their role seriously and also have the guts to make an unpopular decision or there could be many, many innocents sent to the death chamber in this country. Not saying she is or is not innocent of anything, but based on the evidence, she is not guilty of the charges they came up with and that verdict was the correct one.

 

[jjenny]

They didn't arrive to the unanimous verdict when they first voted.
So it sure doesn't appear that the ones voting "guilty" put up much of a fight.

 

[goldenlover]

What did you expect JA to say? He did say in so many words that the evidence was there for a conviction so he did say pretty much the same thing.

The bolded is assuming facts not in evidence, but you're entitled to think that the judge was biased.

JMHO

I have seen prosecutors many times come out after a trial and say that the verdict was a miscarriage of justice. JA did not even imply that. He did not seem too surprised with the outcome.

 

[jjenny]

I have seen prosecutors many times come out after a trial and say that the verdict was a miscarriage of justice. JA did not even imply that. He did not seem too surprised with the outcome.

What prosecutors?

 

[magic-cat]

If you added up all of the times the prosecution's objections were sustained and the defense's objections were overruled, it will tell you that the DT were clearly the ones who were not abiding by the rules of the court.

JMHO

Part of their scheme. They knew they were foundless objections about 45% at least of the time...it was all about disruption...

 

[goldenlover]

They didn't arrive to the unanimous verdict when they first voted.
So it sure doesn't appear that the ones voting "guilty" put up much of a fight.

No, so if they were that easily swayed, they must not have been too sure of their "guilty" vote in the first place. It did not take them long to get the unanimous "not guilty" verdict, so why does everyone think they had to ask endless questions, go over evidence, and ask for documents? They didn't need it, obviously.

 

[USARDOG]

I have seen prosecutors many times come out after a trial and say that the verdict was a miscarriage of justice. JA did not even imply that. He did not seem too surprised with the outcome.

IMO he was being professional. I'm sure he was very surprised as were most here. IMO the evidence was strong, the verdict not hard to arrive at. Many a defendant has been found guilty when no body was even recovered, this should not have been so difficult if you just look at the big picture.

31 days. She wanted more time, but CA refused.
Chloroform in her trunk
Duct tape on Caylee's face,
Thrown away like trash

All this adds up to guilty, IMO.

 

[Hisimage]

Are you implying that the jury should have came up with their verdict based on the fact that it was a high profile case and what the public thought the verdict should be? If that is the case, why have a trial at all...put all the "facts" out in the media and let the public cast a vote, like American Idol or something..it would sure save a lot of time and money. I am, of course, kidding. That would be ridiculous.

The jurors came up with the correct verdict, IMO, based on the evidence. The prosecutions case was very weak and JA and LDB were not very likeable. On the other side, the DT was able to show that it just as well could have been an accident, cast a lot of doubt on the scientific evidence and were much more personable with the witnesses and they jury. Every morning and afternoon JB greeted the jury with a smile. He was respectful to witnesses. JA and LDB were both very confrontational, even to their own witnesses. Jurors are only human and things like that can mean a lot. The jury, by law, can form their own opinions and disregard any evidence they want. That is the law based on our constitution. They are not ignorant and uneducated. They were not swayed by public opinion. Do you really want people sent away to prison for the rest of their lives or given the DP with such little evidence? The burden is high for the prosecution, as it should be, otherwise our prisons would be filled with innocent people.

sigh.... no I'm not sure where in my statement it sounds like that.
I think the point I was trying to make is how do they feel now that there is such an outrage. Perhaps I should read and try to figure where it sounds like that.

Glad you feel they came up with the correct verdict-- it is the beauty of our justice system, is it not? And where did I say people should go to prison with such little evidence, or was the question not directed to me? not sure I said anything about being uneducated either. Glad to think that your opinion that JB and his greetings with a smile because he is not the one that was on trial . So his mannerisms or JA and LDB should have nothing to do with the verdict.
My opinion of course. Welcome to freedom where I can voice my thoughts and opinions too.

 

[CharlestonGal]

"Deliberations" can simply be a vote. They do not have to scour evidence for days. If they vote and arrive at a unanimous verdict...why continue to go over and over evidence? Whats the point? The evidence was not there for a conviction..pure and simple. I too, was a KC hater before the trial began, based on the talking heads, etc. I wanted to see her get the DP or at least spend her life in prison. Once I began watching the trial, and I watched every second of it, I realized they did not the evidence to find her guilty. Because I am able to have an open mind and not listen to the masses. Thank goodness jurors take their role seriously and also have the guts to make an unpopular decision or there could be many, many innocents sent to the death chamber in this country. Not saying she is or is not innocent of anything, but based on the evidence, she is not guilty of the charges they came up with and that verdict was the correct one.

The "masses" are often right, especially when they have enough information to come to a conclusion, such as in the case we are discussing now.

 

[annalia]

I have seen prosecutors many times come out after a trial and say that the verdict was a miscarriage of justice. JA did not even imply that. He did not seem too surprised with the outcome.

We must have been watching different JA interviews because in the ones I saw he didn't have to directly come out and say it was a miscarriage of justice, he said it in so many words but the meaning was the same. And I did hear him say he was very surprised at the verdict but the jury spoke, same meaning said in a politically correct way.
JMHO

 

[back2back19]

We must have been watching different JA interviews because in the ones I saw he didn't have to directly come out and say it was a miscarriage of justice, he said it in so many words but the meaning was the same. And I did hear him say he was very surprised at the verdict but the jury spoke, same meaning said in a politically correct way.
JMHO

Agreed. Plus with a verdict like this, had he said the verdict was a miscarriage of justice, it would have stoked the flames. I saw a man who did not want any vigilante justice when Casey was released or people to take out their anger at her family, who are already getting death threats. JA seemed very concerned about public safety, both for Casey and the community.

 

[goldenlover]

Couldn't find a Dr. Snow anywhere on our witness lists.

Rodriguez did not get permission from his employer - the department of defense. His boss saw him on national tv and told him to get his butt home. THe boss then contacted JA and explained Rodriguez did not get permission, and if he went back to testify he would lose his job. Both the defense and prosecution agreed he didn't have to testify.



Dr. G said the manner of death was homicide by undetermined means. They couldn't come up with a cause of death because they were dealing with a skeleton that had no trauma to the bones. She even said that Caylee could have been shot - but if the bullet only went thru soft tissue and didn't hit bone they couldn't tell.

Homicide was determined because of what they saw:

A baby in bags thrown in a swamp.
A baby with duct tape around the lower half of the face.
A baby who was not reported missing for 31 days.
No accident was reported.

She explains how she comes to her conclusions.

YouTube - ‪Casey Anthony: Murder Trial - Part 4 - 6/10/11‬‏
YouTube - ‪Casey Anthony: Murder Trial - Part 5 - 6/10/11‬‏

All purely speculaton. She should have just said the manner of death was also undetermined..becaue it was. Why speculate.. the jurors saw through it. She was also very unprofessional with her arrogance and the way she left the stand.

 

[goldenlover]

We must have been watching different JA interviews because in the ones I saw he didn't have to directly come out and say it was a miscarriage of justice, he said it in so many words but the meaning was the same. And I did hear him say he was very surprised at the verdict but the jury spoke, same meaning said in a politically correct way.
JMHO

I did not that get impression, but maybe because he was such a "bull-dog" in the courtroom and such a gentleman in his media interviews. I guess I expected him to be more adament in his belief that the jury got it wrong. You may be right.

 

[Solange82200]

All purely speculaton. She should have just said the manner of death was also undetermined..becaue it was. Why speculate.. the jurors saw through it. She was also very unprofessional with her arrogance and the way she left the stand.

What??? Arrogance? Unprofessional? It was not speculation, it was her expert opinion based on her many years of experience... I give up, I dont get it.

 

[TexasLori]

For me, the jury got it wrong. I know many have said that we here at WS were privy to all the doc dumps and things that weren't allowed in at trial. However, I believe with all the circumstances presented at trial, I would have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt (note not beyond all doubt) that she was guilty of the second count. I wouldn't have been able to convict on murder one, although I do believe she murdered her daughter. I just cannot say beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't an accident.

I was devastated when the verdict came down. I cried. I didn't believe it. I felt sick to my stomach. I didn't agree with it at all, however, I could have gotten to the point of accepting it and respecting the jury for their decision with time, after I got over the shock of it.

But then some of the jury members started talking to the press, and it became painfully obvious that they made many mistakes in coming to their verdict. This is where I have a problem. They did not make an honorable decision. If they had made their decision based on the instructions set before them, and still had been unable to convict it would have been an honorable decision. But they didn't. As citizens, their duty is to honor the system by following the instructions set before them. If they do not understand a part of the instructions they should get clarification.

They did not honor their obligation, and I think they owed that to Caylee, Casey, Judge Perry, our country, and our Constitution.

 

[MEM2010]

I think the jury went about deliberations wrong but I can see how they came to their conclusion.

But what I don't get is if their guts were telling them something else, and they had a feeling KC was involved some how why not hang the jury to give the state another shot??

 

[ziggy]

Part of their scheme. They knew they were foundless objections about 45% at least of the time...it was all about disruption...

Baez rung the bell many times and although the jury is to disregard what is stricken, I don't have any faith that this jury did or even "got" that they were supposed to.