Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[tfrohning]

I noticed the same exact thing. Did this woman really sat there through all this testimony, and then deliberations, without being aware of manslaughter and child abuse charges? The only thing JF seems to be concerned about is that she couldn't put Casey to death. Which wouldn't have happened if they convicted Casey of manslaughter or child abuse-these are not death penalty eligible. It's mind boggling. And this was supposed to be death penalty qualified jury to begin with. Why was this jury apparently discussing death penalty during the guilt or innocence phase of deliberations? That should have been left for the penalty phase.

bbm
Very good question that need to be asked to jury:banghead:

 

[belle3]

The more she talks, the more I think something Hinky was going on ... IMO there's a possibility of juror tampering ... possibility
The fact that the jurors were split, 6 for and 6 against a guilty verdict at the beginning of their deliberations and only took 10 or 11 hours to be unanimous WITHOUT reviewing evidence or testimony makes me believe that it was 1 or more jurors swaying the others ...

Maybe it's just me, but something doesn't sound right with this jury
JMO

I am not a rumor starter but dang....... something is not right here at all. im thinking that maybe, and this is all imo and speculation.....but what if they were gotten to. what if one or two of them were just supposed to convince the others of no death penalty but went overboard and got them all to ng on everything, thinking it would net them a bigger payday. something is not right. like judge judy says if it doesnt make sense then its a lie.

 

[goldenlover]

So the jurors knew this was a high profile case but I wonder if they were aware when they were working or deliberating how many people would feel this way. I remember the judge warned them or asked if they felt they could make their decision and still be able to go back to work and families and face them. Most of the jurors or all said yes, I have no problem.

I wonder if they expected this big of outrage by the public? I mean, people not just us are furious. So what were they thinking when they came back with these weak verdicts? I just can't get over it still. Especially, I wonder if they are now seeing the Felon KC the way we all have and what they think now? Do you think they are regretting not taking more time? I really want to know. I would feel so much better if they felt at least a little bad about not taking more time. Or, if those who originally said guilt wish they would have stayed....

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.

 

[Astrella613]

I watched the trial everyday and I went from thinking that it was accidental to premeditated. Okay I had more information than they did but still. I would feel better if they had taken longer and reviewed evidence or testimony, not just come back so quick with a not guilty! This just doesn't seem right that they all agreed so quickly. I was really afraid that she would get the DP, which I didn't want to see her get but never expected this.

 

[kimmera]

And who would ever think that lying and bad behavior, shown on video in open court and for the world to see could actually be used in her favor.

Yes and after that one of them has the nerve to say 'she seemed sincere'. OMG.:banghead:

 

[rbrnmw2]

This may sound crazy but as a U.S. citizen there is a pretty good chance that all of us will be called for jury duty at least once in our lives. Perhaps a course taught in high school about our judicial system may help. Perhaps end with a mock trial and allow the students to be jurors. One thing is certain, something needs to change. I heard, not sure if it's true, that there were several high school drop outs on the jury so perhaps at least a high school diploma should be required, particularly in a first degree murder case.

The only thing I've learned from the jurors that have spoken is that they don't have a clue and sadly, don't even care. And, they did not heed the judges admonition not to discuss the case amongst themselves.

IMO

We did exactly that in Civics we had a mock trial

 

[magic-cat]

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.

Just some observations:
Should murder victims justice be decided on the basis of if the jury LIKES the lawyers? That is just as if not more ludicrous than voting according to public opinion.

Little evidence? There was a veritable mountain of evidence...and them disregarding it so they could go with their buddy Jose, who was SO cordial to them each morning? Travesty of justice...IMO

Using this formula of going with your most "likable" lawyers will fill our STREETS with guilty people, as if we do not have enough of that already.:banghead:

 

[technicalconfusion]

All of it ,did you see the part about the staining? The lack of it made Dr snow come up with his own crazy hypothetical.
Also I was very disapointed we did not get to hear Rodriguez speak. It would have been a great experience for us WS'ers. Even if he was a defence witness.

I also put alot of thought and consideration into the evidence presented.

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.

So now I will ask you this.

Why did Dr W not list the a COD.

I hope you put alot of consideration in to this and really think about Dr W her work ,on this case what she said in court ,why she listed Caylee's death a homicide ,the method she used to determine that, and why she did not list a COD . Please dont give me a rapid fire responce ,I get enough of those.

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.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hQgXs9QSWQ"]YouTube - ‪Casey Anthony: Murder Trial - Part 4 - 6/10/11‬‏[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjYZqn4-mns"]YouTube - ‪Casey Anthony: Murder Trial - Part 5 - 6/10/11‬‏[/ame]

 

[Peepers]

It doesn't seem like the jury doubts there was a murder, or that Caylee shouldn't have been thrown out like trash, they just felt collectively as a group that was chosen and agreed upon by both the state and the defense, that there was not enough evidence presented to them at the trial. It happens all the time, sometimes innocent people get convicted on lesser evidence. A jury is the luck of the draw. Defense lawyers throw junk out there all the time, all they need or want to do is show it could be someone else that committed the crime. Thats all it takes.
I think the Dt was just as shocked by the verdict. No one can predict how a jury will rule.

 

[Peepers]

Just because some of us can understand how this happened doesn't mean we dont think KC was responsible for her death. I personally dont think JB won the case, I think the state lost it. Im not judging their strategy (and it is strategy), they picked the evidence they thought would convict her..it just didn't. The state worked long and hard, believed in their case and the jury just didnt see it that way. It happens.

 

[jjenny]

I watched the trial everyday and I went from thinking that it was accidental to premeditated. Okay I had more information than they did but still. I would feel better if they had taken longer and reviewed evidence or testimony, not just come back so quick with a not guilty! This just doesn't seem right that they all agreed so quickly. I was really afraid that she would get the DP, which I didn't want to see her get but never expected this.

I never expected her to get the death penalty. Just because she is a pretty young thing. But the way this female juror JF has been talking, as if the jury believed they only had a choice between the death penalty and setting Casey free. It makes no sense. Even with first degree murder conviction they wouldn't have to give Casey the death penalty. And I don't believe that manslaughter or child abuse are even eligible for the death penalty.

 

[gladiatorqueen]

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.

What a fantastic post. You've definitely hit the nail on the head.

My perception is that in many people's mind the trial was just due diligence or put on for show of an already guilty verdict.

And yes, god help us if the public ever gets to vote on someone's guilt "a la" American Idol.

 

[goldenlover]

Just some observations:
Should murder victims justice be decided on the basis of if the jury LIKES the lawyers? That is just as if not more ludicrous than voting according to public opinion.

Little evidence? There was a veritable mountain of evidence...and them disregarding it so they could go with their buddy Jose, who was SO cordial to them each morning? Travesty of justice...IMO

Using this formula of going with your most "likable" lawyers will fill our STREETS with guilty people, as if we do not have enough of that already.:banghead:

I was not meaning to say that the jury should change their decision on liking the lawyers, but they are human and unfortunately that does play into their decision in some way. Just like the Prosecution and Defense hire and pay thousands of $$'s to "jury panel profilers" to investigate and study the members of the jury after it is selected and help them present their case based upon the individual personalities and experiences of the jurors. It happens all the time, especially in high stakes cases and both sides do it. It just a unfortunate reality that all of this does affect the ultimate verdict.

JA always seemed defensive and objected so much - the one time he wouldn't even sit down between objections until JP told him to - it seemed like he was hiding something. He also did not need to bully the witnesses like he did..IMO.

The jury system of justice is very much a "subjective" system of justice. I think we can all see that with this trial.

 

[magic-cat]

I never expected her to get the death penalty. Just because she is a pretty young thing. But the way this female juror JF has been talking, as if the jury believed they only had a choice between the death penalty and setting Casey free. It makes no sense. Even with first degree murder conviction they wouldn't have to give Casey the death penalty. And I don't believe that manslaughter or child abuse are even eligible for the death penalty.

It's surreal isn't it? That is exactly how she is coming across...

I swear this had all made me a nervous wreck realizing that THIS, this right here is exactly why we have all these child molesters and robbers and murderers on the streets. You have to video them doing the crime or juries in America (at least this one indicates) do not feel they have enough evidence...

This is gonna drive me to drink! :banghead:

 

[hornswoggled]

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.

 

[annalia]

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.

The jurors were told in the instructions that the attorneys were not the ones on trial and that they were NOT to take into consideration their personal feelings about any of the attorneys. they were supposed to deliberate on evidence, not whether or not they were coddled by the attorneys. I also don't think that it's part of the Constitution that the attorneys have to be likeable.

If that happened then they reached decisions based on emotions. And the DP was NOT the only thing on the table! The more that gets repeated only reinforces that fact that it was all they looked at.

JMHO

 

[magic-cat]

I was not meaning to say that the jury should change their decision on liking the lawyers, but they are human and unfortunately that does play into their decision in some way. Just like the Prosecution and Defense hire and pay thousands of $$'s to "jury panel profilers" to investigate and study the members of the jury after it is selected and help them present their case based upon the individual personalities and experiences of the jurors. It happens all the time, especially in high stakes cases and both sides do it. It just a unfortunate reality that all of this does affect the ultimate verdict.

JA always seemed defensive and objected so much - the one time he wouldn't even sit down between objections until JP told him to - it seemed like he was hiding something. He also did not need to bully the witnesses like he did..IMO.

The jury system of justice is very much a "subjective" system of justice. I think we can all see that with this trial.

Jose Baez logged more objections onto the record in this trial than probably any other lawyer in the history of time. There were SO many sidebars, because there was MUCH that was evidence that was not allowed to be even mentioned in front of the jury, so another record in SIDEBARS. Jose made sure he was disruptive enough to keep the story the state was telling disjointed and choppy. He BECAME a victim himself to the jury, as he even BROKE THE RULES to defend his surely innocent client. (He KNOWS that to them that will look very good-Jose the hero, willing to face contempt to defend his client...

Just smoke and daggone mirrors should not even be allowed in a court of law. The defense lied-they outright lied, made statements that they had no evidence to back up and were not required to do so. They said outrageous and unfounded, completely unfounded and ridiculous things, so THOSE things would be foremost in the jury's mind right from the start. It was all a magic trick!!!

Justice should be decided on TRUTH and REALITY and what CAN be backed up in facts-evidence...not innuendo and fantasy. The state is handicapped from the start against ALL potential and definite offenders when their hands are tied with the truth and the defense is allowed to lie.

The reason JA seemed defensive is for that very reason. He is defending truth and justice and is there, the victim himself, suffering the travesty of the lies of this defense. I salute him. It is called righteous indignation, and it was well deserved by this particular defense team.

IMO of course...

 

[Sustained]

JA always seemed defensive and objected so much - the one time he wouldn't even sit down between objections until JP told him to - it seemed like he was hiding something. He also did not need to bully the witnesses like he did..IMO.

Here's a thought for ya - maybe JA objected so much because JB did not know how to ask a non-leading question of any witness. Maybe he objected because JB does not know the rules of evidence and discovery ... how many times did you hear the word 'sustained' when JA and/or LDB objected ? More than I could count ... and maybe you didn't hear all of the objections raised by JB ? IMO, the only ones hiding anything were the slimy defense team and their ridiculous opening statement conjectures.

 

[annalia]

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

 

[goldenlover]

I was not meaning to say that the jury should change their decision on liking the lawyers, but they are human and unfortunately that does play into their decision in some way. Just like the Prosecution and Defense hire and pay thousands of $$'s to "jury panel profilers" to investigate and study the members of the jury after it is selected and help them present their case based upon the individual personalities and experiences of the jurors. It happens all the time, especially in high stakes cases and both sides do it. It just a unfortunate reality that all of this does affect the ultimate verdict.

JA always seemed defensive and objected so much - the one time he wouldn't even sit down between objections until JP told him to - it seemed like he was hiding something. He also did not need to bully the witnesses like he did..IMO.

The jury system of justice is very much a "subjective" system of justice. I think we can all see that with this trial.

I wanted to add, though, that the jury got it right. There was simply not enought evidence and some of the states evidence was questionable and should not even have been presented. It made them look a little "shady". One that comes to mind is the heart-shaped sticker on the cardboard another is the photo-shopped video of Caylee with the duct tape on her mouth and another is the two computer experts (both witnesses for the state) that had one saying chloroform was searched 84 times and the other said 1 time??? I could go on and on.. Dr. Voss and his "sniffer" tests, the cadaver dogs that have never been used as evidence before in a trial, etc. I think those things right there made an educated person, like those on the jury, want to queston the integrity of the states entire case. If the SA had such a strong case, why even use these questionable pieces of "evidence"?

The jury is allowed to disregard anything they do not feel is credible. That is the law. If they wanted to disregard much of the evidence, that is fine, that is the law. It does not mean they are ignorant and did not understand the jury instructions, just because you don't like what the verdict was.