Did the jury get it wrong, or...

Did the jury get it wrong?

  • The jury got it wrong

    Votes: 1,051 81.9%
  • The state didn't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt

    Votes: 179 14.0%
  • The Defense provided reasonable doubt and the jury got it right

    Votes: 55 4.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 31 2.4%

  • Total voters
    1,283
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Did the jury get it wrong??? YES, and they are STILL GETTING IT WRONG, some asking for tons of money to run their mouths according to news reports, and do you remember, the 33 year old male, it looked like KC was flirting with him, we discussed it on WS, he's allegedly the one asking for $50,000 to tell the world why he's a blankety-blank dumb-blank...oops I mean what his "reasoning" was.

And this wont' be popular, but I am very disenchanted with JP, I really really felt those instructions were very poor, in that when I heard them I had to listen far too carefully to catch the words (he wasn't reading very well imo) and his diction when discussing "reasonable doubt" vs NOT a shadow of a doubt seemed very hard to understand to me, you know he saw the jurors day in, day out, surely he knew they needed things explained to them at a third-grade level or they'd misunderstand him...
 
Cindy and KC are proven liars..I don't see that any thing GA has said or done, has been proven to be a lie. I don't believe anything River Cruz has/had to say, again, she is a proven liar. So,IMHO the only one that has told the truth is GA....Pretty obvious he has been sick of CA and ICA's shenanigans for a long time . And I would bet he is the one that shut down the money tree, ie CA's checking account in March.
If I recall, it wasn't the first time ICA had taken Caylee, and kept her from them, and it wasn't like her car had never been left on the side of the road...
moo
 
No I am not insinuating Kronk was involved, but you never know, he did know where the body was for 4 months. Who knows how many times he went back to check on his "find". His son said he called him around Thanksgiving and told him about it, yet he didn't report it again until mid-December?

snipped and bbm

It is well documented that Kronc reported the remains in Aug. He called LE. They are the ones who dropped the ball. Chew him out say he is wasting their time. He admits he never got more than 25 ft from it, so he did not know for sure..But I am sure he had a gut feeling...I can believe he shared it with his son...He knew what he knew, and probably did want to get the reward...
He went back when he was assigned to the area, checked again, and reported it to his boss, who did a better job of making sure someone understood how important it was...There were roots growing through that skull..He never moved it or dropped it.
 
Did the jury get it wrong??? YES, and they are STILL GETTING IT WRONG, some asking for tons of money to run their mouths according to news reports, and do you remember, the 33 year old male, it looked like KC was flirting with him, we discussed it on WS, he's allegedly the one asking for $50,000 to tell the world why he's a blankety-blank dumb-blank...oops I mean what his "reasoning" was.

And this wont' be popular, but I am very disenchanted with JP, I really really felt those instructions were very poor, in that when I heard them I had to listen far too carefully to catch the words (he wasn't reading very well imo) and his diction when discussing "reasonable doubt" vs NOT a shadow of a doubt seemed very hard to understand to me, you know he saw the jurors day in, day out, surely he knew they needed things explained to them at a third-grade level or they'd misunderstand him...

Although I am not completely disenchanted with JP, I think it was a mistake to tell the jurors they would "definitely" be finished by July 4th. It seems they took that too literally, and it may have ended up with people on the jury who would have otherwise said they couldnt stay in the jury.
 
No way to come to a guilty verdict on count 3 if they didn't come to a guilty verdict on count 2- additionally the state didn't argue accident OR negligence (only premeditation)-so the only way to come to a guilty on count 3 is if they believed there was aggravated child abuse,imo.

OK, thank you for your response :-) So the premeditation didn't apply to count 3?
 
Very very good points about Judge Perry. Don't get me wrong I liked him a lot but when he was going over the instructions I turned to my wife and said this is going way over their heads. I still thought they were intelligent enough to grasp what he was saying. WRONG!!!!!!!!!!! They obviously did not or did not want to.


Did the jury get it wrong??? YES, and they are STILL GETTING IT WRONG, some asking for tons of money to run their mouths according to news reports, and do you remember, the 33 year old male, it looked like KC was flirting with him, we discussed it on WS, he's allegedly the one asking for $50,000 to tell the world why he's a blankety-blank dumb-blank...oops I mean what his "reasoning" was.

And this wont' be popular, but I am very disenchanted with JP, I really really felt those instructions were very poor, in that when I heard them I had to listen far too carefully to catch the words (he wasn't reading very well imo) and his diction when discussing "reasonable doubt" vs NOT a shadow of a doubt seemed very hard to understand to me, you know he saw the jurors day in, day out, surely he knew they needed things explained to them at a third-grade level or they'd misunderstand him...
 
No way to come to a guilty verdict on count 3 if they didn't come to a guilty verdict on count 2- additionally the state didn't argue accident OR negligence (only premeditation)-so the only way to come to a guilty on count 3 is if they believed there was aggravated child abuse,imo.

And I have heard this before, and I still don't understand it. Why have a charge on there, they couldn't find her guilty of. I also heard something in JP's instructions that confused me, realizing I may not have gotten it all. But something about, the only count they could find her guilty of is count 1....I know I am missing something, just hoping someone can straighten me out lol. TIA
 
No I am not insinuating Kronk was involved, but you never know, he did know where the body was for 4 months. Who knows how many times he went back to check on his "find". His son said he called him around Thanksgiving and told him about it, yet he didn't report it again until mid-December?

snipped and bbm

It is well documented that Kronc reported the remains in Aug. He called LE. They are the ones who dropped the ball. Chew him out say he is wasting their time. He admits he never got more than 25 ft from it, so he did not know for sure..But I am sure he had a gut feeling...I can believe he shared it with his son...He knew what he knew, and probably did want to get the reward...
He went back when he was assigned to the area, checked again, and reported it to his boss, who did a better job of making sure someone understood how important it was...There were roots growing through that skull..He never moved it or dropped it.

RK notified the cops 3 times. Twice in July (BEFORE the flooding from Faye) and once in Dec. Go to you.tube and search for RK. There are recordings of his sworn testimony to the Police in which he says he shook the bag twice and manipulated the skull so he could be certain that what he saw was indeed a skull.

Also at you.tube search for Joyce Baile Dickens.. they are neighbors of the Anthony's and they tell the police that Kiomarie told them if the baby is buried she is buried in that wooded area. they were interviewed on 7/22/09 BEFORE the flooding from FAYE.

Kiomarie said in her interview to police BEFORE the flooding of Faye to look in that lot.

The police dropped the ball BIG time. If they would have taken RK, Kiomarie and the Dicken's seriously there may have been a different outcome.
 
Although I am not completely disenchanted with JP, I think it was a mistake to tell the jurors they would "definitely" be finished by July 4th. It seems they took that too literally, and it may have ended up with people on the jury who would have otherwise said they couldnt stay in the jury.

Before the jury was picked, I said I wish they would have grabbed 12 people off the street for jurors, and let the chips fall where they may. All this weeding out people is wrong, IMO. Voir dire, is that what they call it?
 
RK notified the cops 3 times. Twice in July (BEFORE the flooding from Faye) and once in Dec. Go to you.tube and search for RK. There are recordings of his sworn testimony to the Police in which he says he shook the bag twice and manipulated the skull so he could be certain that what he saw was indeed a skull.

Also at you.tube search for Joyce Baile Dickens.. they are neighbors of the Anthony's and they tell the police that Kiomarie told them if the baby is buried she is buried in that wooded area. they were interviewed on 7/22/09 BEFORE the flooding from FAYE.

Kiomarie said in her interview to police BEFORE the flooding of Faye to look in that lot.

The police dropped the ball BIG time. If they would have taken RK, Kiomarie and the Dicken's seriously there may have been a different outcome.

It was in August, not July. About a week before the storm.
 
I dont want to be argumentative either, Im sorry, I know I come off that way sometimes, and its not fair to you. It seems sometimes to me that you take something the SA did and see it as a negative, when it really isnt (at least to me.

JA explained the video was only to show that the tape was large enough to cover her mouth. He was clear on that. That fact, along with the other evidence presented, all point to it being put on her face. You blame them for some reason for going to the FBI and finding others, and I dont see why. They did not have a person like Dr Vass at Orange County, so they had to go outside. The FBI was involved early on, even the Anthony's wanted them involved, due to the fact it was a high profile case and there was talk about the child possibly being out of state, which Orange County had no jurisdiction over. The SA knew early on that due to the high profile nature of the case, the best lawyers and experts in the country would be available to the defense, just like Dr. Spitz, Linda Kenney Baden, etc. They thought the case would be more solid if they found the best of the best, like Dr. G and the FBI crime lab, so that the defense couldnt argue incompetency. Also, the defense alleged early on that Orange County had some vendetta against Casey, so the SA probably thought that using the FBI crime lab and others would show that the evidence is what it is, and its not just a case of Orange County and Lawson Lamar trying to "kill an innocent woman".

Again, if I am wrong please tell me so, but it seems like you look at everything through the lens of someone who does not trust law enforcement. I have had horrible experiences with the police, but I don't assume that all law enforcement is bad or corrupt. Maybe I am misjudging you, so please dont take it personally, just let me know Im wrong and I will take your word for it. Like I said, it just seems like you assume the worst of whatever law enforcement does, but yet are able to excuse any questionable behavior by the defense or defendant.

All I am saying is the state did not use a lot of the FBI crime labs findings, the defense ended up bring it in. That is becaue a lot of the FBI crime labs findings did not "fit" the states theory, and that is all it is..a theory. They did not use their own computer expert from the sherrifs department, because he said chloroform was only looked up once, the went and found some guy form Canada that would say it was looked up 84 times. Their own FBI guy said the choloroform was not shockingly high, so the got Dr. Vass to say it was "shockingly" high. I have never had an encounter with the police and I do not have a mistrust for LE, but after seeing this trial, I can see how innocent people (and I am not even saying Casey is innocent) end up serving long sentences is prison or getting the DP. If we allow the state to present this this kind of "questionable" evidence in this trial, we need to allow it in all trials and this would simply ruin or entire system of justice.
 
All I am saying is the state did not use a lot of the FBI crime labs findings, the defense ended up bring it in. That is becaue a lot of the FBI crime labs findings did not "fit" the states theory, and that is all it is..a theory. They did not use their own computer expert from the sherrifs department, because he said chloroform was only looked up once, the went and found some guy form Canada that would say it was looked up 84 times. Their own FBI guy said the choloroform was not shockingly high, so the got Dr. Vass to say it was "shockingly" high. I have never had an encounter with the police and I do not have a mistrust for LE, but after seeing this trial, I can see how innocent people (and I am not even saying Casey is innocent) end up serving long sentences is prison or getting the DP. If we allow the state to present this this kind of "questionable" evidence in this trial, we need to allow it in all trials and this would simply ruin or entire system of justice.
As far as the computer searches go, there's a big difference between looking up how to make chloroform and re-accessing a web page that contains a reference to chloroform 84 times. At the least, the jury was confused as to the computer search evidence and the State should have clarified all of it in their closing. Bottom line, ICA did those seaches at the exclusion of all others and also deleted the search results to cover her butt.

There's also a big difference in levels of chloroform based on WHEN each expert did their test. Chloroform is a very volatile substance and dissipates rather rapidly over time. Once again, the State could have done a better job explaining why the test results could have been different.
 
My theory on the gas cans is that if he and CA had decided they would seek custody of Caylee, maybe they were documenting the gas can theft as part of a dossier they were compiling against KC. Maybe CA's counsellor recommended this. But as it turned out, by then there was no Caylee to get custody of anymore, so the episode hung awkwardly in the scenario, because it was part of a different scenario they couldn't admit to because it blew their story of how wonderful a mother she was.

Everyone lies, poor Caylee dies.

I never thought of that.....!!!

That would explain a lot of things

I wish the Anthony's would come out & say what really happened on the night of July 15th.

We keep hearing about a fight & Cindy choking Casey over her mothers Stolen checks...

Did she threaten to take Custody of Caylee?
Did she throw Casey out?
How physical was the fight?
 
Am trying to be careful in my posting but it is hard not to get angry. If you read at other sites you will see many people are stunned and angry over the verdict. Groups are organizing to boycott any movies, books, interviews with CA and defense team. I read that Jose was offered representation by an entertainment/media company and the offer was rescinded following huge protests and outrage.

I hope I don't end up getting myself banned :-) but am boggled by some of the comments over the last few days. IMO KC and KC alone was responsible for Caylee's death.
 
OK, thank you for your response :-) So the premeditation didn't apply to count 3?
That's right-premeditation is not an element of manslaughter-so the only 2 ways to go on it are child abuse as the aggravating circumstance or culpable negligence. The stae argues child abuse and premeditation-but they did not argue accident or negligence. So the jury would have had to bought into the defense notion of an accident or negligence to convict on this. This is my opinion.
And I have heard this before, and I still don't understand it. Why have a charge on there, they couldn't find her guilty of. I also heard something in JP's instructions that confused me, realizing I may not have gotten it all. But something about, the only count they could find her guilty of is count 1....I know I am missing something, just hoping someone can straighten me out lol. TIA
They can find her guilty of it, but IMO, without the aggarvated child abuse to substantiate or without a state argument FOR accident or negligence I am not sure how the jury would arrive at that conclusion.

But be clear,the state did argue aggravated child abuse which would have opened the door to guilty verdicts-but the jury didn't go for it. IMO and IMO only this is the heart of the matter.

Guilty on child abuse would have made a clear path to guilty in any direction,ie manslaughter or murder in some degree. But no aggravted child abuse ruled out felony murder with ease.

Elements to be proven for:
AGGRAVATED MANSLAUGHTER OF A CHILD
§ 782.07, Fla. Stat.
To prove the crime of Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, the State must prove the following two elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.
2. Casey Marie Anthony’s act(s) caused the death of Caylee Marie Anthony.
Or
The death of Caylee Marie Anthony was caused by the culpable negligence of Casey Marie Anthony.
I will now define "culpable negligence" for you. Each of us has a duty to act reasonably toward others. If there is a violation of that duty, without any conscious intention to harm, that violation is negligence. But culpable negligence is more than a failure to use ordinary care toward others. In order for negligence to be culpable, it must be gross and flagrant. Culpable negligence is a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard of the safety and welfare of the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights. The negligent act or omission must have been committed with an utter disregard for the safety of others. Culpable negligence is consciously doing an act or following a course of conduct that the defendant must have known, or reasonably should have known, was likely to cause death or great bodily injury.
If you find the defendant guilty of Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child, you must then determine whether the State has further proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee Marie Anthony was a child whose death was caused by the neglect of Casey Marie Anthony, a caregiver. “Child” means any person under the age of 18 years.
“Caregiver” means a parent, adult household member, or other person responsible for a child’s welfare.
Neglect of a child” means:
1. A caregiver’s failure or omission to provide a child with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain a child’s physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the child. Repeated conduct or a single incident or omission by a caregiver that results in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, a substantial risk of death of a child may be considered in determining neglect.



MURDER – FIRST DEGREE
§ 782.04(1)(a), Fla. Stat.
There are two ways in which a person may be convicted of first degree murder. One is known as premeditated murder and the other is known as felony murder. In order to find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, the State must convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant’s guilt of either premeditated murder or felony murder. While you must all agree that the State has proven first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, you need not be unanimous in your opinion as to whether that finding is based upon premeditated murder or felony murder as I shall now define those terms.
To prove the crime of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of Casey Marie Anthony.
3. There was a premeditated killing of Caylee Marie Anthony.
An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose.
"Killing with premeditation" is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing.
The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing.
FELONY MURDER – FIRST DEGREE
§ 782.04(1)(a), Fla. Stat.
To prove the crime of First Degree Felony Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. Caylee Marie Anthony is dead.
2. The death occurred as a consequence of and while Casey Marie Anthony was engaged in the commission of Aggravated Child Abuse.
Or
The death occurred as a consequence of and while Casey Marie Anthony was attempting to commit Aggravated Child Abuse. 3. Casey Marie Anthony was the person who actually killed Caylee Marie Anthony.
In order to convict of First Degree Felony Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove that the defendant had a premeditated design or intent to kill.


http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/04/jury-instructions-in-the-casey-anthony-trial/
 
No way to come to a guilty verdict on count 3 if they didn't come to a guilty verdict on count 2- additionally the state didn't argue accident OR negligence (only premeditation)-so the only way to come to a guilty on count 3 is if they believed there was aggravated child abuse,imo.

Isn't defense statement also considered "testimony"? Wouldn't that provide culpable negligence by KC per defense statement?
Home > Laws > The 2010 Florida Statutes > Title XLVI > Chapter 782 > Section 07
2010 Florida Statutes (including Special Session A)
Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 782
HOMICIDE View Entire Chapter


782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(2) A person who causes the death of any elderly person or disabled adult by culpable negligence under s. 825.102(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) A person who causes the death, through culpable negligence, of an officer as defined in s. 943.10(14), a firefighter as defined in s. 112.191, an emergency medical technician as defined in s. 401.23, or a paramedic as defined in s. 401.23, while the officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, or paramedic is performing duties that are within the course of his or her employment, commits aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
History.—RS 2384; GS 3209; RGS 5039; CGL 7141; s. 715, ch. 71-136; s. 180, ch. 73-333; s. 15, ch. 74-383; s. 6, ch. 75-298; s. 12, ch. 96-322; s. 2, ch. 2002-74.
 
All I am saying is the state did not use a lot of the FBI crime labs findings, the defense ended up bring it in. That is becaue a lot of the FBI crime labs findings did not "fit" the states theory, and that is all it is..a theory. They did not use their own computer expert from the sherrifs department, because he said chloroform was only looked up once, the went and found some guy form Canada that would say it was looked up 84 times. Their own FBI guy said the choloroform was not shockingly high, so the got Dr. Vass to say it was "shockingly" high. I have never had an encounter with the police and I do not have a mistrust for LE, but after seeing this trial, I can see how innocent people (and I am not even saying Casey is innocent) end up serving long sentences is prison or getting the DP. If we allow the state to present this this kind of "questionable" evidence in this trial, we need to allow it in all trials and this would simply ruin or entire system of justice.

OK, I think you are missunderstanding some things. It wasnt that the FBI crime labs findings did not "fit", it was that they didnt find anything. Why would the state waste time putting up experts that werent able to find anything that supports guilt OR innocence? It was almost a year after Caylee died when alot of this stuff was examined, so the fact that dirt wasnt found on shoes, and that chloroform wasnt found sitting around the house, etc. means nothing.

Also, it was explained why Dr. Vass and the other FBI guy said different things. Dr. Vass ONLY studies decomposing bodies, and that he has found a small amount of chloroform sometimes in decomposing bodies, but the amount found in Casey;s car was shockingly high compared to what would come from a decomposing body. The other expert examines all kinds of chemicals in all kinds of situations, including cleaning products, etc., so in comparison to THAT, the number was not shockingly high. There is absolutely nothing suspicious or contradictory in that, I dont see how anyone can;t see the difference...
 
For the life of me I still can't understand after 3 years why anyone cannot accept the fact that she did this ALL BY HERSELF. No one else was involved and there was no conspiracy against her. Her parents/brother unfortunately only lied to PROTECT her. If she was innocent and it was really an accident don't you think she would have said that 3 years ago to stay out of jail? I guess she thought they (authorities) would eventually release her when they couldn't find the Nanny and Caylee. I really think she NEVER thought they would find Caylee's body. When that happened the Nanny lie had to change.



I hope I don't end up getting myself banned :-) but am boggled by some of the comments over the last few days. IMO KC and KC alone was responsible for Caylee's death.[/QUOTE]
 
Also, you are completely misconstruing what happened with the searches. The expert at Orange County used a software to read the hard drive searches (which had been deleted, what a coincidence). He had trouble getting it to work because of the daylight savings time, and he ran into the software maker at a conference, and asked for his help. How you can classify that as this:

"They did not use their own computer expert from the sherrifs department, because he said chloroform was only looked up once, the went and found some guy form Canada that would say it was looked up 84 times."

That isnt what happened, you are leaving out a lot of information. And it was explained thoroughly at the trial
 
For the life of me I still can't understand after 3 years why anyone cannot accept the fact that she did this ALL BY HERSELF. No one else was involved and there was no conspiracy against her. Her parents/brother unfortunately only lied to PROTECT her. If she was innocent and it was really an accident don't you think she would have said that 3 years ago to stay out of jail? I guess she thought they (authorities) would eventually release her when they couldn't find the Nanny and Caylee. I really think she NEVER thought they would find Caylee's body. When that happened the Nanny lie had to change.



I hope I don't end up getting myself banned :-) but am boggled by some of the comments over the last few days. IMO KC and KC alone was responsible for Caylee's death.
[/QUOTE]

I completely agree with you. Her parents did this and that, lied here and there, who knows the extent of it. But the ONLY person responsible for Caylee's death is KC. That's why the only thing I care about from this point on is how the FBI will nail her, or how she will get herself into trouble again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
180
Guests online
513
Total visitors
693

Forum statistics

Threads
625,741
Messages
18,509,143
Members
240,836
Latest member
juleebeth
Back
Top