PDA

View Full Version : If you were a juror on this case


melissa81
08-21-2008, 12:38 AM
I have been reading these threads alot lately and i have been wondering how many people if they live in Florida could be called to jury duty on this case, and say they charge her with murder. if you could be unbias at this point? i am very suspicious of this woman, so i am not saying that i agree with her story or am backing her 100% but i think that i could really sit on the jury and go by the burden of proof which is the law. just wondering how many people honestly could. i think alot of jurors will have her convicted at jury selection!!!!! which in my eyes is wrong.

JBean
08-21-2008, 12:47 AM
great question. I truly believe I could be neutral. I could review the evidence with an open mind and only deal with the facts. I am sure of it.

melissa81
08-21-2008, 12:55 AM
great question. I truly believe I could be neutral. I could review the evidence with an open mind and only deal with the facts. I am sure of it.

let me pose this to you

they charge her with murder but yet don't really have factual evidence. you believe she did it, but the evidence that the state presented did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it how would you vote?

JBean
08-21-2008, 12:57 AM
let me pose this to you

they charge her with murder but yet don't really have factual evidence. you believe she did it, but the evidence that the state presented did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it how would you vote?
when you say factual evidence what do you mean?

if the state does not prove their case I would vote NG.

melissa81
08-21-2008, 01:01 AM
when you say factual evidence what do you mean?

if the state does not prove their case I would vote NG.


dna evidence,
a fool proof timeline.etc...
things that you would need to proof beyond a resonable doubt

pretty much all the evidence people are already convicting her with

JBean
08-21-2008, 01:04 AM
dna evidence,
a fool proof timeline.etc...
things that you would need to proof beyond a resonable doubt

pretty much all the evidence people are already convicting her with

Circumstantial evidence can be the best evidence of all. I could convict on circumstantial, if it proved the case.
I haven't seen good evidence yet that pulls the whole puzzle together. There is room for plenty of doubt at this point. But that's because we have not seen what the state has to offer yet.

ETA: I mean to say that circumstantial evidence can prove beyond a reasonable doubt and does in many court cases every single day. Just ask Scott Peterson.

melissa81
08-21-2008, 01:11 AM
Circumstantial evidence can be the best evidence of all. I could convict on circumstantial, if it proved the case.
I haven't seen good evidence yet that pulls the whole puzzle together. There is room for plenty of doubt at this point. But that's because we have not seen what the state has to offer yet.

ETA: I mean to say that circumstantial evidence can prove beyond a reasonable doubt and does in many court cases every single day. Just ask Scott Peterson.

well i agree but come one he was last seen at the marina some odd miles away from the site where the body was find same body of water. and he puts himself there, cement blocks, and the amber fry. that to me puts it together, her purse was still at the house, the dog was found i think in the park,

in this case they don't have a body, a witness a motive, (and i don't think it was cause of partying because i have seen the days she went out and it was only on friday i believe correct me if i am wrong) it wasn't like she was going out everynight and drunk all day long.

the only thing that have her on that i could convict her on is neglect of a child and lying to the police. and that is by her own statements.

AutomaticAuttie
08-21-2008, 01:13 AM
Circumstantial evidence can be the best evidence of all. I could convict on circumstantial, if it proved the case.
I haven't seen good evidence yet that pulls the whole puzzle together. There is room for plenty of doubt at this point. But that's because we have not seen what the state has to offer yet.

ETA: I mean to say that circumstantial evidence can prove beyond a reasonable doubt and does in many court cases every single day. Just ask Scott Peterson.

Very well said!

JBean
08-21-2008, 01:13 AM
well i agree but come one he was last seen at the marina some odd miles away from the site where the body was find same body of water. and he puts himself there, cement blocks, and the amber fry. that to me puts it together, her purse was still at the house, the dog was found i think in the park,

in this case they don't have a body, a witness a motive, (and i don't think it was cause of partying because i have seen the days she went out and it was only on friday i believe correct me if i am wrong) it wasn't like she was going out everynight and drunk all day long.

the only thing that have her on that i could convict her on is neglect of a child and lying to the police. and that is by her own statements.
We got to see the circumstantial evidence they had on SP thoughout the trial. We don't really know what they have..if anything..on Casey at this point. That remains to be seen..or not.
If all they have is what we have seen to date, there is no way I could convict on a murder charge at this point.

Bree0372
08-21-2008, 01:21 AM
Circumstantial evidence can be the best evidence of all. I could convict on circumstantial, if it proved the case.
I haven't seen good evidence yet that pulls the whole puzzle together. There is room for plenty of doubt at this point. But that's because we have not seen what the state has to offer yet.

ETA: I mean to say that circumstantial evidence can prove beyond a reasonable doubt and does in many court cases every single day. Just ask Scott Peterson.

I agree...Circumstantial evidence can be very damning. It's a matter of the whole picture coming together: CE and Forensics.

Yes, I could sit on the jury and be unbiased without a shadow of a doubt. And I'm in Florida - send her on up here...change of venue.

Had I sat on the Scott Peterson jury, I would have found him guilty just like the jurors. May he rot in you know where. By his actions, he could put his own puzzle together to convict.

Had I sat on the OJ jury, I would have found him not guilty based on lack of evidence presented at trial. I was a Criminal Justice student during this trial and we used it as an example in our classes (Criminal Investigations and Criminal Law) and the majority of our class said not guilty.

passin_through
08-21-2008, 01:39 AM
let me pose this to you

they charge her with murder but yet don't really have factual evidence. you believe she did it, but the evidence that the state presented did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it how would you vote?

Not guilty.
I recall watching a case on court TV a year or two ago, it was in Fl too. Forget the guys name and his wife's name. He said they were attacked walking on the beach etc., he was voted guilty in that case.

I would have voted not guilty, had I been on that jury. I think yeppers, he prob'ly did it. It was just my opinion they didn't prove it well enough for me to have voted guilty.

Isabelle
08-21-2008, 02:36 AM
let me pose this to you

they charge her with murder but yet don't really have factual evidence. you believe she did it, but the evidence that the state presented did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it how would you vote?


Not Guilty.

I have been on a criminal jury and it did involve the charge of murder. It was not, in my opinion, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty. I could not imagine finding a person guilty when there is reasonable doubt that they were guilty.

Isabelle,
Ray'sMom

SeriouslySearching
08-21-2008, 03:45 AM
When you are on a jury, you are discussing points of law and there really isn't room for your emotions. As strange as it sounds, it is like you remove that part and step into a role where you can look at things objectively. So yes...I think I could serve on this jury without bias even knowing the things we have heard. It is all about the evidence and weighing it carefully.

MommaD
08-21-2008, 08:11 AM
If I think outside the box I vote guilty with what we know for fact now and what LE can bring to the table...and I feel they have more than we could dream of ..to many verbal party ppl involved .. if she is charged with murder.. all is needed to package it with a bow tho is the body..

As of now with just what is on the charges now .. and just add murder and no other evidence .. I vote not guilty..

Patty G
08-21-2008, 08:24 AM
I live in Florida and have followed this story from day one like so many other people. I have read all speculations, all info from "sources", LE briefings, read the documents, listened to the parents, as well as Casey's calls and conversations on 911, saw the photos, etc., and YES, if I was selected to be on a jury I could be open-minded and listen to all the evidence that was presented in court.

Even if the state proves Casey guilty of causing Caylee's death either intentionally or accidentially, the one thing that the jurors, and the outside world will never know is "WHY" this all happened. I more so then anything want to know "why"!