Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 153

Thread: Why did the jury reach this verdict?

  1. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Small Town, Iowa
    Posts
    839
    Because they were over it already. They wanted to go home. Bella Vita. Is that the saying?

    I can't say all the things I wish I could. Anyway ... it's just my opinion and I was wrong before. I thought they would find her guilty of harming her child in some way.

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Mandy113 For This Useful Post:


  3. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by Liz View Post
    I think they reached the verdict because Baez was able to put reasonable doubt in their minds, due to "no dna evidence"; "no filming of the murder of Caylee"; and no actual proof that ICA did the searches on the computer. JB clouded and obfuscated all the circumstantial evidence that did exist.

    I find myself wondering IF the Anthony family were possibly all in on this ploy of Baez's to throw George and Lee under the bus, in order to set their "princess, ICA" free? All of George and Cindy's lying on the stand, only helped to obfuscate the circumstantial evidence, resulting in reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.
    So I have to wonder if all those defending Cindy's perjury as a grieving grandmother still feel the same.

  4. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to sappysoul For This Useful Post:


  5. #28
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Small Town, Iowa
    Posts
    839
    Quote Originally Posted by CharlestonGal View Post
    I think they just wanted to go home and no one cared enough about it to argue. I think they just wanted it over with and that they certainly had no intention of being sequestered for another 2 weeks while they sat through a penalty phase. I think they were resentful about being sequestered away from their homes and families for so long and just wanted to get on with their summer vacations.

    I think they just didn't care.
    Finally! A judgement I can whole-heartedly agree with today !

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Mandy113 For This Useful Post:


  7. #29
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,235
    I also think a lot of the defense attorney talking heads, labeled initially as "legal analysts" (esp. Bill S) were sucked in to the frenzy and became cheerleaders for the State - each one trying to jockey for pole position instead of providing a balanced analysis. This compounded expectations for a certain verdict. Bill S did an awful lot of back-pedalling today after the verdict.

  8. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to jrb0124 For This Useful Post:


  9. #30
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    10,496
    I have to agree with it being just too ugly, too much muck, for a trial as one reason. Too much game playing, too many things left out, too much jumping around, too much everything from both sides. I also said this before, if you could look at this trial from someone's eyes that did not know anything about it, you would see the State spent too much time on KC's lies and belligerence to her parents and friends. I don't feel they presented enough of whatever "evidence" they had.

    Do I think the defense did a good job? No.

    I think the jurors just couldn't get through the bologna displayed in Court, and, again, I will say, lack of smoking gun. No one wanted to sit there for 2 months and hear a bunch of fussing, they wanted hard evidence. They didn't get it.

    We had more info here. The jurors just got emotionally tugged daily (As did we.), I don't know if the cameras made it worse, or if it was just what was there. Not a case I would have been happy to be a juror on.

    Unless I have included a link, it is my opinion and only my opinion that I am expressing.

  10. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to 21merc7 For This Useful Post:


  11. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    112
    JB & Co. ran out the clock with their delay tactics and confusing dialogue. The jury was looking to be finished by July 4 with the whole process, sentencing and all. I think if just one or two of the jurors thought she was NG, they could have held up deliberations indefinitely. At the end of the day, none of them was willing to give up any more of their time to the state of FL for this farce of a trial. In hindsight, state probably shouldn't have gone for 1st degree. So much for justice.
    "The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple." ~Oscar Wilde

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to redmeli For This Useful Post:


  13. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    4,474
    I think that some people just won't convict anyone without a cinema quality video and DNA all over the place. Even then something as innocuous as evidence of another person touching the body when it's discovered or a tossed cig butt blown by the wind to a place near the crime scene would be used as an excuse to vote not guilty.

    I bet that every one of those jurors know full well that Casey did something to cause Caylee's death, that Casey was aware that whatever she did was wrong and illegal, and that Casey threw Caylee away like trash.

    Still, they convicted her of nothing but lying.

    IMO, every one of them should have spoken up during jury selection and told the lawyers that they were willing to ignore the truth and let a murderer walk free if it meant they could go home sooner.

  14. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to TGIRecovered For This Useful Post:


  15. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Confoederatio Helvetica
    Posts
    3,720
    Quote Originally Posted by Gardenlady View Post
    Many posters in other threads seem to think that this verdict means that the jury "bought" the defense's story of an accidental drowning, but that isn't necessarily so. Jurors might actually believe Casey was responsible for Caylee's death, but felt that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and if so, then they are duty bound to acquit her.

    Personally, and I know this won't win me any popularity contests around here, I would have voted not guilty on all but the lying to LE myself. I do feel fairly certain that Casey was responsible in some way for Caylee's death, I do feel fairly sure that it was proven that she was in that trunk after death, and I think (with less certainty) that she was put in the swamp by Casey, but I did not feel like the evidence presented at trial proved her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to any of the murder, manslaughter, agg child abuse charges.

    I also think that Mason's closing argument, regarding reasonable doubt, etc., may have been a strong factor in the jury's decision. I thought his argument and delivery were excellent, and he was definitely at his best during that summation, IMO. It is very important to remember that although this verdict is painful for many, especially so since it feels like no one is being held responsible for the murder of a CHILD, the adversarial system, the presumption of innocence, the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold, and the right to a vigorous defense are all invaluable tools in our justice system that help keep the state honest, and at least in theory help to ensure that it is DIFFICULT to take someone's freedom away, or especially to condemn them to death (regarding which, I agree with Baez in his statement - our country really needs to do away with murdering people for their crimes).

    JMO. Hurl your tomatoes.
    No tomatoes from me! It's an excellent post, IMO.

    I don't know how I would have voted if I wasn't privy to so much over the last 3 years, so I can't really be angry at the jury's verdict. They did the best they could based on evidence and witness testimony. I wish them all the best.

    My opinions...

  16. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Turnadot For This Useful Post:


  17. #34
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    michigan
    Posts
    2,147
    most of them didnt want to be on the jury .. they thought more about making the rest of the holiday then thinking about that browneyed beautiful little angel that died way too soon .. im sorry its how i feel and i think most of them dang well knew ALL about this case and didnt admit it ..

  18. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to zadari For This Useful Post:


  19. #35
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    432
    Quote Originally Posted by CharlestonGal View Post
    I think they just wanted to go home and no one cared enough about it to argue. I think they just wanted it over with and that they certainly had no intention of being sequestered for another 2 weeks while they sat through a penalty phase. I think they were resentful about being sequestered away from their homes and families for so long and just wanted to get on with their summer vacations.

    I think they just didn't care.
    I agree and I just want to vomit.

  20. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Kavya01 For This Useful Post:


  21. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,560
    There were a couple of jurors on there with little or no education but this doesn't account for the others.

    I can only guess that if you accuse your family of abuse it excuses everything.

    Wow - a known pathological liar, lies and gets away with murder. Breathtaking.

  22. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to darnudes For This Useful Post:


  23. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    34,288
    I don't like to say so, but I thought JB did a pretty good job on Sunday. And while the State was high on drama and emotion it was mostly assumptions, IMO. I mean, we all think we know what happened, but no one could lay it out and prove it, and I guess juries are wanting that more and more. They keep being told how advanced the sciences are and yet they are not seeing any DNA, any fingerprints, the stuff they really want to see. JMO
    Just my opinion, of course.

  24. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to cluciano63 For This Useful Post:


  25. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    59,588
    Quote Originally Posted by Liz View Post
    I think they reached the verdict because Baez was able to put reasonable doubt in their minds, due to "no dna evidence"; "no filming of the murder of Caylee"; and no actual proof that ICA did the searches on the computer. JB clouded and obfuscated all the circumstantial evidence that did exist.

    I find myself wondering IF the Anthony family were possibly all in on this ploy of Baez's to throw George and Lee under the bus, in order to set their "princess, ICA" free? All of George and Cindy's lying on the stand, only helped to obfuscate the circumstantial evidence, resulting in reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.
    BBM I knew this from the start.

  26. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to magnolia For This Useful Post:


  27. #39
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,866
    I think that Tricia (the owner of WS) was dead on when she tweeted today that all the Anthony's lie and that jurors didn't know what to do about that so they found Casey not guilty.
    !~*Mar*~!





  28. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to WillenFan21 For This Useful Post:


  29. #40
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Somewhere Out There
    Posts
    2,478
    I personally have wondered if HHJP is not partially to blame for their decision. I know alot of you love JP, but hear me out. The jury loved him, he treated them well, there is no doubt about that. HHJP bent over backwards for the defense, IMO opinion to prevent a verdict overturned on appeal. He schooled JB daily on the law, often let them question witnesses outside of scope, he sometimes ruled in their favor as a precaution, when IMO he should not have, he allowed things said in JB's closing that were clearly breaking the rules, and he did not come down on JB hard enough for his behaviour. Many times the jury saw this judge treat JB with kid gloves. Now ALL OF US know it was to prevent a mistrial and prevent a verdict that would be easily overturned, however I dont think the jury understood that. Looking back I now think that the jury probably thought that the judge was being so nice to the DT because he thought their client was not guilty! I know if someone I like and respect treats someone nicely I usually also assume that I can trust that person too. In addition HHJP seemed harder on the prosecution, he held them to higher standards, I get that, but did the jury get that?? What do you all think?
    Last edited by Angelonline; 07-05-2011 at 04:40 PM. Reason: left out a word
    "Words can break someone into a million pieces, but they can also put them back together. I hope you use yours for good, because the only words you'll regret more than the ones left unsaid are the ones you use to intentionally hurt someone."

  30. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Angelonline For This Useful Post:


  31. #41
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    632
    so i think it was significant that a few jurors said they could not judge others and that was up to someone else. if they didn't get definitive evidence in their minds, then for sure they were not going to judge others and certainly not put them to death.

    of course the defense wanted them on the jury. and it worked in their favor.

  32. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Whaleshark For This Useful Post:


  33. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,072
    If it was NG on 1st Degree I could understand but no ACB or Agg Man is absurd. I think ICA is an excellent liar and master manipulatr and it worked on jury as well. It's worked against other people for decades as well.

  34. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Nova24 For This Useful Post:


  35. #43
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Small Town, Iowa
    Posts
    839
    I know I'm far too emotional to really hear the arguments some have made regarding holes in the state's case and reasonable doubt. Honestly, I do realize there are some good points being made. I am a rational and reasonable person.

    I've also sat on a jury who deliberated on an attempted murder charge. In my experience, that overwhelming factor weighing most heavily on the majority of those juror members ... their personal plans and that they were not wasting any more time in that court house on that case.

    I hope that didn't happen when this jury was determining whether Casey was guilty of these charges. I honestly don't know how they could have reached this verdict.

    This is so wrong. I'm just sick.

  36. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Mandy113 For This Useful Post:


  37. #44
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Midwest
    Posts
    2,358
    Most people have not absorbed themselves in this, thats why they can look at this with their brains and not their hearts. The law is the law and Casey was convicted before she ever had her trial. Maybe the media will change the way they cover cases from now on?

  38. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Chablis For This Useful Post:


  39. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by kaki View Post
    I believe there were one or two very strong personalities on the jury that swayed the rest to vote that way.. early on.

    I just can't imagine completely acquitting her like that .. what a waste. Casey is an extremely dangerous sociopath who has just learned she can do as she wises.. with little to no consequences... I pray for her next victim.
    The verdict could have been a political statement against the DA or the death penalty law.
    So help me God.

  40. The Following User Says Thank You to Bluegrass For This Useful Post:


  41. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Confoederatio Helvetica
    Posts
    3,720
    Quote Originally Posted by cluciano63 View Post
    I don't like to say so, but I thought JB did a pretty good job on Sunday. And while the State was high on drama and emotion it was mostly assumptions, IMO. I mean, we all think we know what happened, but no one could lay it out and prove it, and I guess juries are wanting that more and more. They keep being told how advanced the sciences are and yet they are not seeing any DNA, any fingerprints, the stuff they really want to see. JMO
    I think not having a COD was a huge problem. I think despite me not wanting to believe otherwise, it really hurt the State not to have one. Without that, it's easier to infer an accident and a family wide coverup, or George was complicit - all the Anthony's lied on the stand. There just wasn't proof during the trial that KC murdered Caylee.

    Now, I believe KC did murder Caylee, but to be fair to the jurors, they can't convict on their feelings; it's about the evidence, or lack of, sorry to say.

    My opinions...

  42. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Turnadot For This Useful Post:


  43. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    34,288
    Quote Originally Posted by Chablis View Post
    Most people have not absorbed themselves in this, thats why they can look at this with their brains and not their hearts. The law is the law and Casey was convicted before she ever had her trial. Maybe the media will change the way they cover cases from now on?
    No way that will happen...
    Just my opinion, of course.

  44. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to cluciano63 For This Useful Post:


  45. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    2
    It's possible the jury found her guilty for monetary reasons.

  46. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to nicegirl23 For This Useful Post:


  47. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    SF Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    18,451

    Arrow

    Because they were idiots. They were bored and didn't take notes. They were mad at the prosecution because they missed their 4th of July and took it out on them. They wanted to go home. They didn't even bother to look at the evidence, they just wanted to give the appearance of it, because they knew their verdict last night. I just want to know what happened to the common sense of the nurse and the IT guy.
    Please help locate Mark Dribin http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...ht=Mark+Dribin and Ilene Misheloff http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...lene+Misheloff and bring them home.



  48. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to LinasK For This Useful Post:


  49. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,235
    I think we should give the jurors a break here. I don't believe they arrived at this verdict just to get back to their lives ASAP, to make book and TV $, or any other related reason.

    All it takes is once instance of perceived concealment or deceit on the part of the State to sow reasonable doubt.

    I'm pretty sure at least a few jurors raised an eyebrow after learning about the other computer forensics report...the earlier one which showed not 84 chloroform searches, but 1 (there were 84 myspace accesses). Not only did that make more sense, but as a juror I would wonder what other contradictory evidence the State might have "left out" because it weakened their case. (As a juror with knowledge only from the testimony and evidence), it might cause me to question the integrity of all of the evidence.

  50. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to jrb0124 For This Useful Post:


Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Jury, Deliberations, The Verdict, Penalty Phase???
    By Never4GetCaylee in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-02-2011, 01:03 PM
  2. The jury - VERDICT IS IN! GUILTY!!!
    By Kimster in forum Sheri, Garrett and Gavin Coleman
    Replies: 411
    Last Post: 05-05-2011, 11:00 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •