Just because the defense puts up evidence that disagrees with what the state said, doesn't necessarily mean that their evidence is better or that it cancels out the state's evidence. I don't think this jury understood that.
It's almost been a year since we did our last show.Jay Bush my partner has been auditioning for the show Shark Tank and so this has put the show on hold. If he gets on Shark Tank, we will be terribly delayed. Good luck Jay. Either way we will one day continue the show and have the coolest global independent radio station out there. This is just a small video we did with one of our artists.Waiting for One and their tune 35 years. Check it out.
We hope to be doing a radio show with all our artists real soon. Hope you can join in the fun. Please bare with us while we improve the show especially the sound.
Laserdog Enterprises would like to bring you our version of a Tribute to the Angels of Newtown. Another school shooting in Georgia thankfully no children were hurt.
Please take a few moments and visit the missing children site. We really need you.
Click on the link to find a missing child,teen or adult.
They drank the Casey Kool-Aid. They knew she lied and lied and lied some more but instead of thinking the c/u was just another one along with the lame drowning theory they bought into it. They saw her a nice person and a great mother even with all the evidence to the contrary.
I do wonder if part of it was due to her being young and attractive. It would be easier for them to think it was an accident versus an evil monster who killed her baby and then went partying. Sad thing is seemingly loving mothers do this all the time.
I do wish one of them would have stood their ground and hung the jury. #2 seems to be the one who wishes he had done that. I think the ones who dug their heels in got their way because others wanted their gourmet lunch, Disney, and to get out of there.
My biggest regret is they didn't ask for clarification regarding jury instructions. They really didn't understand their role or RD at all. That will forever make me sad.
And speaking of inaccurate claims masquerading as fact, here are a couple for you to address:
- that the state attorney alleges that Casey chloroformed Casey in a public place (when cell records clearly show she did what she always did, sneak back home after her father went to work, and likely killed Caylee there)
- you need a cause of death to convict because it's the "letter of the law"
- Cindy was the one who did the chloroform searches (despite the hours of testimony proving otherwise)
These claims were made by the jurors. Do you agree these are "inaccurate claims masquerading as fact?"
"UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There was a suspicion of him. That as -- that was a part of our conversation that we had of the -- well, what I'd call the round robin topics that we had when we were doing deliberation. That was brought up."
CONVERSATION?? Would you use that term about deliberations in a capital case?
This probably happens all the time with jurys - but is that acceptable? This jury has disregarded most of the rules of the court, as I see it.
I just wish that a judge could look over everything these jurors have been saying..see what the did and do something about it. When people don't follow the judge's instructions isn't there anything that can be done. They say that "the state couldn't prove how Caylee died"...well they didn't have to. Didn't any of them watch Scott Peterson and see that he ended up on death row but there was no cause of death. It amazes me that 12 people could all ignore the evidence...disregard the judge's instructions and it is ok! I hope they are all shaking in their shoes with fear that someone is going to get them. I hope everyone that they know is disgusted with them for such a terrible outcome. I hope they see little Caylee in their nightmares every night and she is saying "you were wrong..my mama killed me."
Frederick The Great - “If my soldiers were to begin to think, not one would remain in the ranks”
Exactly, they based it in feelings and emotions, not the evidence. That's probably one of the reasons it was so easy for them to dismiss all of her lies etc, because according to them she seemed like a good mom and a good mom wouldn't harm their child.
George on the other hand has a smarmy look to him so they easily bought unfounded and unproven accusations against him.
It baffles me completely that the juror said Casey's body language was 'sincere' and that kind of garbage. Did they not see the sullen pouty face she was making through most of the trial?? Incredible.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
As to your questions:
-any allegation that Casey chloroformed Caylee was not substantiated by testimony or evidence. (conflicting testimony from expert witnesses on both tests of the carpet and air sample testing).
-you don't need a cause of death but you do in fact have to prove manner of death - that it was a homicide, and that the defendent was the one who committed it (jury instructions).
-That Cindy did the searches...well she says she did (and she lies), her company said both that someone using her login (presumably her) was at work, but that sharing login info "happens" despite their policy against it. I was actually surprised to hear him volunteer this without being asked. Her time card? though her supervisor said she would never approve false hours documentation....it happens...at every company. Personally, I think Casey did the search, but its not beyond reasonable doubt that it was due to the RM myspace pic. If I were a juror in the deliberation room, I would go along with the thinking that there was too much reasonable doubt re: chloroform and the computer to give the evidence any weight - but not because I believed Cindy did the searches.
Also, I left out Ms. Ford saying that finding Casey guilty would make her a murderer, since it was a DP trial, even though the instructions are clear that you should only deliberate guilt or innocence at that stage.
I don't know if its already been brought up but during the Greta interview the 11th juror said " I orchestrated the whole situation". His exact words. He said this around the last 10 min of the first interview with her.
After the verdict, as I understand it - the only way there could possibly be a retrial is if the defendent (not her attorney or other witnesses) directly tampered with witnesses or jurors during the trial, or directly instructed someone to do so. That would be difficult to prove even if it happened, as any party involved would be less than cooperative.
If there was misconduct on the part of the jury without the direct/indirect involvement of the defendent, it has no effect whatsoever on the not-guilty verdict. Still double jeopardy.