773 users online (119 members and 654 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Results 1 to 15 of 15
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    60

    If you were a juror on this case

    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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,759
    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by JBean View Post
    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?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,759
    Quote Originally Posted by melissa81 View Post
    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by JBean View Post
    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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,759
    Quote Originally Posted by melissa81 View Post
    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    60
    Quote Originally Posted by JBean View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    WASHINGTON
    Posts
    1,171
    Quote Originally Posted by JBean View Post
    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!
    "What you see and hear depends a good deal on where you are standing: it also depends on what sort of person you are." - C.S. Lewis

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dana Point,CA
    Posts
    52,759
    Quote Originally Posted by melissa81 View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    FLORIDA!
    Posts
    2,809
    Quote Originally Posted by JBean View Post
    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.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,143
    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.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    8,220
    Quote Originally Posted by melissa81 View Post
    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

  13. #13
    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.
    "WE SEEK FOR THE TRUTH. WE SEEK JUSTICE.
    THE COURTS REQUIRE IT. THE VICTIMS CRY FOR IT
    AND GOD DEMANDS IT!"

    A quote spray painted on the wall by search
    and rescue workers, Team 5, at the OKC Bombing site 4-19-1995.



    What I post are my opinions only.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,113
    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..

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    16,425
    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"!
    :Banane59: Pekingese "Best Of Show" 2012



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 124
    Last Post: 01-08-2015, 02:53 PM
  2. Replies: 503
    Last Post: 07-01-2011, 10:22 PM
  3. Could you serve as an unbiased juror in this case?
    By cluciano63 in forum Kyron Horman
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 08-24-2010, 05:50 PM

Tags for this Thread