Why did the jury reach this verdict?

New Posts

I'm at a loss. How could common sense not tell you that she was involved in Caylee's death? Even if you didn't believe the forensics she had Caylee, hid for 31 days and Caylee is found dead. She then lies to LE. Those were all proven. I'm shocked they found it justice for her to just walk away.
 
Nikki 01 said:
You know I wondered if all of the delays by the defense would have made the jury think the prosecution was trying to hide things even though the delays were because Baez was violating court orders.
Click to expand...
Yep, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

That, coupled with the CSI effect.

It's a sad day.
 
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. :blush:
 
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.
 
I think the lies worked on this jury. IMO It wasn't just reasonable doubt, they bought the *advertiser censored* and bull story that JB laid out for them.
 
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.
 
Liz said:
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.
Click to expand...

So I have to wonder if all those defending Cindy's perjury as a grieving grandmother still feel the same.
 
CharlestonGal said:
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.
Click to expand...

Finally! A judgement I can whole-heartedly agree with today !
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Gardenlady said:
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. :blush:
Click to expand...
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...
 
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 ..
 
CharlestonGal said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree and I just want to vomit.
 
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.
 
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
 
Liz said:
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.
Click to expand...

BBM I knew this from the start.
 
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.
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 204 more.
Total: 4,024 (members: 205, guests: 3,819)

Online statistics

Members online
205
Guests online
3,819
Total visitors
4,024
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,694
Messages
17,957,585
Members
228,588
Latest member
cariboucampfire73
Back
Top