Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[Baznme]

Do we know whether the jury saw that or not? I don't remember the prosecutors, or any witness, walking the jurors through this. The stain we all saw was a small, faded thing.

Correct.......after the trunk had been cleaned. However, this was done under fluorescent or chemical testing by LE is my undertstanding....so how can the jury have disputed that Caylee was not in the trunk?

 

[SleuthyMama]

And why the jury may have come to the verdict they did. If the thoughts in this commentary are true about the effects of sequestration on juries, then something needs to change in how juries are kept from outside influences so they do not get into a group think mode. Maybe jurors should not be allowed to stay together as a group for long trials. Maybe their families should be sequestered along with them.

I have no good suggestion but the system as it is did not work in this case as shown in the statements of Juror #3.

Casey Jury Brainwash
The Daily Beast, Friday, July 8, 2011, 5:33am (PDT)

The inevitable juror cameos have begun. Juror Number Three, now known as Jennifer Ford, spoke to Nightline. She came forward to give her explanation for the shocking acquittal that freed Casey Anthony of any criminal liability for the killing of her baby, Caylee Anthony.

No doubt she meant to justify the verdict. On that score, she failed. But she succeeded in showing us a great deal about the dynamics and thinking of this jury—significantly, this sequestered jury.

<SNIP>

Unfortunately&#8212;and psychological studies bear this out&#8212;a group that is kept together for any length of time becomes more and more alike, more in sync, as time goes on. (By the way, this phenomenon is also in play with regard to proximity to the defendant. The longer the jury is in contact with the defendant, the less sinister he or she appears. In this way, familiarity with Casey Anthony turned her from a potential murderer to an abused, perhaps disturbed, but certainly nonthreatening, child.) Add this phenomenon to the natural desire to avoid contentiousness and seek harmony and you can see how individuality begins to erode in a sequestered jury.

More: http://powerwall.msnbc.msn.com/politics/casey-jury-brainwash-1694371.story
​

Thank you for posting this...I was just coming here to post the direct link to the Daily Beast article, myself.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...red-jury-fell-prey-to-idiotic-groupthink.html

 

[Lanie]

Well the ones that were interviewed were talking about a possibility of some horrible accident, so I presume they believed the defense scenario. What other options are there if they didn't believe it was a murder or an accident? Alien abduction?

I haven't watched the interviews and I don't intend to, because for me, I already know these people have nothing intelligent to say.

A horrible accident. Even if a person is willing to believe the laundry bag, garbage bags, and the duct tape somehow came to life with the sole intent of killing Caylee Anthony and dragging her body off to a swamp, there is still the question of WHY Caylee's mother NEVER reported her missing. Which I guess means nothing to the jury in this case.

I thought I was over this, but realize I'm still disgusted. Did the jury get it wrong? They couldn't have gotten it more wrong if they had tried, and it's pretty clear to me they made no effort of any kind whatsoever in this case. The prosecution laid out a case that made perfect sense, and I can guarantee whatever 'reasoning' these jurors have for their verdict, it's not going to add up and make any sense at all, which is why I have no interest in anything they have to say.

My husband had to come get me out of the pool to let me know the verdict was in. I believed there was no way, with all the evidence presented, especially the scientific stuff, this jury would be able to look it over and be anywhere near a verdict until at least today, Friday.

 

[Sabrina2011]

I feel sorry for those jurors. If they haven't already received death threats surely they will. I hope people quit feeding this hate frenzy and leave them alone.

I don't feel sorry for them. Especially the ones holding out for 5 figures to talk to the press

 

[SMK]

I respect your opinion, but wow, that article is full of pop psychology and Monday morning quarterbacking. Perhaps the jurors were looking for proof that we saw and that they did not, because a woman's fate was in their hands, not ours. I don't agree with the verdict at all, but just as Jeff Ashton suggested... if they don't see duct tape around a skull as a murder, then so be it.

Oh, I did not say I am buying it as gospel. I think there are some factors that play in , but hey, these could have applied JUST as much if they had found her guilty of premeditated murder. Perhaps Scott Peterson's jurors also bonded too deeply. The fact is, this was the verdict, and under American jurisprudence it must be respected. Ashton has said it, Judge Perry has said it, and I believe it. Would anyone be questioning the jurors if they had come in after one hour, with a verdict of pre-mediated murder?

 

[nomoresorrow]

I feel sorry for those jurors. If they haven't already received death threats surely they will. I hope people quit feeding this hate frenzy and leave them alone.

I don't hate these jurors, I hate the verdict they came to, big difference. I think the majority of people feel the same. I for one am not going to silence my voice and forfeit my right to free speech - a right that sets this country apart from many. Please don't blurr the lines between those who voice their dissatisfaction (legal behavior) and those who act out violently (illegal behavior) - there is a huge difference between the two.

 

[Adrienne37]

It's clear to me that this jury went into deliberations already knowing what their verdict was going to be. I believe they discussed this case at every opportunity despite Judge Perry's warnings. Juror #2 states the vote was 6-6 for manslaughter but everyone started talking over one another until it ended up being 11-1 for manslaughter with him being the hold out. Why didn't he stand his ground? They simply did not heed the judge's instructions and there should be recourse when that happens. I can honestly say that my respect for the justice system here in the good old USA has taken a beating.

~jmo~

 

[Solange82200]

Wow, the law is just not applied consistently. Look up Hannah Overton of Texas if you dont believe me. It cant be such a big difference in verdicts just based on the jury you get and the state your in. That cannot be justice. There has to be a better way to make the justice system more consistent.

 

[SMK]

It's clear to me that this jury went into deliberations already knowing what their verdict was going to be. I believe they discussed this case at every opportunity despite Judge Perry's warnings. Juror #2 states the vote was 6-6 for manslaughter but everyone started talking over one another until it ended up being 11-1 for manslaughter with him being the hold out. Why didn't he stand his ground? They simply did not heed the judge's instructions and there should be recourse when that happens. I can honestly say that my respect for the justice system here in the good old USA has taken a beating.

~jmo~

If this is the case, they should have waited a day or two, maybe gotten some clarification, something.

 

[Solange82200]

Oh, I did not say I am buying it as gospel. I think there are some factors that play in , but hey, these could have applied JUST as much if they had found her guilty of premeditated murder. Perhaps Scott Peterson's jurors also bonded too deeply. The fact is, this was the verdict, and under American jurisprudence it must be respected. Ashton has said it, Judge Perry has said it, and I believe it. Would anyone be questioning the jurors if they had come in after one hour, with a verdict of pre-mediated murder?

I guess it depends on the meaning of respect. When justice so clearly failed, is it wrong to look to see what happened and make changes to prevent it from happening again? Isn't that how progress works? It's our justice system, we should have a say in what happens. I dont see people shocked and outrage at every verdict they disagree with. I think you see it in this case because it is so obviously not the right verdict. Sometimes there is such a thing as right or wrong, and this jury is wrong. Since the verdict is in no way consistent with what is supposed to happen in a case with so much evidence of guilt, people are going to want to know why. And we have a right to know. The state of Florida spent a lot of time and money to ensure justice was done, and it was all for nothing. Not only that, there are lives at risk when you let a killer go free. I have a right to know why these people let a child killer back onto the streets of my community. Decisions have consequences, whether they like it or not.

 

[back2back19]

Had Jeff Ashton included the above in his closing argument, would it have made a difference?

Nope. I don't think so. Based on #3's comments, I think they were just gonna acquit period. They wanted a video, they wanted proof beyond all shadow of a doubt(and even if they had a video, I think they would have acquitted), JA saying he didn't have to do that would have done nothing to change the outcome. This jury just wanted to acquit. Frankly, I think the case was lost in the opening.... (and, jury selection).

 

[Baznme]

Oh, I did not say I am buying it as gospel. I think there are some factors that play in , but hey, these could have applied JUST as much if they had found her guilty of premeditated murder. Perhaps Scott Peterson's jurors also bonded too deeply. The fact is, this was the verdict, and under American jurisprudence it must be respected. Ashton has said it, Judge Perry has said it, and I believe it. Would anyone be questioning the jurors if they had come in after one hour, with a verdict of pre-mediated murder?

If they had taken minimal notes, not referred to the testimony, photos, etc. collected over a 6 week period, not followed the instructions of the judge to use evidence and common sense and to not take opening or closing arguments as evidence, to consider "reasonable doubt".....yes, I would. I call em as I see em, and to me......this is juror misconduct. This will all come out a little bit at a time and we'll see just how much this particular jury did the "wrong" thing.

 

[Bainbridge]

Had Jeff Ashton included the above in his closing argument, would it have made a difference?

Sadly, I think yes. In his defense though, he probably thought these jurors had more common sense. To me, the defense's closing statement and whole case was so...juvenile, for lack of a better word. If I were a juror I would have felt like my intelligence was being insulted. I guess these jurors just looked at the case at a very basic, low level. I also thought CM's whole display/chart on reasonable doubt shouldn't have been allowed. It is the judge's job to instruct on reasonable doubt. As someone else here said, there is reasonable doubt, and there is a shadow of a doubt. Not the same. He portrayed reasonable doubt as essentially meaning no doubt at all. And that's not fair.

I am a graphic designer. I remember when we talking about concept in college. Our teachers always said, "make your concept one that the average woman in the grocery store can understand." Basically, I think the SA's gave the jury more credit than they deserved.

 

[SMK]

I guess it depends on the meaning of respect. When justice so clearly failed, is it wrong to look to see what happened and make changes to prevent it from happening again? Isn't that how progress works? It's our justice system, we should have a say in what happens. I dont see people shocked and outrage at every verdict they disagree with. I think you see it in this case because it is so obviously not the right verdict. Sometimes there is such a thing as right or wrong, and this jury is wrong. Since the verdict is in no way consistent with what is supposed to happen in a case with so much evidence of guilt, people are going to want to know why. And we have a right to know. The state of Florida spent a lot of time and money to ensure justice was done, and it was all for nothing. Not only that, there are lives at risk when you let a killer go free. I have a right to know why these people let a child killer back onto the streets of my community. Decisions have consequences, whether they like it or not.

Well, I do agree it is weird and unusual that they did not at least rule guilty on the manslaughter of a child as charged in the indictment, because that much was pretty clear. But I don't think their explaining is going to make anyone feel better; I think people will become more angry.

 

[Adrienne37]

I hope Caylee haunts their dreams every night for the rest of their life.



~jmo~

 

[theBritster]

Do you think they saw this? (trunk liner stain) Doesn't get much clearer than that to me she was in that trunk....dead.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - 2010.02.16 Document Release: Stain on Trunk Liner

I'm not positive, but I think this version of the picture of the trunk liner wasn't allowed in. Th jury could just see the regular pictures. But it's been awhile so I admit I may be wrong!

 

[~n/t~]

And why the jury may have come to the verdict they did. If the thoughts in this commentary are true about the effects of sequestration on juries, then something needs to change in how juries are kept from outside influences so they do not get into a group think mode. Maybe jurors should not be allowed to stay together as a group for long trials. Maybe their families should be sequestered along with them.

I have no good suggestion but the system as it is did not work in this case as shown in the statements of Juror #3.

Casey Jury Brainwash
The Daily Beast, Friday, July 8, 2011, 5:33am (PDT)

The inevitable juror cameos have begun. Juror Number Three, now known as Jennifer Ford, spoke to Nightline. She came forward to give her explanation for the shocking acquittal that freed Casey Anthony of any criminal liability for the killing of her baby, Caylee Anthony.

No doubt she meant to justify the verdict. On that score, she failed. But she succeeded in showing us a great deal about the dynamics and thinking of this jury—significantly, this sequestered jury.

<SNIP>

Unfortunately—and psychological studies bear this out—a group that is kept together for any length of time becomes more and more alike, more in sync, as time goes on. (By the way, this phenomenon is also in play with regard to proximity to the defendant. The longer the jury is in contact with the defendant, the less sinister he or she appears. In this way, familiarity with Casey Anthony turned her from a potential murderer to an abused, perhaps disturbed, but certainly nonthreatening, child.) Add this phenomenon to the natural desire to avoid contentiousness and seek harmony and you can see how individuality begins to erode in a sequestered jury.

More: http://powerwall.msnbc.msn.com/politics/casey-jury-brainwash-1694371.story
​

Good article. 2 thoughts when I read it

1) Juror # 3 almost begged to be on this jury (recalling jury selection)

2) Wonder what the verdict would have been if it wasn't a 25 year old, white female who some people think is pretty.

 

[SMK]

Another interesting take on the Jury's decision:

Why Casey Anthony Was Acquitted
The decision to acquit Casey Anthony of killing her daughter Caylee has shocked and baffled many people, but some experts say it’s just the latest sign of juries’ ignorance, failure to use common sense, and inability—or disinclination—to properly weigh evidence. Lloyd Grove reports.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/06/casey-anthony-murder-acquittal-no-sense-in-jury-rooms.html

 

[wonders]

I took this from the Todays Current News Thread.

Quote:
The 32-year-old nursing student said the jury members were "sick to our stomach to get that verdict" but said there just wasn't enough evidence to convict Anthony.


"In our country ... we have to prove it. You can't just be like, 'Yeah that really looks bad. Smells bad. Looks bad.' I get that. It does:smells bad, looks bad. I get that. But it's someone else's life, and if I'm wrong, and I kill someone else? I can't live with that," she said, referring to the possible death sentence that could have been handed down. While Ford didn't receive direct compensation from the network for the interview, the Times reported that she and four others were treated to a trip to Disney World. Disney owns ABC.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/...html?tag=strip

BBM
Why were they considering death in the guilt phase. And by the way they were supposed to be a death qualified jury. A miscarrage of justice.
I still can't get over this.

 

[Gracenote]

Very well said!
This whole thing also makes me wonder if it was a big mistake sequestering this jury (or any others going forward!!) If they were talking to each other (which seems apparent), then I'm sure they were talking with loved ones at their private visits, so maybe if they were "on good behavior" and allowed to go home, they would have put more effort into a verdict!
But coulda, shoulda, woulda.. sigh. Changes nothing now.

Also, I think it may be a mistake to select jurors who know nothing about the case. I just heard that a juror said they didn't believe a word George said. Well, we "know" George and Cindy by now. Know their past history, attitudes, truths and lies. We know why GA was belligerent with Baez and why he acted like he did on the stand. I do think he lied about his affair with Cruz, but what did that have to do with Casey killing Caylee? And what about Casey's past criminal history? The jurors just saw a sweet little girl in a pink blouse.

Maybe jurors need to know as much about the case as possible in order to make a decision.