Verdict Suggests Juries are Tired of Theoretical Justice & Circumstancial Evidence

[noseyone]

I agree - what is great though is that the public is raining down on this jury. Thanks to having this trial televised we know the jury completely blew it and people are really speaking out and boycotting any efforts to pay them.

This jury is not getting a pass and are being called out on the fact that they did not do what they swore they would do - consider the evidence and render a fair verdict.

Just like the evidence was there to convict little Miss Casey Anthony, the facts are there for calling out this jury - both on the evidence in the trial and their own statements post trial.

It is our responsibility to speak out on this. It is truly an outrage and I suspect it was done out of ignorance, laziness and financial motive.

Perfectly said!

 

[megsy]

If they hadn't asked for the death penalty I think they would have convicted her. When ask for the death penalty you should have an airtight case. In this one it wasn't.

That argument makes no sense to me and further cements my belief that they did not follow instructions.

 

[Chewy]

Why doesn't it make sense? Asking a group of people to vote for the execution of someone based on circumstantial evidence is a hard thing to do.

I guess if you have no problem with the death penalty even if you are wrong then it's ok. But I think most people would want to be sure before signing off on that.

 

[Chewy]

They could have convicted on the lesser charge, which at least one of the jurors did not seem to know was there.

Right but I looked up the lesser charge I thought they could have gone for, which was aggravated child abuse.

Definition of Aggravated Child Abuse
The crime of Aggravated Child Abuse can be committed in one of three ways by either:

Committing an aggravated battery on a child;
Willfully torturing, maliciously punishing, or willfully and unlawfully caging a child; or
Knowingly or willfully abusing a child and in so doing causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child.
A child is defined as any person under the age of 18.

Importantly, there is no requirement that the Aggravated Child Abuse must be committed by a person in a parental or custodial relationship to the victim, thus what might be charged as a Felony Battery if the child was an adult, can instead be charged as Aggravated Child Abuse at the prosecutor's discretion.1

http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes/children/aggravated-child-abuse.html


The key is willfully. If it was an accident, which many people seem to think it was, then it's not willful.

 

[noseyone]

I am so tired of hearing people say our system works. It may work most of the time, but it did not work in this case. Why put your head in the sand and say it did? I think that jury did NOT take their duty seriously. I don't think it was unplanned that the trial ended right at the Fourth of July holiday. There were jurors who had other things planned and wanted out. But I heard this morning that most of them did not take any notes. How can you remember everything over that long a period without taking notes? I think some of them were in a hurry to get out and start making money, as evidenced by some of the things we have seen. And then for people to tell us we must RESPECT that decidion!!! It is a travesty and I hope people don't forget it soon. There should have been more time spent on selecting that jury. They should have had more instruction before it started. A person who can't judge another person should not have been on a jury whose purpose is to judge. I could go on and on, but something needs to change.

I agree, This Jury does not deserve any RESPECT for not following the Law, and taking the time to review the evidence. It is an INJUSTICE, and the Jury should be held accountable, and a mistrial should be called, but that is not how are system works. It's a horrible system, and will never be fixed as long as the majority believe it's the best there is in the World. ICA would have spent about 4yrs in Jail if she would have taken a plea deal, so I don't care when she gets out. Real Justice is not served on Earth
MOO

 

[SewingDeb]

I think they could have gone for guilty on charge 3 (linked in someone's post above).

“And the Grand Jurors of the County of Orange, duly called, impaneled and sworn to inquire and true presentment make in and for the body of the County of Orange, upon their oaths do present that CASEY MARIE ANTHONY, between the 15th day of June, 2008 and the 16th day of July, 2008, in said County and Satate, did willfully or by culpable negligence, in violation of Florida Statites 782.07(3) and 827.0393), while a caregiver to Caylee Marie Anthony, a child under 18 years of age, fail or omit to provide CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY with the care, supervision and services necessary to maintain CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY’S physical and mental health, or fail to make a reasonable effort to protect CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY from abuse, neglect or exploitation by another person, and in so doing caused the death of CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY.”

That would have covered not supervising Caylee leading to an accidental drowning. Or any other accidental death.
Underlining by me.

 

[grandmaj]

Wait a minute didn't the guy who was forced out of his job because of those tainted records testify for the defense. Isn't that one of the defense experts? :waitasec:

This jury didn't think it was willful? So I might ask what evidence did they base that on? I do not recall Baez ever being able to back up his wild assertions in his opening statement. There was more evidence that this was in fact willful, the hiding of the body, the actions for 31 days, the lies, the way the body was found and the items that were found with Caylee, the smell in the trunk.

Now what did we hear about not willful. A woman who was allowed to give hearsay testimony that George allegedly said "This was an accident that snowballed........"

There has to come a time when Defense Attorneys are not allowed to come out with fantasy in their opening statements unless they know going in they can back up those statements.

This trial has nothing to do with what the jury saw as not enough evidence but the State being forced to not only prove it's case, but to fight the fabrications and emotional bunk that defense Attorneys are allowed to throw out (and not prove) to confuse and play on the emotions of a jury.

If the system is broken it is because jurors are not able to remove myth from fact.

And, because the family went into a CYA mode protecting Casey. lying in the earliest stages and trying to justify what had happened. It proves if you scream loud enough and confuse the truth with spin you can get away with crime.

All this trial did for me was tell me that if you are in a high profile case your defense attorney can fabricate stories and if you hide a body long enough you will get away with your crime because most of the evidence of what happened i.e. "cause of death" is lost.

 

[noseyone]

Right but I looked up the lesser charge I thought they could have gone for, which was aggravated child abuse.


http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes/children/aggravated-child-abuse.html


The key is willfully. If it was an accident, which many people seem to think it was, then it's not willful.

Please, I would really like to know when there has ever been an Accident that was covered up to look like a Kidnapping/Murder? I am so amazed at the excuses given for ICA, and without any evidence to back it up. Yet there is plenty of evidence, that she is Guity of killing Caylee. S.P. had less evidence against him, so we should set him free based on this Juries 'reasoning'. Taking the so called reasoning of this Jury, we should free anyone who was found guilty of a circumstancial case. JMO

 

[Just K]

Please someone correct me if I am wrong: BUT, didn't the Prosecution leave out the detailed reports of Casey's whereabouts, as reflected by her cell phone pings, and the detailed reports of the frantic calls, the text and IM messaging from late on the 15th through the evening hours of the 16th....when she and Tony went to Blockbuster?

Why was none of this brought in? Perhaps this is why the jury did not see some of what we already knew.

 

[Chewy]

I think they could have gone for guilty on charge 3 (linked in someone's post above).

“And the Grand Jurors of the County of Orange, duly called, impaneled and sworn to inquire and true presentment make in and for the body of the County of Orange, upon their oaths do present that CASEY MARIE ANTHONY, between the 15th day of June, 2008 and the 16th day of July, 2008, in said County and Satate, did willfully or by culpable negligence, in violation of Florida Statites 782.07(3) and 827.0393), while a caregiver to Caylee Marie Anthony, a child under 18 years of age, fail or omit to provide CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY with the care, supervision and services necessary to maintain CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY’S physical and mental health, or fail to make a reasonable effort to protect CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY from abuse, neglect or exploitation by another person, and in so doing caused the death of CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY.”

That would have covered not supervising Caylee leading to an accidental drowning. Or any other accidental death.
Underlining by me.

Are you serious? I thought they had to come back with a vote on only those things they mentioned. Well damn this takes me back to my original opinion.

This is disgusting.

 

[Penelope]

I am glad this thread was started to discuss this issue.

IMO, The Casey Anthony jury did not do what they were sworn in to do and their verdict was a travesty of justice. The factors that you all mention in your previous posts worked together to create a "perfect storm" that led to an imperfect verdict.
-- Jury selection was rushed and thus, those selected were not adequate to do the job entrusted to them
-- The jurors did not really know what was expected of them. It's almost as if they sat for days watching some type of Law and Order or CSI television show, and then were expected to make a decision based on a quick discussion of their "feelings" about what they saw.
-- There was no care or consideration put into their deliberations. In fact, the jury DID NOT deliberate (definition of deliberate: to engage in long and careful consideration : she deliberated over the menu; to consider [a question] carefully.)
-- Jurors did not follow instructions -- hell, they wanted to get this done as quickly as possible so they could go home.

I fault the jurors and the court system for this -- particularly the judge (whom I, for one, was not very impressed with) for not having the court take the time to select them, for not ensuring that they understood what it was they were supposed to do, and for not ensuring that they performed their responsibilities as jurors and followed instructions.

It is my hope that this inspires changes in the system -- such as professional jurors or some sort of system to ensure that a jury is guided through the steps of deliberation. This is important, as the younger generations seem to have shorter attention spans.

One last thing -- I am absolutely amazed that any of these jurors could actually try to defend their actions. As stated by a number of you above, the trial was TELEVISED, thus we were all privy to the same information that the jury was.

SHAME ON ALL OF THEM. And shame on those who are trying to cash in on the death of a little girl. I hope the public keeps the pressure on the jurors and the Anthony clan to try to prevent profiteering.

Thanks for letting me get this off my chest!!

 

[grandmaj]

The other thing that Baez was allowed to do is ask questions in a way that was testifying.

For example he asked Yuri 3x and the prosecution was sustained 3x why Melich didn't trace the "other" cell phones that George and Cindy had.

At that point even though Yuri said he didn't know about them, because they were hidden from the State, even though it was sustained that is dirty pool. I didn't hear Baez saying you know the cell phones I provided to the Anthonys. No that wasn't mentioned at all. This is where our system is broken Baez got away with murder asking leading questions.

The question should have been to Yuri, and were there any other cell phones held by the Anthony family. The answer would have been no.

Instead the jury hears there were. Baez was allowed to testify way too much in this trial.

 

[yosande]

I heard someone say on one of the talk shows that jurors should have to have enough education to understand the scientific data and that this jury couldn't put two and two together.

Perhaps attorneys should pose some common sense questions to test their ability to reason...
regardless of education....moo

imo this jury lacked simple common sense, and they were given enough evidence to prove beyond a "reasonable" doubt that Casey took her daughter's life and then threw her body in a swamp when the stench of her baby's decomposing body got to be too much for her. Then she dumped her car, not thinking past the moment, to when her parents would eventually be called to pick it up, duh!
She didn't have any common sense either. moo

 

[grandmaj]

I am of the opinion the more this jury talks the better it is. This trial wasn't IMO lost by a lack of evidence it was lost by a jury that didn't use their common sense and work through Alpha jurors who pushed them into not really reviewing the lessor included charges. The charges were there. I have to wonder how many even read them during their deliberations.

Let them talk it is the only way we can learn from this process what happened.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

Good thread and discussion. I think the jury believed that their verdict would result in the DP. They were not instructed properly about rendering a verdict first, after which there would be a penalty phase. I never expected HHJP to impose the DP on Casey, but the jury must have thought that this is what would result with a GUILTY verdict.

It's also painfully obvious that the jury was discussing the case throughout the trial. I also think they grew weary of being sequestered and simply wanted to get this over as soon as possible and be on their way home to their families and lives. I hope they are watching post-trial news coverage and finding out all they should have known about Casey and the rest of the Anthonys - liars, all of them. jmo

 

[Just K]

Just want to bring this over from the lightening thread as it seems to apply here as well:

There are Five things in this case, having to do with the jury, that might have been addressed but weren't.

They were unaware (or so it seems) that:

The prosecution was not required to argue to motive

The prosecution did not need to show the specific cause of death only that the death was deemed a homicide.

The judge did not Instruct them to Disregard the penalty attached to the charges.

They did not understand that the lesser included charges did not have a death penalty provision.

Most importantly, it seems that they did not follow the judge's admonishments.

Perhaps the lesson here would be to ask each juror individually if they accept and understand the following items and to go one step further to ask each one of them to explain that understanding. If there is any confusion then the judge (and only the judge) should make that clarification.

Have cases ever been overturned by a higher court because of either jury nullification or the exclusion of a judges instructions?

 

[Baznme]

Right but I looked up the lesser charge I thought they could have gone for, which was aggravated child abuse.


http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes/children/aggravated-child-abuse.html


The key is willfully. If it was an accident, which many people seem to think it was, then it's not willful.

I see where you're coming from Chewy but, we know that chloroform in high levels didn't get in that trunk all by itself. Yes, I know it's been scrutinized to the fullest extent. The fact remains it was there. Chloroform reference on the computer, in the trunk and at the remains site indicates to me it's trail. It's reasonable to believe it was in the trunk before AND after Caylee's death. The duct tape was either to stop the fluids from leaking and/or to stage a kidnspping IMO shouldn't have been there at all and probably wasn't done until the next day when she backed the car into the garage, so even if it was an "accident", due to the willful act to put her in the trunk to begin with was "aggravated child abuse" I think the problem from the start was trying to prove "premeditation" via the computer searches. I don't think she expected Caylee to perish, just to sleep through "one more night", so she could have her evening with Tony, therefore, that's the only part of this that it may have deemed it an accident. IMO, the biggest mistake was not looking more closely at the trunk evidence that clearly equates to " Willfully torturing, maliciously punishing, or willfully and unlawfully caging a child". The trunk was her cage, filled with chloroform that poisoned her system to the extent of causing her little brain to cease having the ability to breathe. If they had taken just a few more days to deliberate, looked harder at the chloroform evidence, decomposition evidence and less emphasis on the duct tape, they may have seen her culpability in a more appropriate way. JMO, but it's a crying shame the jury wasn't as diligent as most of us expected them to be. In keeping with the theme of this thread, you would think the jury would have been eager to read all the info gathered over a 6 week period of trial to aid them in their decision if they really are accustomed to this day and age of technology to gain information.

 

[Italy]

I agree 100% that the jury did not do their job and actually consider the evidence. They failed miserably and deserve the anger and enmity.

I believe that the jury selection process should be changed. I don't think an educational requirement should be required, however I think the first 12 names called should be the jury (unless of course one is related to defendant, attorneys or perhaps one of the attorneys represented your spouse in a divorce proceeding). Stringent requirements for avoidance.

Without a strong compelling reason, if you are called - you are going to serve. That would give a broad spectrum of people -- intelligence, life experience, education, gender, race, age, etc.

 

[Wagara]

If jurors were tired of "theoretical" they would have rendered her guilty. The DT is the one who put forth every theory in the world, not the State. I can't wrap my head around any of this, including all the nonsense coming from the press now.

I have always believed it was better for 10 guilty people to go free than have one innocent person convicted. I have stood behind this belief no matter how crazy things seemed at times because I have always believed this was the foundation of our constitutional rights. Now I don't think I believe that anymore and I never thought I would feel this way about a system I have respected so much in the past. I am amazed at what we've become.

 

[annalia]

Right but I looked up the lesser charge I thought they could have gone for, which was aggravated child abuse.


http://www.richardhornsby.com/crimes/children/aggravated-child-abuse.html


The key is willfully. If it was an accident, which many people seem to think it was, then it's not willful.

Was there any evidence presented that supported it being an accident. Other than what Baez purported in his OS?