Verdict Suggests Juries are Tired of Theoretical Justice & Circumstancial Evidence

[robmom]

I have a rhetorical question for those of you that disagree with the jury's verdict. I've seen a lot of people who are upset that the jury did not take notes, that they didn't deliberate long enough, that they talked beforehand and made up their mind before the case rested. My question is - how many of you would have these same complaints if the verdict were guilty? If they had come back just as quick with a guilty verdict, would you still have the same issues?

So many, to me, are panning this jury and the entire justice system, based entirely upon the verdict. Those same actions (such as coming back quickly), would be lauded had the verdict gone another way. I think it's important to keep this thought in perspective before we start bashing our justice system, all juries, and these jurors in particular. I'm not saying they should be exempt from criticism, but I do think it's important to try to see things from all sides before saying our justice system is irretrievably broken.

I've said before had they come back that fast with a guilty verdict, of course I would have agreed with the verdict, but I still would have found it really, really odd they were able to deliberate thoroughly in that short time. Those ten hours included breaks and meals. I would have wondered what exactly they did, if they went through the evidence, etc. They didn't even take their notebooks back.

I thought that was strange at the time. What if it was 11-1 for guilt, but there was a hold-out and nobody had their notes or anything? Did they remember all the evidence down to the little details? Were they just going to brow beat any hold-outs?

So yeah. I would have agreed with guilty, but I still would have found them a strange lot. And the more they talk, the stranger they get to me.

 

[Baznme]

I've said before had they come back that fast with a guilty verdict, of course I would have agreed with the verdict, but I still would have found it really, really odd they were able to deliberate thoroughly in that short time. Those ten hours included breaks and meals. I would have wondered what exactly they did, if they went through the evidence, etc. They didn't even take their notebooks back.

I thought that was strange at the time. What if it was 11-1 for guilt, but there was a hold-out and nobody had their notes or anything? Did they remember all the evidence down to the little details? Were they just going to brow beat any hold-outs?

So yeah. I would have agreed with guilty, but I still would have found them a strange lot. And the more they talk, the stranger they get to me.

That's right robmom....the chief juror stated he was the hold out after admitting a lot of the jurors felt she was quilty of aggravated manslaughter but were hesitant to go with the GUILTY verdict because they didn't know exactly how she died (IMO, drowning and coverup points to GUILTY, duct tape, and/or with or without the chloroform, decomp in trunk also points to GUILTY), so why didn't he hold out, make it a hung jury so at least the State would have a chance at re-trying her? If it HAD been a guilty verdict, the DT would have had their chance to be heard again but, with the NOT GUILTY verdict as it is, she cannot be re-tried by the State. Also, being the chief juror, I would have made sure they had gone over every aspect of the evidence before coming to a decision. That's just "common sense".

 

[Nova24]

Justice will come ICA's way whether it be here on earth or with God one day. She will make some money initially from people who might be willing to listen to more of her lies. I won't be one of them. She will prob get a book deal but I don't see it being a big hit and if a movie is made could be a tv one with a D lister playing her.

The money will dry up. No sane person with an ounce of morality will want to be her friend. Some scuymmy people will cling to her for money. Some crazy guy will knock her up for a quick buck from People who will prob cover the birth. She will resort to stealing once again. After that she ends up back in jail or dead if she steals from the wrong person.

Her life as she knows it is essentially over. She is however free of Caylee which is what she wanted all along. Caylee however is the true victim and the one people adore not ICA. If Caylee's Law goes through it will keep her up nights. Even though she's off this didn't go exactly as she planned. People despise her.

 

[MustlyLurking]

I appreciate your opinion, but I don't see that duct tape evidence as being very solid. Many on here have actually outlined why.

Someday, we may see the actual photos of Caylee's skull taken during recovery. That may shed some light on the duct tape.

Also, I think the SA could have done a better job with the idea that the tape had to be on Caylee's face before decomp, because the mandible was held in place by the duct tape during decomp. If the duct tape was not across Caylee's jaw and mouth, the mandible could not have remained in place.

 

[Baxter]

I just posted this article in another thread

In Casey Anthony's case, the law worked
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shapiro-caylee-anthony-20110709,0,4550760.story

I definitely think you should have a case where you can prove a murder occurred. That was their first problem. It's the prosecution that everyone should blame, not the jurors. No one can claim they know for a fact that Caylee was murdered. The evidence wasn't there.

One of OJ's lawyers, I think I will pass.

 

[Baxter]

That is smart thinking amysmom BBM
She did not meet some girl in jail who told her about him - :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: or any other BS story.
The public bought a lot of BS. A tone of Crapola. That is why I stopped posting on this case about 2 years ago.
I saw it took a real strange turn. A FAKE SHOW was produced.

How do you know this?

 

[songline]

it appears the "real" culprits have done a remarkably thorough job of hiding this ugly, scary case, because i can't find a single legitimate link to substantiate this theory. :waitasec:

(and by legitimate, i'm not talking about wendy murphy's opinion piece)

bingo!!!

 

[RueMoira]

Firstly, the idea that juries are sick of circumstantial evidence is just lubricious, since unless we are going to only convict people of murder in cases that have an eye witness, or is perhaps recorded in some way, there is no way around the need to convict on Circ. Evidence.

Also, a question Was the text where KC refers to Caylee as a little snot head brought into trial?

 

[cluciano63]

It is just one verdict, in one case. I don't think it has to stand for anything or mean anything as sweeping as that jurors are tired of circumstantial cases.