Verdict Suggests Juries are Tired of Theoretical Justice & Circumstancial Evidence

[Chewy]

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

To be clear I've pretty much thought this was not murder all along.

An accident can look different. An accident where she fell in the pool and drowned is one kind of accident. I don't believe that happened.

An accident where she drugged her kid and left her in the trunk because she wanted to go out and party is another kind all together.


I never believe she deliberately killed her because she didn't need to go through all of this to kill or get rid of her child. There's a swimming pool sitting in the back yard. She could have simply drowned the baby in the pool and pretended it was an accident if she wanted to get away with it.

The covering it up to look like an accident is to me evidence that she drugged Caylee with cholorform. She maybe got the idea of using chloroform from her friends myspace post. Then thought, hey I can use that on her? Didn't know what she was doing and killed her.

Then panics and tries to make it look like a kidnapping. To me it's pretty clear that this is what happened. Who makes an accident look like a murder? Someone who knows if they get ahold of the body will see that foul play of a serious level was involved. If she drowned she wouldn't have needed to do any of this. Only if she had bound Caylee and used drugs on her. She couldn't have known it wasn't traceable.

All the premeditated stuff doesn't add up, nor does sticking duct tape across a kids face. I have never understood why so many people are saying with certainty that this is what happened because IMO there's no way she would have thought she could get away with it.

The pool as a death weapon is easier to hide than duct tape???

Do I think Casey is guilty and ought to be in jail, YES. Am I disappointed in the verdict. YES.

But many of you on here are doing the same thing you accuse the jury of getting wrong. It's all about theories and feelings and myths about what happened.

To me it's crystal clear what happened. All the other theories are made up for the sake of gossip and discussion.

 

[Pollywog]

IMO, I just don't think this jury understood what they were supposed to do and they did not do as they should have.

 

[grandmaj]

From all appearances it appears that this jury might have been discussing this trial before it was charged to them. And yet every day they came in and when asked if they heeded the directives of the judge they all said yes. No if they were discussing this case amongst themselves, or in groups of 4 or 5, that is against the court order. The reason for this rule is so that the jury isn't split up from all discussions, and then pushed by a larger group who have already made up their minds engroup, when it is time to deliberate.

They were sworn to follow the law about that particular order of the court. If this happened and not one of them sent a note to the judge through the court officer what might I think about this jury to allow this to happen. I can't say it happened I"m questioning based on what I have heard so far if indeed it did happen.

Now if it is proven they did in fact discuss the case with each other it may take us to the next question since they disregarded that order. And that might be, did they discuss it with family members or anyone else? That isn't a far stretch if it is proven they discussed it with each other.

During the trial Juror Number 3's mother said that yes she was getting calls from bookers.
OK so now the day after trial the entire extended family is in Disney World? HOW in the world was this arranged and coordinated that quickly?

They were not supposed to have any contact with the general public at all during this process.

These are reasonable questions to inquire about..... I want this jury to keep talking.

 

[annalia]

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.

ITA! The only theories without any evidence came from the defense and the jurors were the ones who bought the defense's theories.

I am sick of hearing people trying to shut others down by saying the jurors need to be respected simply because they sat in the courtroom. Or throw out the constitution as another way to shut down opinions, when it's my belief that the defense made a mockery of both the justice system and the constitution. And the jurors bought into it all, without evidence.

JMHO

 

[Italy]

To be clear I've pretty much thought this was not murder all along.

An accident can look different. An accident where she fell in the pool and drowned is one kind of accident. I don't believe that happened.

An accident where she drugged her kid and left her in the trunk because she wanted to go out and party is another kind all together.


I never believe she deliberately killed her because she didn't need to go through all of this to kill or get rid of her child. There's a swimming pool sitting in the back yard. She could have simply drowned the baby in the pool and pretended it was an accident if she wanted to get away with it.

The covering it up to look like an accident is to me evidence that she drugged Caylee with cholorform. She maybe got the idea of using chloroform from her friends myspace post. Then thought, hey I can use that on her? Didn't know what she was doing and killed her.

Then panics and tries to make it look like a kidnapping. To me it's pretty clear that this is what happened. Who makes an accident look like a murder? Someone who knows if they get ahold of the body will see that foul play of a serious level was involved. If she drowned she wouldn't have needed to do any of this. Only if she had bound Caylee and used drugs on her. She couldn't have known it wasn't traceable.

All the premeditated stuff doesn't add up, nor does sticking duct tape across a kids face. I have never understood why so many people are saying with certainty that this is what happened because IMO there's no way she would have thought she could get away with it.

The pool as a death weapon is easier to hide than duct tape???

Do I think Casey is guilty and ought to be in jail, YES. Am I disappointed in the verdict. YES.

But many of you on here are doing the same thing you accuse the jury of getting wrong. It's all about theories and feelings and myths about what happened.

To me it's crystal clear what happened. All the other theories are made up for the sake of gossip and discussion.

Good point Chewy. Your hypothesis is at least supported by the evidence in the case -- chloroform. If Casey chloroformed Caylee and subsequently Caylee died, it is felony murder. This was well explained in the final summation.

 

[Dells]

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.

You know, I don't buy that argument. There were other lesser included offenses besides murder. How about 2nd degree murder, or manslaughter? The more I hear from this jury, the more I think that they did not understand the instructions properly. I don't think they realized they could have gone w/the lesser included offenses in each category. I read an interview (I think it was from juror #2) and he made is seem that after that had considered 1st degree murder and rejected it, that they just jumped on right to the next charge of aggravated child abuse. What about 2nd degree murder, or 3rd degree murder? Did they even take a vote on either of those offenses? I don't think this jury knew what they were doing and I think the way they were instructed was probably confusing. The judge and attorneys have to realize that these people are not in a courtroom all the time like they are, and they really need everything explained in detail to them. I wish if any more of them are interviewed, that they are asked if they even considered lesser included offenses.

And you know, I am so sick and tired about some saying she was overcharged. I think the defense team and casey have some responsibility in that as well. The state worked w/what they had, and especially once the remains were found, they felt that the duct tape on the skull warranted the DP. What should casey have been charged with in this case? Jaywalking?! If it was really an "accident" like casey and her defense team have claimed, then why not on day 31 did casey not tell this to LE? All this time, money, energy, resources, and manpower could have been saved. I think the system was used and abused in this case and I truly hope that all the lawyers and judges in central Florida and beyond are aware of the tactics that JB uses in order to win cases. He won't be able to get away w/it a second time.

 

[cluciano63]

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?

They can't change a "not guilty" to a "guilty", only the other way around. I think there was a case once, years ago, where the defendant was proven to have paid off the jury, and he was retried. But unless they can prove Casey herself bribed the jury, I can't find any precedent. Even if they found that JB had done so, for instance, Casey would not be penalized for his actions.

I do think juries can reach a guilty verdict with innuendo and theories if they have the right information; this jury did not hear about Casey and Cindy's relationship, the state seemed to want to present a perfect family with a depraved daughter that just happened to land in this family. If the state had not been afraid of so many witnesses (Tracy, Roy K., relatives of Cindy's, fellow inmates, etc.) maybe the whole story would be made clear. They wanted the jury to see Cindy and George as normal parents...when it became clear that nothing was normal in that household.

JMO

 

[Chewy]

Obviously she was overcharged based on what they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

Evidence? She got off didn't she?

 

[annalia]

To be clear I've pretty much thought this was not murder all along.

An accident can look different. An accident where she fell in the pool and drowned is one kind of accident. I don't believe that happened.

An accident where she drugged her kid and left her in the trunk because she wanted to go out and party is another kind all together.


I never believe she deliberately killed her because she didn't need to go through all of this to kill or get rid of her child. There's a swimming pool sitting in the back yard. She could have simply drowned the baby in the pool and pretended it was an accident if she wanted to get away with it.

The covering it up to look like an accident is to me evidence that she drugged Caylee with cholorform. She maybe got the idea of using chloroform from her friends myspace post. Then thought, hey I can use that on her? Didn't know what she was doing and killed her.

Then panics and tries to make it look like a kidnapping. To me it's pretty clear that this is what happened. Who makes an accident look like a murder? Someone who knows if they get ahold of the body will see that foul play of a serious level was involved. If she drowned she wouldn't have needed to do any of this. Only if she had bound Caylee and used drugs on her. She couldn't have known it wasn't traceable.

All the premeditated stuff doesn't add up, nor does sticking duct tape across a kids face. I have never understood why so many people are saying with certainty that this is what happened because IMO there's no way she would have thought she could get away with it.

The pool as a death weapon is easier to hide than duct tape???

Do I think Casey is guilty and ought to be in jail, YES. Am I disappointed in the verdict. YES.

But many of you on here are doing the same thing you accuse the jury of getting wrong. It's all about theories and feelings and myths about what happened.

To me it's crystal clear what happened. All the other theories are made up for the sake of gossip and discussion.

BBM
If it's crystal clear to you what happened, I'll assume you are saying you are basing it on the evidence you saw, especially since you are dismissing others opinions as theories for the sake of gossip.


If it was an accident that she drugged Caylee and left her in the car, and then tried to make it look like a kidnapping, that is still homicide and she should have still been convicted!

That is one of the biggest problems I see, for some, and I believe the jurors as well , it had to be all or nothing. If not the death penalty then no charges at all.

 

[Dells]

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.

The point is that if this jury was not comfortable w/giving the DP in this case, there were lesser included offense that they could have gone with that did not involve the DP in any, way, shape or form. They could have convicted her of 3rd degree murder and she would have gotten about 5 years in prison. The fact that casey walks out of prison in a few days w/out being held accountable for the death of Caylee is one of the biggest travesties of justice that I have ever seen.

 

[Chewy]

BBM
If it's crystal clear to you what happened, I'll assume you are saying you are basing it on the evidence you saw, especially since you are dismissing others opinions as theories for the sake of gossip.


If it was an accident that she drugger Caylee and left her in the car, that is still homicide and she should have still been convicted!

That is one of the biggest problems I see, for some, and I believe the jurors as well , it had to be all or nothing. If not the death penalty then no charges at all.

No, she could have served jail time. I agree it's still a homicide. I have stated elsewhere that toddlers do not have accidents unless an adult is negligent in some way.

There is a difference between an accidental drowning and her accidentally killing her by being negligent.

Even if the sentencing was later, there is a real possibility that she would have received death. So by adding that in, they screwed the case.

 

[Italy]

I truly believe Chewy has the right explanation of what happened.

My hypothesis is that Casey wanted her to be found with the duct tape over her mouth and the explanation would be the nanny kidnapped and killer her.

If you read Casey's jailhouse letters, she states that if Caylee is never found, she is going to be put away for eternity.

Felony murder, felony murder, felony murder.

 

[SewingDeb]

Serious as a heart attack. I hope the jury actually read through each individual charge and understood the legalese.

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.

 

[Baznme]

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

Even IF it WAS an accident, the definition is clear.


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.

If it resulted in the death of a child, most certainly leaves the aggravator as the one responsible.......unintended death or not.

 

[robmom]

They may be tired of it, but since real life isn't CSI, sometimes it's what they get. Also, the author admits he didn't follow the trial day-to-day, so he doesn't even know all the evidence presented. He also fails to point out that this jury may have been tired of the State's "theories" but they sure weren't tired of every baseless theory Jose threw out there- they quote them practically as evidence every time they go on TV. In my opinion this jury loved theoreticals....as long as they came from the Defense.

 

[Dells]

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.

And what evidence shows that it was an accident? Besides the fact that JB used that in his opening statement? I guess from now on if any child ever goes missing again, and if they have ever swam in a pool anytime in their entire life, that LE should just immediately stop looking for them and just assume it was a horrible accidental drowning. Even if the child's parent/caregiver claims the child was kidnapped. Even if the child is found thrown away in a swamp, completely skeletonized, in several trash bags and a laundry bag, with 3 pieces of duct tape over the lower half of their skull, we should just assume that child had accidentally drowned in a horrific accident that snowballed out of control and that the parent/caregiver simply just panicked. Alrighty then!

 

[Italy]

Another interesting read is Tony Lazarro's deposition -- he states that during the 31 days, Casey awoke sweating profusely and explained to Tony that she had awakened from a nightmare. He testified that this had happened between 2-4 times.

 

[Chewy]

The jury only deliberating for 10 hours is the travesty here more than anything. I think if they had come back after a few days with this it would have looked like they at least TRIED to convict. But basically they expected the DT and PT to do all the work and then they were gonna go vote.

It comes across like a paper scissors rock game, in the jury room. That's what is most outrageous to me.

 

[Chewy]

And what evidence shows that it was an accident? Besides the fact that JB used that in his opening statement? I guess from now on if any child ever goes missing again, and if they have ever swam in a pool anytime in their entire life, that LE should just immediately stop looking for them and just assume it was a horrible accidental drowning. Even if the child's parent/caregiver claims the child was kidnapped. Even if the child is found thrown away in a swamp, completely skeletonized, in several trash bags and a laundry bag, with 3 pieces of duct tape over the lower half of their skull, we should just assume that child had accidentally drowned in a horrific accident that snowballed out of control and that the parent/caregiver simply just panicked. Alrighty then!

The evidence to me that it was an accident is that she did not drown in the pool.

To me Casey had a perfect set up with that. The pool ladder having to be up and concerns about a small child near a pool. Pool drownings happen every summer.

The fact that she did not drown in the pool is evidence that Casey didn't murder her deliberately. Especially not premeditated murder. Who would bind and duct tape a child and make homemade chloroform in order to kill their child when a much easier situation is literally sitting in your back yard.

 

[annalia]

No, she could have served jail time. I agree it's still a homicide. I have stated elsewhere that toddlers do not have accidents unless an adult is negligent in some way.

There is a difference between an accidental drowning and her accidentally killing her by being negligent.

Even if the sentencing was later, there is a real possibility that she would have received death. So by adding that in, they screwed the case.

I am getting confused, lol.

Didn't you state that the jury was correct in the decision to acquit? Then you stated you don't believe it was an accidental drowning and that Casey drugged her so she could party?

And then say that it was because there wasn't the evidence for the death penalty?

If I misunderstood I apologize but the jurors could have completely dismissed the first degree murder charges and convicted her on even the least charge.
I believe that is where the outrage is, she should never have been acquitted of ALL charges. The evidence was there but the jurors dismissed it all in favor of the defense theories.

JMHO