Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[Peepers]

The state never said she accidentally drown..never..they said it was murder with duct tape or chloroform. The jury was not asked to decide if she drown, they were asked to decide if she was murdered with duct tape or chloroform at the hands of KC. It does not matter at all that Jose said she drown, she was charged with murder. Maybe thats why some of you are so upset, you dont understand what the trial purpose is. the state has to prove their theory..period.. Hate to tell ya folks, a trial is not the search for the truth..its did the state prove their accusations. nothing more, nothing less.

 

[TexasLori]

No Im not kidding, what was the proof? It does not matter what the defense says..the state has the burden of proof. the state didnt say she accidentally drowned..the state said she was killed with chloroform or duct tape, Which is it? and when did it happen? that was not brought in to evidence.

It doesn't matter. Cause of death is not something you have to know in order to convict.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence. When you put the circumstances together and you have no other reasonable explanation to describe what happened, you can convict. This is the law, this is the way the courts work. If someone cannot abide by this they should not be serving jury duty.

Acquitting someone because you cannot be 100% sure they did it is just as wrong as convicting someone you are certain committed the crime but wasn't proven in court.

 

[nomoresorrow]

there was no evidence when or how
Caylee died, or who was with her. Im not saying it wasnt KC, Im saying there was no evidence or proof of when how where it happened. Thats alot to not have if you are convicting someone of murder. In order to come to a guilty verdict, the jury would have had to draw conclusions of how and where she died. Juries need proof, they are not supposed to guess what happened. We still dont know what happened for a fact, do we?

When and how is not needed to be established BY LAW. The reason I asked you about your comment "there was no evidence Casey was the last one with Caylee..." was because IF that's how the jury felt, don't you think that would have qualified for count 3? Isn't a parent expected to be caring for and supervising their 2 year-old child? If not, they would then be responsible for negligence in that child's death.

 

[SMK]

:waitasec::waitasec:Just something I was reflecting on. Since there is already this thread and poll, cannot make a new one, but just an informal poll of my own. The way I see it, there are really only 3 possibilities with this verdict, and was wondering which one seems strongest to others: ( I know these have all been discussed, just trying to synopsize here)

1. There really was not enough evidence , and the Defense created enough reasonable doubt to render this verdict valid, though shocking.
2. There really WAS enough evidence, if not for pre-meditated murder, than at least for child abuse and manslaughter of a child. BUT the defense caused enough doubt with Kronk and George, and shows like CSI have made people feel that forensics must be perfect, so that the jury was thrown into confusion, and rendered a faulty verdict honestly.
3. A few jurors wanted to "deliver a shocker" for the sensationalism and the subsequent money-making potential, and craftily persuaded the others to go for NG on all counts.

 

[Peepers]

The jurors had a job to do. A job that surely should have taken more than 10 hours. You peepers, mentioned respect-----
Caylee deserved respect.
Caylee deserved justice.
Those 12 jurors ignored much of the facts. That baby didn't walk into trash bags and she didn't put duct tape around her head 3 times.
How will the jurors live with themselves knowing they let a child killer walk?

You need to take the emotion out of it. the state had the burden of proving she was murdered with duct tape or chloroform, thats what they said, they needed to prove that part. They didnt prove that part. Most everyone agrees KC got away with murder, its two different things. The state did not charge her with covering up a drowning, they charged her with murder but the pieces were not there to say how or when she died.

 

[kelian36]

Interesting article but I find it hard to believe Jennifer Ford a was a leader. If the others saw her as a leader, they had big problems before they were put on this jury. Jennifer Ford parroted JB's explanations which made no logical sense to the majority of people who followed the trial. None of the jurors have been able to logically explain the verdict. Jennifer Ford shows her complete lack of knowledge every time she's on TV. I don't think she has a clue how clueless she sounds. So someone influenced them to vote in a way even they can't explain. I have a hard time believing that it was all JB. It's much more likely that person was with them every day and got to know them on a personal level.

I tend to think there was one intelligent person on this jury with an agenda. I think that person started immediately persuading people. Maybe he began by using his good looks and charm. (someone who looks like George Clooney?) Some of the jury were probably already leaning his way. The others may have submitted because that person presented himself as an intelligent, know more than anyone else, leader. (someone working on his Masters?) According to #2 they all followed along like sheep even when some of them thought it was wrong. Why?

Excellent post.
Good point about a stealth juror. I didn't consider that but I bet you're right. One strong juror who persuaded and ultimately controled the group.


The trial wasn't a game. The trial nor the states evidence was given the respect it deserved.

 

[magic-cat]

I'm glad you find the legal process amusing, however, this jury was right on target. Yes, you heard it here, someone actually keeps track of average time of jury deliberations in capital and non-capital cases. I guess if a shrimp can run on a treadmill, someone can keep a ticker on this, too.

In Arizona, the median is 6.6 hours and the range is 1.8 - 16.5 hours.

http://www.azag.gov/CCC/Attachment%20D%20-%20Data%20Set%20III.pdf

For California

According to data compiled by the National Center for State Courts, the average length of jury deliberations for a capital murder trial
in California is 12 hours. See Judge and Attorney Survey (California), State of the States--Survey of Jury Improvement Efforts (2007), online at http://www.ncsconline.org/D_research/cjs/xls/SOSJAData/CA_JA_
State.xls

Dunno squat about Florida stats.

Oh yeah, it's a big barrel of laughs to me for sure. That should be obvious from my thousands upon thousands of posts all over this site and the internet at large bemoaning the tragedy of it all. Glad you noticed how funny it all is to me.

No Florida stats? No apply here huh?

 

[kelian36]

You need to take the emotion out of it. the state had the burden of proving she was murdered with duct tape or chloroform, thats what they said, they needed to prove that part. They didnt prove that part. Most everyone agrees KC got away with murder, its two different things. The state did not charge her with covering up a drowning, they charged her with murder but the pieces were not there to say how or when she died.

The state did NOT have to prove COD,
place of death or time of death.

They should have read and reread Dr. G's testimony.

During the Scott P trial, the COD, place of death and time of death were never known.

Did the jurors pay attention?
Did they ignore the states evidence?

Hopefully for the rest of their lives they will be haunted by the fact that they gave a child's murdering mother her freedom.

 

[TexasLori]

You need to take the emotion out of it. the state had the burden of proving she was murdered with duct tape or chloroform, thats what they said, they needed to prove that part. They didnt prove that part. Most everyone agrees KC got away with murder, its two different things. The state did not charge her with covering up a drowning, they charged her with murder but the pieces were not there to say how or when she died.

Again, not part of the burden. BY LAW.

Given the evidence presented at trial, can you give another reasonable explanation as to what happened to Caylee?

 

[Peepers]

This is a sincere post, with no snark at all intended.

For those of you who think the jury voted correctly, what other reasonable explanation do you give for what happened to Caylee?

with all due respect, its two different things. its not that the jury or me thinks KC didnt do something oi Caylee, maybe she did kill her with chloroform or duct tape , who knows?? But they did not prove thats what happened. she looked up chloroform, well how did she make it, where were the ingredients? how did she administer it? when did she administer it? alot of reasonable questions. The jury is not supposed to guess what happened. A trial is not about a reasonable explanation, its about the state charging a citizen with a crime and proving they committed that crime.

 

[kelian36]

You need to take the emotion out of it. the state had the burden of proving she was murdered with duct tape or chloroform, thats what they said, they needed to prove that part. They didnt prove that part. Most everyone agrees KC got away with murder, its two different things. The state did not charge her with covering up a drowning, they charged her with murder but the pieces were not there to say how or when she died.

Point me to any and all articles, legal docs, etc that point to a drowning. tia

 

[ndrew]

Personally, jmho, I think the defense got at least a couple, maybe more. Again, just speculating but I think because the group was sequestered, a tendency toward group think may have emerged and been dominated at trial by strong opinion leaders.

This is what my DH has been telling me. He thinks the jury was made up of sheep with one or two strong leaders. The sheep got bullied.

 

[Lovejac]

No Im not kidding, what was the proof? It does not matter what the defense says..the state has the burden of proof. the state didnt say she accidentally drowned..the state said she was killed with chloroform or duct tape, Which is it? and when did it happen? that was not brought in to evidence.

:waitasec: It doesn't matter what the defense says????? Come on! Of course it matters what the defense says!

The State was trying for Murder 1, because they believed they could show intent, BUT you never know with jurors so that is why other charges were on the indictment:

Charge 1:

"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 State, did, in violation of Florida Statute 783.04(1)(a)(1), from a premeditated design to effect the death of CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY, a human being, unlawfully kill CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY."

Charge 2:

“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 State, did knowingly and willfully, in violation of Florida Statute 827.03(2) cause great bodily harm, permanent disfigurement or permanent disability to CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY, a child under 18 years of age, by intentionally inflicting physical injury upon CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY, or by intentionally committing an act or actively encouraging another person to commit an act which could reasonably be expected to result in physical injury to CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY.”

Charge 3:

“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 metal 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.”

If the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt charges 1 and 2, than charge 3 covered the accidential drowing story. That is why Jose gave that story in his opening statement.

It most certainly does matter what the defense says, it's his job to make sure his client is not found guilty of the highest charge. That's why he gave the story of the accidental drowing in which GA and KC were both home, not watching Caylee, she got out, drown in the pool, KC allowed GA to cover it up because he sexual abused her by putting his penis in her mouth and she was so traumatized she just went along and lied.

I cannot explain this any clearer. If you don't understand.....I'm at a loss for words

 

[TexasLori]

with all due respect, its two different things. its not that the jury or me thinks KC didnt do something oi Caylee, maybe she did kill her with chloroform or duct tape , who knows?? But they did not prove thats what happened. she looked up chloroform, well how did she make it, where were the ingredients? how did she administer it? when did she administer it? alot of reasonable questions. The jury is not supposed to guess what happened. A trial is not about a reasonable explanation, its about the state charging a citizen with a crime and proving they committed that crime.

With respect to you as well, it is not two different things and that is absolutely what a trial is about. It's the law.

 

[Peepers]

:waitasec: It doesn't matter what the defense says????? Come on! Of course it matters what the defense says!

The State was trying for Murder 1, because they believed they could show intent, BUT you never know with jurors so that is why other charges were on the indictment:

Charge 1:

"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 State, did, in violation of Florida Statute 783.04(1)(a)(1), from a premeditated design to effect the death of CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY, a human being, unlawfully kill CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY."

Charge 2:

“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 State, did knowingly and willfully, in violation of Florida Statute 827.03(2) cause great bodily harm, permanent disfigurement or permanent disability to CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY, a child under 18 years of age, by intentionally inflicting physical injury upon CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY, or by intentionally committing an act or actively encouraging another person to commit an act which could reasonably be expected to result in physical injury to CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY.”

Charge 3:

“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 metal 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.”

If the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt charges 1 and 2, than charge 3 covered the accidential drowing story. That is why Jose gave that story in his opening statement.

It most certainly does matter what the defense says, it's his job to make sure his client is not found guilty of the highest charge. That's why he gave the story of the accidental drowing in which GA and KC were both home, not watching Caylee, she got out, drown in the pool, KC allowed GA to cover it up because he sexual abused her by putting his penis in her mouth and she was so traumatized she just went along and lied.

I cannot explain this any clearer. If you don't understand.....I'm at a loss for words

Wow..seriously??? the defense is not on trial..as we clearly saw Jose was able to say just about anything and did not have to prove it..the state has the burden of proof. not the defense. the state has to prove she murdered Caylee,. I dont think Im the one that does not understand how the law reads.

 

[Dcstew]

The state never said she accidentally drown..never..they said it was murder with duct tape or chloroform. The jury was not asked to decide if she drown, they were asked to decide if she was murdered with duct tape or chloroform at the hands of KC. It does not matter at all that Jose said she drown, she was charged with murder. Maybe thats why some of you are so upset, you dont understand what the trial purpose is. the state has to prove their theory..period.. Hate to tell ya folks, a trial is not the search for the truth..its did the state prove their accusations. nothing more, nothing less.

What you say my be true, but your forgetting what the jury is suppose to do. They are to deliberate and follow the jury instructions and READ the charges. They were NOT to consider the punishment (as instructed), which they already stated they did. Otherwise they have NOT followed the law. The jurors that have talk have prove they didn't do what this case (or any) deserves. Think how a jury like this could of easily convicted a innocent person of murder by NOT following the law!

 

[annalia]

The state never said she accidentally drown..never..they said it was murder with duct tape or chloroform. The jury was not asked to decide if she drown, they were asked to decide if she was murdered with duct tape or chloroform at the hands of KC. It does not matter at all that Jose said she drown, she was charged with murder. Maybe thats why some of you are so upset, you dont understand what the trial purpose is. the state has to prove their theory..period.. Hate to tell ya folks, a trial is not the search for the truth..its did the state prove their accusations. nothing more, nothing less.

That's just not correct.

 

[Dr. Know?]

Did anyone post a recorded video of the Casey Cam during the trial with the audio? That tells a lot to me about her guilt. I saw it raw. Not just about the fake crying or possibly real crying for whatever? I would love to hear and watch that again. I saw her a few times the last 7 days of the trial, her looking back remembering moments, a swallow or two. I would love to put the audio to those moments. It was very telling to me and probably the closest I felt to her guilt. TIA

eta, my apologies if it's already a thread or has been discussed already. xoxo

I know it might be the only truth I saw through this whole life, death & trial of Caylee Anthony. I'd love to see that video/audio. Pretty sure it started the day after Casey's mental evaluation too until the end of the trial. xoxo

RIP Caylee

 

[RammerJammer]

Did anyone post a recorded video of the Casey Cam during the trial with the audio? That tells a lot to me about her guilt. I saw it raw. Not just about the fake crying or possibly real crying for whatever? I would love to hear and watch that again. I saw her a few times the last 7 days of the trial, her looking back remembering moments, a swallow or two. I would love to put the audio to those moments. It was very telling to me. TIA

eta, my apologies if it's already a thread or has been discussed already. xoxo

I noticed that, too, especially her eyes. You could tell she was remembering and picturing events as they were being described. Very telling.

 

[annalia]

Wow..seriously??? the defense is not on trial..as we clearly saw Jose was able to say just about anything and did not have to prove it..the state has the burden of proof. not the defense. the state has to prove she murdered Caylee,. I dont think Im the one that does not understand how the law reads.

And yet one of the jurors interviewed parroted and used what JB said in his OS as evidence for acquittal. They used defense theories as evidence in their decision which they were not suppsed to do.

As for the bolded, insults don't make your argument any more credible.