2011.07.08 - Dateline NBC

[Talina]

I also find it interesting that one of the jurors had a cruise on July 7 and they finished early afternoon July 5. Enough time to get home and pack and get ready for that nice vacation. Who cares if getting home on time meant they had to set a murderer free. If they found her guilty they would have had to stay there for the penalty phase. Just thinking about it makes me :furious:

IIRC there was a discussion on this site last week and that was debunked. That particular juror that had the cruise on July 7 was not on the jury. There was a juror that had a European vacation planned but that was scheduled for July 17.

IMO

 

[21merc7]

And as Juror #3 said; the chloroform thing 'was just confusing.'

Okay, did they ask any questions---ask to listen to any of the witness testimony--ask the judge about anything that might clarify it?

I mean if you say one of the MAIN elements of the states case was 'confusing'---then imo--you would be expected to ask questions to clear it up. But she SHRUGGED IT OFF. That is how my daughter flunked her first semester of Freshman algebra. She said it was 'confusing' and just shrugged it off, hoping it would clear up on it's own. Of course she ended up in summer school to figure it out. Too bad gthe jurors didn't show that much effort.

I do think they should have asked for clarification on everything they thought was confusing, but that could have taken weeks, and they knew if they found her guilty they would have to be there another week or so longer after that also.

The chloroform bit was confusing in trial though. First off, KC didn't need 2 things to kill Caylee, duct tape alone would have been enough. Second, how many searches were there really, was that cleared up for the jurors during trial? Third, were the jurors given a print out of the "how to make chloroform" instructions? Chloroform sounds so off the wall if you are hearing it for the first time, if they had been given that, they would have seen how easy that is. (If they chose to read it.)

 

[katydid23]

I just watched the entire dateline episode on their website. All in all, they did a very good presentation.

My head was spinning, though, with the juror said that them considering her behavior during the 31 days would have been emotional and they weren't supposed to use their emotions in their decision. Hello? How is judging someone's behavior an emotional decision?

Jury instructions should include definitions and examples for "emotional decisions" and "deliberation". Two definitions that would have done well for these jurors to have heard and had in writing to refer to in the jury room. It should be on the wall in nice framed posters.

Some of the THs and reporters are saying that the general public needs to calm down and leave these jurors alone. I agree. They did their civic duty and they should be able to go back to live their lives without harassment or threats. However, the ones that do choose to go out and give interviews should not be surprised when they are questioned on how/why they arrived at the decision that they did. So far, I have not yet seen one reporter really ask pertinent questions or point out to any of them how wrong what some of them are saying is - such as when they say there was no motive or cause of death. The reporters just let them say this and then not say a word back or ask them did they not hear they are not to consider that in their deliberations.

The outcome of this trial and some of what these jurors are coming out and saying makes me even more determined to make sure I do not in any way try to ever get out of jury duty if I am ever called.

My brother once served on a jury that was a capital murder case. He ended up being selected to be the foreman. He told me that once back in the jury room they took an initial vote. All said guilty. Instead of immediately putting their decision on the verdict forms, my brother said they decided to go through all the testimony and evidence to make sure before they finalized their vote. They took 3 days. Then they voted again and the vote was still unanimous. I asked him would you have done the same thing if everyone said Not Guilty. He said yes. He said the state and the defense took the time to present their cases to us for over 3 weeks. The least we owed to both sides was to make sure we gave it the time and attention they all deserved to make the right decision. Too bad he wasn't on this jury.

IMO

BBM

Yes, I wish your brother had been the foreman. Juror number 3 said the first vote was 10-2 favoring acquittal on Murder one. SO 2 VOTED GUILTY ON MURDER ONE to start with. What happened to them to get them to acquit on all charges?

And I agree that we should leave them be, EXCEPT FOR THE ONES TALKING PUBLICLY. They can be asked questions because they are coming forward, for pay, to speak. And so far I am not impressed.

 

[21merc7]

My brother once served on a jury that was a capital murder case. He ended up being selected to be the foreman. He told me that once back in the jury room they took an initial vote. All said guilty. Instead of immediately putting their decision on the verdict forms, my brother said they decided to go through all the testimony and evidence to make sure before they finalized their vote. They took 3 days. Then they voted again and the vote was still unanimous. I asked him would you have done the same thing if everyone said Not Guilty. He said yes. He said the state and the defense took the time to present their cases to us for over 3 weeks. The least we owed to both sides was to make sure we gave it the time and attention they all deserved to make the right decision. Too bad he wasn't on this jury.

IMO

Respectfully snipped

Tell your brother everyone in the United States is, or should be, proud of him and the other jurors. They did the right thing the right way. They looked at all the evidence again to be certain they had it right. This is a decision no one wants to make, but when faced with it, this is the way to go about it.

 

[Talina]

I just don't know what to think about these jurors that are speaking out saying that the 31 days issue is not a big deal to them. I just can't imagine of any conceivable reason, other than foul play, why a parent would not report a child missing immediately. Not even one day later, I mean IMMEDIATELY. Especially a toddler or young child. It's not just poor behavior or bad decision. Come on! The only exception to this would be perhaps a teenager that just might not have told you where they were going, is late coming home, etc but after calling around all their friends, which doesn't take all that long, then you call authorities right away.

That part, more than anything, just bugs the heck out of me that they didn't seem to think anything was amiss with that part of the case.

IMO

 

[Chilly Willy]

Seeing a picture of duct tape on a skull wouldn't prove to me that it was the murder weapon. It would just prove that there's duct tape on a skull. I am guessing that at least some of the jury viewed it the same way, and wouldn't be able to label it as the murder weapon without knowing an actual cause of death.

What? It just proves that there was duct tape on a skull? Is that something you see every day? To me it's like you're saying a picture of a knife sticking out of a dead man's chest doesn't prove anything other than that the man had a knife in his chest. It couldn't be labeled the murder weapon without knowing the actual cause of death.

Some things are just obvious.

 

[Mulegirl]

OK, I just finished watching the online clips of this show, and the more I hear come out of those jurors' mouths, the more angry I become. Such appalling dereliction of duty as jurors to ignore the instruction to not take into account OS. :banghead: And to fail to ask questions or review any evidence!! :banghead:

I have a serious question: is it possible these people never received a high school civics class?

Seriously, back when I attended high school -- in ORLANDO, btw! -- we had lessons that taught us about the judicial system and the role of a jury. We even had mock debates designed to test if we understood what a juror should and should not ignore. Admittedly, that was a long time ago, and it was in a private school (though I lived in the area where, had I gone to public school it would've been Colonial High School, where ICA went) but for heavens' sake! The judge gave clear instructions and it was written in black and white for them to read. JB's ridiculously obnoxious and false OS was NOT evidence!

And remembering the stuff I learned from the FBI and police interview transcripts that I read after the SA rested their case, the stuff about the tension between CA and ICA, I lay the blame for this utter travesty and injustice primarily at the feet of that lazy jury, but secondarily at CA's feet for refusing to tell the truth on the stand.

I'm so mad I could spit, as my dear mother always says. :banghead: :banghead:

P.S. -- I'm now even more eternally grateful for the sacrifices my parents made that enabled me to get the education I did, and that I didn't have to attend Colonial!!

 

[Etiana]

Tulessa, thanks for posting the Dateline episode, I always appreciate you taking the time to post links. I wasn't able to watch the Dateline episode live so I was grateful to be able to see it thanks to your post.

I've made a decision though. The more I listen to the jurors, the more incensed I become. It seems clear to me that the young male alternate was practically besotted with her and to listen to him describe her as being sincere is TOO MUCH FOR ME TO TAKE! :banghead:

Nothing they say or do is bringing me any peace, only frustration and fury. So I'm going to have to bow out from reading anything about them anymore. What's done is done and I'm not as gracious as JA or anyone else who believes in the justice system. If these jurors are an indication of our societies definition of a good Mother, than I'm very, very worried.

 

[Chilly Willy]

He said he 'watched her body language ' AND SHE SEEMED SINCERE.'

She seemed SINCERE? The biggest liar most of us have ever heard of in our entire lives, and this guy thinks SHE SEEMS SINCERE?????????????????????

I just do not know what to think about these guys. Of all of the words to use to describe Casey Anthony, and he chooses SINCERE?:silenced:

Seemed sincere about what? She didn't testify, she didn't talk. I feel like we're in the twilight zone. "Oh look at the defendant sitting there looking so sincere." So what if she partied like there was no tomorrow for 31 days after her daughter drowned in a pool of duct tape? She looks sincere. And chesty too.

 

[Zoe Bogart]

Seeing a picture of duct tape on a skull wouldn't prove to me that it was the murder weapon. It would just prove that there's duct tape on a skull. I am guessing that at least some of the jury viewed it the same way, and wouldn't be able to label it as the murder weapon without knowing an actual cause of death.

I know I must be reading this incorrectly!

Because duct tape on a skull is common?

 

[Chilly Willy]

Now that several jurors have spoken out about not having motive or cause of death as a big part of their decision, coupled with at least one saying they could not forget Baez accusing George of molestation, I have to wonder what Judge Perry thinks when he hears this, if he has seen any of these interviews.

IMO

Odd that the jury couldn't forget the lies about George but they totally ignored Baez saying Caylee died in the morning....err, afternoon.....err, morning...err, we may never know....no, it was morning -- in spite of the fact that Casey was, according to the defense story, right there when it happened. What kind of good mother doesn't remember the exact time that her child died?

 

[Talina]

Seeing a picture of duct tape on a skull wouldn't prove to me that it was the murder weapon. It would just prove that there's duct tape on a skull. I am guessing that at least some of the jury viewed it the same way, and wouldn't be able to label it as the murder weapon without knowing an actual cause of death.

I'm curious, though, for what purpose would you think the duct tape was on the skull?

 

[Chilly Willy]

I know I miss be reading this incorrectly!

Because duct tape on a skull is common?

Must be some new child rearing technique.

 

[wandering]

This young alternate juror is unbelievable. I think he was totally taken by our Miss Casey.

Says "I'm young, I like to go out," didn't see Casey as a party girl, just your average young girl.

Said "the 31 days were wrong, but THE LAW SAYS you can't go on emotion." Are you kidding me. It is not EMOTION that makes it wrong to not report your child missing for 31 days.

"There was no blood, there was no decomp in the trunk." Might have helped if they would have actually asked to SEE the trunk liner up close.

"Why would you use chloroform AND duct tape, doesn't make sense." I didn't know that EITHER ONE of them, either single or together, would make sense with a little child.

He liked Baez's style and Casey's body language seemed sincere.

Sounds to me he was more interested in Casey's hitting him up when she got out.

I was disappointed in him. I thought he was too young to have any common sense. Not mature at all.

 

[rose222]

The state is not required to show motive

If three pieces of duct-tape don't show cause of death then....

The State provided the jurors with the most accurate, factual evidence possible. You can speculate and guess with what the motive may have been but you cannot do that with the evidence the state provided. Decomp odor! Duct-tape around the nose and mouth! etc...

These jurors make no sense and their own motives are so clear. The state didn't need to do anything else! They provided more than enough evidence. The end for me.

 

[MarthaM]

What? It just proves that there was duct tape on a skull? Is that something you see every day?

I'm not sure what 'is that something you see every day?' means or has to do with anything.

But yes, it just proves there was duct tape on a skull. It doesn't tell me that the duct tape was the murder weapon. There are a number of explanations for the duct tape, and I'd have to know more before I could decide that it was, in fact, the murder weapon.

 

[wandering]

He did, he just didnt interpret it like you did.

These jurors didn't have the same exposure to pretrial publicity that you and the other board members have. You guys have sucked up every bit of pre-trial media coverage that you could, digested it, analyzed it, discussed, etc. The jury was chosen with the intent of excluding such jurors from the pool since they would partial.

The jurors, as they should have, based their decision on the evidence as opposed to their emotions and preconceptions as to how they felt Casey Anthony should have acted.

They came to a different verdict than I would have and indeed as you would have but they were the jurors not you, I or anyone else on WS.

10 hours and all those pages of instructions? No requests for any evidence? I don't think they had much of a discussion. :banghead:

 

[Chilly Willy]

I'm not sure what 'is that something you see every day?' means or has to do with anything.

But yes, it just proves there was duct tape on a skull. It doesn't tell me that the duct tape was the murder weapon. There are a number of explanations for the duct tape, and I'd have to know more before I could decide that it was, in fact, the murder weapon.

Is that something you see every day means....is that something you see every day. Is it not unusual or upsetting to you? There are a number of explanations for the duct tape? Can you give us..oh, let's say 3. Please give us 3 reasonable explanations for why a baby whose body had been left for trash in the woods and not reported missing by her own mother would have duct tape over her nose and mouth.

 

[Talina]

You know who I'd like to see interviewed? One of the juror's wife had been following the case from the beginning. I can't remember which one it was though. I'm curious what she thinks about the verdict.

 

[dani]

Agree. One juror who claims there was "very strong circumstantial evidence" yet this verdict was reached? It does appear, imo, that they didn't thoroughly understand the jury instructions. There also were several lesser-included options, besides what they convicted her of in providing false information to LE.

MOO

Isn't it odd that everyday the DT made their motions for a mistrial and everyday we breathed a sigh of relief when His Honor denied the motion? Or we worried about juror #4 "hanging" the jury? What we wouldn't give NOW to have had a mistrial or a hung jury!!!:maddening: