2011.07.26-28 HLN & FOX (Weekly) News Coverage - Caylee Anthony

[EPfan]

But it proved an "accident"? IMO...absolutely NOT!
Let's just hypothetically accept that George was NOT there (because there was NO proof that he was...just pure "speculation")...so if it's not him...then who?
Perhaps the jury couldn't make a decision PERIOD!

I don't think the jury wanted to speculate on anything.

 

[Italy]

I honestly believe that one day we will see on Fox or HLN one of the jurors saying they wish they had arrived at a different verdict. One of them will realize the verdict was wrong and that they were individually and collectively responsible for a miscarriage of justice.

In sequestered juries there is a phenomena of "group think". One or two strong willed jurors convince the others that their theory/opinion is correct and the others are coerced into acceptance. They state with certainty that they "know" certain things (law, facts of the case, recollection of testimony, etc) - which after analysis is too often false - and using this argument, these stronger/more persuasive jurors are able to persuade the others to go along with their decision. It is difficult to hold out for an opinion clearly out of sync with the group.

At conclusion of the trial, some jurors tenaciously hold fast to an unsupportable opinion even after there is clear and cohesive evidence that significant errors were made in reaching said verdict. I think we are hearing some of this now.

Other jurors, independent of this group-think environment, come to an entirely different decision from that which they decided in the group. It is not uncommon for jurors who find themselves in this position to finally break with "the group" and candidly speak out and outline the circumstances in the deliberative process.

 

[EPfan]

How did the mandible stay in place on the skull if there was no duct tape on the face? Do you accept dr Spitz's claim that some one came along and taped it back together in the swamp later on?

And the Death Penalty 'excuse' is a total cop out. Number one, the jury instructions say the jury was NOT to consider the penalty phase during the guilt phase. And they have admitted they ignored that. But in reality there is zero chance of getting the DP for the aggravated manslaughter charges.

I still wonder how that mandible was in place after the skull rolled out of the trash bags according to the meter reader and then after he picked the skull up with his stick. That doesn't make since to me.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

HLN discussing how beautiful, sexy casey is. I guess he missed that pic of her back with that tat. That may calm him down some.

So Sexy.

 

[Whisperer]

I guess I can say the same illogical thinking.

There isn't any evidence of the duck tape being over Caylee's face and mouth. It was found in the hair mass, laying on the side where the skull was. One of the three pieces was found 8 to 10 feet away, yet it was always said three pieces over the mouth and nose. There was only speculation by the procecution. Sure there was plently of testimony of the duck tape being on the face,nose mouth but it wasn't proven. The medical examiner said the caue of death was homicide/murder because of the duck tape, but when asked if Caylee could have been drowned, she had to say yes because she knew you couldn't prove the duck tape was on the face, nose and mouth.

Maybe you (and many others) could have found someone guilty with this evidence and be ok knowing that there is a great possibility of a death sentance being applied, but not me. Not in a million years. I don't think that I am that brave because I have a higher judge that knows the truth and I sure wouldn't want to speculate and get it wrong and have to answer for that one. JMOO

But they did speculate. They speculated that GA was involved...and they set free a guilty person due to speculation. You were not the one giving the punishment. You were the one deciding on Guilt. Was the jury afraid the judge would give the DP?

The medical examiner did NOT say it was a homicide just because of the tape. A child wrapped in a garbage bag and left in the woods, usually tells reasonable people there was a crime. Children who drown in the family pool do not end up duct taped, bagged and in a swamp. That is called logical deduction. No rocket science required.

This post and this analysis is exactly what happened in that jury room. Bottom line is the people on this jury were against the DP. They were thinking punishment and didn't want ICA to die. So instead they set a woman free who has killed her baby...because they are afraid that the murderer may get too severe of punishment and they don't want to carry the burden.
So they took the easy way out. They will walk around proud of themselves because, after all, they respond to a higher power.

Thank you. I have heard this from the jurors in not so many words. This was not a death-qualified jury. In fact every one of them lied when they said they would consider it. They would never have considered it and that is why the murderer is free and able to profit from her crime. The jury wears the verdict like a badge of courage. How else could they look at it?
They have to live with themselves.

I get it. I know the thinking. The majority of America says you got it wrong.

 

[Thinker Belle]

FYI there is a thread entitled "Do you agree or disagree with the verdict" on WS that is probably a better place for this discussion

 

[Salem]

GET BACK ON TOPIC!!!

This thread is to discuss what is happening on the NEWS shows - not everything else under the sun.

Get back on topic, please. Take the general discussion to the appropriate threads.

Thanks,

Salem

 

[kaki]

HLN discussing how beautiful, sexy casey is. I guess he missed that pic of her back with that tat. That may calm him down some.

What is wrong with these TH's .. can't they just MOVE ON?? They are worse than Geraldo (if that is possible). I'm starting to think they are trying to keep the sick Casey story going.. but WHY????

HLN is really the only one talking about her non stop.. they need to move on.. surely there aren't people out there who are interested in whether they think she will be rich and how sexy she looks...FGS!!!! :maddening:

 

[EPfan]

I honestly believe that one day we will see on Fox or HLN one of the jurors saying they wish they had arrived at a different verdict. One of them will realize the verdict was wrong and that they were individually and collectively responsible for a miscarriage of justice.

In sequestered juries there is a phenomena of "group think". One or two strong willed jurors convince the others that their theory/opinion is correct and the others are coerced into acceptance. They state with certainty that they "know" certain things (law, facts of the case, recollection of testimony, etc) - which after analysis is too often false - and using this argument, these stronger/more persuasive jurors are able to persuade the others to go along with their decision. It is difficult to hold out for an opinion clearly out of sync with the group.

At conclusion of the trial, some jurors tenaciously hold fast to an unsupportable opinion even after there is clear and cohesive evidence that significant errors were made in reaching said verdict. I think we are hearing some of this now.

Other jurors, independent of this group-think environment, come to an entirely different decision from that which they decided in the group. It is not uncommon for jurors who find themselves in this position to finally break with "the group" and candidly speak out and outline the circumstances in the deliberative process.

I think the 2 times looking up chloroform instead of 84 might have helped a little. I must admitt I never thought 84 times, 84 timess, was logical when LDB kept saying it over and over. I thought that common sense told you something was wrong there. Looking up anything 84 time is serious business.!!
I think the first vote 10-Not Guilty, 2- Guilty showed the majority was on the same page. I believe the jury foreman said there was only 1 strong for Guilty. And, your right he/she could have been swayed by the majority even though that person might have truly felt kc was guilty.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I guess I can say the same illogical thinking.

There isn't any evidence of the duck tape being over Caylee's face and mouth. It was found in the hair mass, laying on the side where the skull was. One of the three pieces was found 8 to 10 feet away, yet it was always said three pieces over the mouth and nose. There was only speculation by the procecution. Sure there was plently of testimony of the duck tape being on the face,nose mouth but it wasn't proven. The medical examiner said the caue of death was homicide/murder because of the duck tape, but when asked if Caylee could have been drowned, she had to say yes because she knew you couldn't prove the duck tape was on the face, nose and mouth.

Maybe you (and many others) could have found someone guilty with this evidence and be ok knowing that there is a great possibility of a death sentance being applied, but not me. Not in a million years. I don't think that I am that brave because I have a higher judge that knows the truth and I sure wouldn't want to speculate and get it wrong and have to answer for that one. JMOO

How about applying some logical thinking.

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArtic...&Reasonable_doubts_in_the_Casey_Anthony_trial

In law school, and reflected in rudimentary "circumstantial evidence" jury instructions, circumstantial evidence is often simplistically illustrated with the hypothetical that if you go to bed and it is dry on the ground — and when you wake up there is snow on the ground — using circumstantial evidence and common sense — you can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that it snowed last night. Obviously, this case was not that simplistic or straightforward. A more difficult situation is illustrated when you wake up in the morning and your front lawn is wet. Did it rain last night or is it just the morning dew? Reason and a common sense understanding of the world makes this a paradigm case of reasonable doubt since the morning-dew theory represents a plausible alternative theory even in the absence of evidence adduced by the defense. The defense, in effect, sought to characterize the Anthony case as presenting this type of reasonable doubt, but the "accidental drowning" theory was utterly unsupported by any evidence or common sense and did not present a plausibly reasonable alternative theory.

The Anthony case, in my view, can be encapsulated with the following third scenario. You go to bed at night and it is dry outside. You wake up in the morning and the grass is wet, the pavement is wet and there is what only can be described as the aftermath of raindrops on your car parked outside. Up the street 25 yards is a fire hydrant. Last summer, during a heat wave, the fire department opened the hydrant and water sprayed all over the place. You even have a picture of that event. This does not create a reasonable doubt about whether it rained last night. The suggestion that the fire hydrant was opened last night and was the source of all the water is speculation that is devoid of any evidentiary support. The conclusion that it rained last night has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[EPfan]

So Sexy.

They kept saying that over and over last night. I asked my son he thought she was pretty. He said she was Hot, but crazy.

 

[katydid23]

I still wonder how that mandible was in place after the skull rolled out of the trash bags according to the meter reader and then after he picked the skull up with his stick. That doesn't make since to me.

If you listened to his later interviews you would hear him say it never really fell out of the bag. He said the bag was on top of the skull, and the bag came off, nothing rolled out. Doesn't the EVIDENCE itself, the roots and the debris on top show what actually happened? And he NEVER picked up the skull with the stick, he 'rotated' it a few inches. Big difference.

 

[EPfan]

What is wrong with these TH's .. can't they just MOVE ON?? They are worse than Geraldo (if that is possible). I'm starting to think they are trying to keep the sick Casey story going.. but WHY????

HLN is really the only one talking about her non stop.. they need to move on.. surely there aren't people out there who are interested in whether they think she will be rich and how sexy she looks...FGS!!!! :maddening:

SORRY!!! I'm guilty and will get back on the correct topic.!!!!

 

[erinleigh]

I still wonder how that mandible was in place after the skull rolled out of the trash bags according to the meter reader and then after he picked the skull up with his stick. That doesn't make since to me.

i think its time to get back to topic and ignore. anyone who watched the case heard the discussion of sticking the meter reader stick in the eyesocket and rotating it. we also heard RK tells a good tale of a skull dropping out of the bag. it obvious the mandible was intact, that is undisputed. so why is this even a discussion? some of us here are greiving the verdict because we understand what a circumstantial case is. we dont need to hear the jury version ad naseaum just to be "inflamed" the case is over. the verdict was wrong. it just was. the evidence was there if you wanted to see it. or u can pretend casey drove around with a body that her dad snuck into her trunk after her daughter drowned and daddy yelled LOOK AT WHAT YOU'VE DONE.. you can believe that not calling 911 in that scenerio is not agg child abuse for failure to render aid. you can believe since GA had a key and acted funny over gas cans he snuck the body back from the trunk, wrapped and triple bagged it and somehow got it to Surburban drive. then you can believe he went about his life and so did KC like Caylee never existed. and dont forget GA running over a squirrel in the car he never borrowed and KC has to ditch it cuz it smelled and was out of gas. yea. GA was so happy not to have a loving grandaughter anymore and it was KC who was shedding tears. oh yeah, wait. GA mourned Caylee. he wanted the FBI brought in. he wanted answers. KC wanted to tell lies. but thats ok. there's no proof a liar is a killer right? she lied for fun, not to cover something sinister. dont we all make drowings look like murder? thats a great way to keep suspicion off.
this case has so much circumstantial evidence my head spins just thinking of how wrong the jury got it. FROM THEIR OWN MOUTHS they did not follow jury instructions. their not guily verdict means nothing to me except that a very guilty person is sitting in her posh hideaway planning her next lie.

and to realte this to HLN. if they insist on sticking to this story why dont they instead try to educate the public on the law, on understanding circumstantial evidence on why this verdict was so shocking and why people are outraged. maybe they can even do some sleuthing and find some of the interesting stuff not allowed into evidence so they have at least something new to discuss. i would love to see some TH's take on the challenge of a little investigative work instead of fluff pieces still going on about caseys marketability, prospects, hotness, 1st interview, personality and how "sexual" she is

 

[EPfan]

GET BACK ON TOPIC!!!

This thread is to discuss what is happening on the NEWS shows - not everything else under the sun.

Get back on topic, please. Take the general discussion to the appropriate threads.

Thanks,

Salem

Sorry!! I'm guilty!!
I'll go take a break.

 

[kaki]

SORRY!!! I'm guilty and will get back on the correct topic.!!!!

I wasn't referring to anyone on the message board. or on this thread...just HLN which I will rename "The Casey Anthony Fan Club" ...:crazy:

 

[Italy]

I think the 2 times looking up chloroform instead of 84 might have helped a little. I must admitt I never thought 84 times, 84 timess, was logical when LDB kept saying it over and over. I thought that common sense told you something was wrong there. Looking up anything 84 time is serious business.!!
I think the first vote 10-Not Guilty, 2- Guilty showed the majority was on the same page. I believe the jury foreman said there was only 1 strong for Guilty. And, your right he/she could have been swayed by the majority even though that person might have truly felt kc was guilty.

HLN & Fox have shown a considerable number of comments from a few jurors.

After reading some of the comments made by the foreman, I wish Jennifer Ford had been the foreman. I sincerely believe the verdict would have been guilty on the manslaughter charge had she been the foreman.

She has not said she knows how to read people. She has not said she considered the possibility that George murdered Caylee. She has stated that the jury did not know many of the "whys" in the case and I believe that had she been the foreman, a considered and careful review of the evidence and the instructions would have been undertaken. And that, I believe, would have led to a different verdict.

 

[Oldsoul2]

Please! No matter how much LOGICAL evidence was/is presented, I've come to realize that some people are just not bright. KC got 12 of those to set her free. They came from a small town, with the average income of Mcdonalds workers, too lazy to go through thousands of pages of evidence, wanted to go home and be done with it. They would have had to stay another two weeks if they gave a guilty verdict because they would have had to be present for the sentencing. They can't see past the opening statement of the defense because they can't UNDERSTAND "forensic evidence"...it was reported they were looking at the ceiling, falling asleep etc.....while it was presented. She got lucky and Caylee struck a tree letting her know that she watched the whole thing

 

[erinleigh]

so once casey ages and get a few wrinkles or grows her giant butt back like she did when she 1st went to jail we can expect HLN to stop talking about her since she will no longer be young and hot?
BTW, if HLN is gonna show photos of her can we please have the bacne photo at the top of the hour, EVERY HOUR? show her for the ugly she really is. i prefer that to seeing her crazy eyes while participating in the hot body contest knowing her child was rotting in a swamp.

 

[Fluffy Puppy]

I guess I can say the same illogical thinking.

There isn't any evidence of the duck tape being over Caylee's face and mouth. It was found in the hair mass, laying on the side where the skull was. One of the three pieces was found 8 to 10 feet away, yet it was always said three pieces over the mouth and nose. There was only speculation by the procecution. Sure there was plently of testimony of the duck tape being on the face,nose mouth but it wasn't proven. The medical examiner said the caue of death was homicide/murder because of the duck tape, but when asked if Caylee could have been drowned, she had to say yes because she knew you couldn't prove the duck tape was on the face, nose and mouth.

Maybe you (and many others) could have found someone guilty with this evidence and be ok knowing that there is a great possibility of a death sentance being applied, but not me. Not in a million years. I don't think that I am that brave because I have a higher judge that knows the truth and I sure wouldn't want to speculate and get it wrong and have to answer for that one. JMOO

BBM

Thank you for posting this, because although I am about to disagree with you, i think this is just about how the jury saw their decision. And why I am really glad some jurors gave interviews. I was/am quite curious about their reasoning

When i was younger, in my 20s, I sat on my first jury in a criminal case. I sat there and waited for the state to prove it to me. I realized though, that there was no direct evidence, only circumstantial, and that just wasn't good enough for me. I was looking for an easier decision. (I would up an alternate, btw, so it didn't affect the outcome).

Reflecting on that exeprience, I realized we were supposed to work on the circumstantial evidence to determine if there were any other reasonable explanations. I don't think this jusry did that.

It is hard, it is supposed to be hard, and juries are expected to try and connect the dots and test reasonability. It takes courage, maturity, and intellect.

In other words, "Without direct evidence, I don't want to judge" is a cop-out that doesn't serve the country well, IMO, imo, imo. You are supposed to judge. It is your job on a jury. It is a hard, serious, and important job in our society. People who are looking for only easy answers aren't doing their job.

Again, nothing personal nor any anger here: I just disagree and have felt strongly about this for a long time, not just since the Anthony trial.

FWIW, I thought the State in this case, and many prosecutors in other cases, forget that juries need to be talked with about circumstantial evidence weight and reasonable doubt. That is why my heart sank when Mason presented that chart without a response from the state. I feared they were sunk.

Thanks for the soapbox opportunity!