Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[Duckley]

I hope I don't offend - but this picture that someone posted on facebook says it all for me

 

[magic-cat]

The State was not allowed to bring up a lot of things because it was determined to be be too prejudicial

That is one thing I understand the least of all.
This evidence cannot be shown because it shows what a horrible person she is? It shows she is already a criminal? It shows she is a cold calous b-
so we cannot possibly let this in? Oh no that shows she was evil and demented-mustn't let them find that out. Uh uh...no, must protect the accused from what shows their true nature their true selves?

It is ludicrous! She entered and enjoyed thoroughly by the looks of it a HOT BODY CONTEST with NO thought or concern for her daughter, who was literally being torn to shreds by animals and the environment. THAT should have been known. It IS a fact and she did do it and there was proof and it does go to show how cold and unfeeling for her own daughter that she is.

Instead? That psychopathic looking madwoman we saw on sentence day is allowed to enter back into society without even the benefit of PROBATION? How anyone in their right mind can reason that that is right I cannot understand.

God help us all. I bet this happens every day of the week and we are the dumb sheep who have been left unaware...No wonder crime runs ramped in our society...nobody gets convicted. It's a mess.:banghead:

 

[DDLR]

If some of the lawyers are reading this, please advise if I am being ridiculous, but can you ask questions in jury selection to determine if they are morons or not?

Questions I would like to ask a potential juror:

Do you think 911 was a government conspiracy?

What do you think about bigfoot?

Do you think we really walked on the moon?

Is global warming "junk science"?

What questions would you like to ask?

How about "Do you believe in ghosts?"

Do you believe the world in coming to an end in 2012?

 

[Boston]

The Jury seems to be buying the accident Theory.....

If this were an accident I would still like to know how Caylee ended up in a Swamp with Duct tape around her mouth

As Jeff A. said during his closing arguments "Who makes an accident look like a murder"?

Where was the Jury's Common Sense............????????????????????

 

[rbrnmw2]

How about "Do you believe in ghosts?"

Do you believe the world in coming to an end in 2012?

Is Elvis Alive?

Is Paul McCartney dead?

 

[suzet]

The jury got it SO wrong. So sickeningly wrong. :furious:
In fact, they are all waiting at the end of the hallway at Universal for ICA to let them in to her event planner office for free tickets for the entire family.
:liar:

 

[MissJames]

New Here, but in the aftermath of the Casey Anthony Trial and verdict, it has given me a great deal of comfort to find this website . I find many like-minded people , who are having a hard time accepting the verdict in this case.

The real problem I have with this jury, and their verdict is "what happened to Aggravated manslaughter. Ok, Ok, so they did not feel they could come in with First Degree---that would be acceptable , but to sit in the jury box, and listen to hours upon hours of testimony, and all of the evidence presented (even if Circumstantial)--How could they just dismiss all if it and acquit her of ANY culpability, it is BAZAAR. What angers me most is there was a 6/6 vote to convict on that charge and 6 seemingly intelligent people could not hold it together enough. They knew in their heart the right thing to do, but were so easily persuaded by the others against their BETTER judgement.

The justice system is concerned about jurors not having any preconceived ideas about the case.

How do you not know about the Casey Anthony Case--obviously you don't read, write,view T.V news, or have any type of discussion on world events.
Are these the type of people we trust as a jury of our peers?? Well I don't know about you, but I think this was exactly the kind of nitwits the defense team was looking for, and Guess What----they found them. It surely was not a jury favoring the prosecution, so then it must have favored the Defense,and how fair and balanced is that. Just listen to juror#3--A young women who's mother had to fill her in on what this case was about, and was so disappointed to only be allowed to look at the hotel pool from her window, but not be able to go for a swim--oh BOO HOO. She is certainly not the one to be speaking for the jury. We are just lucky they didn't convict the prosecution team of being" really mean" to Jose Baez......and furthermore how do you allow a juror who "does not like to make Judgements! Are You Kidding Me??
Yes Folks, I Think the defense won this case before it even started.

Forgive my Rant! I do fell so much better.

:welcome4: Rant away! And please consider signing the petition for Caylee's law (link below) We have a thread at the top of the main page :greetings:

 

[technicalconfusion]

How about "Do you believe in ghosts?"

Do you believe the world in coming to an end in 2012?

Ummm...I believe in ghosts. Just sayin.

 

[MissJames]

The Jury seems to be buying the accident Theory.....

If this were an accident I would still like to know how Caylee ended up in a Swamp with Duct tape around her mouth

As Jeff A. said during his closing arguments "Who makes an accident look like a murder"?

Where was the Jury's Common Sense............????????????????????

Reading some of the statements jurors have made on their decision leaves me scratching my head even more.For anyone who hasn't read the articles or watched the videos ,it's worth the trip to Today's Current News thread.

You just can't make this stuff up. Juror #2 wanted to vote guilty,but on Tues his side started losing votes .He was the last to fold. If he stuck it out,if any of them stuck it out ,it would have been a hung jury.:banghead:

He ends by saying it was a bad outcome and after looking at the pictures he doesn't know how anyone could do that to a child :maddening:

 

[goldenlover]

Public opinion has nothing to do with it. You say the DT was able to show it could be a accident. What exactly was that evidence your referring to? There is no evidence that prove it was a accident other then DT spin. More points to murder then accident. By examining all of her lies, her failure to notify the authorities about her child’s disappearance, her unusual behavior, and even the body of Caylee, there is enough circumstantial evidence to convict. The jury isnt there to like the DT or the pros. so it shouldn't matter who is more respectful to them. They are there to hear the case not make friends. I keep seeing such little evidence when in fact there was plenty of evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. I suspect many jurors do not truly understand the meaning of beyond a reasonable doubt. Someone explain it from what a judge has told them and I think it makes it easier to understand. This is what the judge said. Suppose it is a clear, sunny day with the temperature about 36 degrees on a February afternoon. I go to bed that night and I wake up the next morning and discover there are six inches of snow on the ground.It would be safe to conclude that beyond a reasonable doubt it snowed last night, based on circumstantial evidence only. I did not observe it snowing, nor did I listen to any eyewitnesses of the alleged snowstorm. Even though I have no direct evidence that it snowed last night, I am still sure beyond a reasonably doubt that it snowed last night. Sure, it is possible that my neighbor bought a snow machine and he placed snow all around my house last night, but that notion is so highly improbable. And it would be laughable if a defense team made such a foolish suggestion. But in this the DT did the laughable thing and the jury bought it hook line and sinker.

The DT did not have to prove an accident occurred, but just the notion of it makes a reasonable person conclude that it just as well could have been an accident covered up as well as a murder. Each individual juror is allowed to determine exactly what reasonable doubt means to them. There is no scientific calcualtion. If there was, we would not need a jury at all. The guilt or innocence of a person could be easily determined by plugging evidence into a computer and the computer could spit out the answer. We all know that the jury is not supposed to base any decision on whether they like the defendant, the attorneys etc, or what they have heard in the media, from friends or family etc, but we also know that it always plays into the verdict. That is why the defendant is not made to wear prison clothing, be in shackles, etc. It would predjudice them even further. Why is the jury even sequestered? Because everyone knows it is human nature to use these things in coming to a conclusion. It is called being human. That is how trials are. The jury is sequestered to eliminate as much subjective reasoning as possible, but it is always there. Our legal system is not infallible, but it is the best there is, as there is no better alternative.

I myself did not see enough evidence proven in the trial either. There are others on this board, although the minority, that feel the same way. Not only did I not see the evidence, I did not like some of the "fantasy evidence" the state provided, like Dr. Vass. I thought he was creepy and was pusing the envelope with his conclusions. When I found out his laboratory was a research laboratory as brought out by the defense, it gave his testimony even less credibility, IMO. I thought Dr. G was arrogant and I did not like her tone and condenscending attitude. I felt her manner of death statement was speculative and not based on science at all. I did not like the "manufactured video of Caylee with the duct tape". I did not like how they tried to say the heart sticker had anything to do with the case. It clearly did not. I felt like the state was severly lacking in real evidence and had to bring these things in to build their case. It is a jurors right to disregard any evidence, on either side, that they do not feel is true and it is up to them and them alone to decide what they want to consider and what they do not.

 

[goldenlover]

The Jury seems to be buying the accident Theory.....

If this were an accident I would still like to know how Caylee ended up in a Swamp with Duct tape around her mouth

As Jeff A. said during his closing arguments "Who makes an accident look like a murder"?

Where was the Jury's Common Sense............????????????????????

Who doesn't report their child missing for 31 days? What 22 year old makes up friends with so much detail? Makes up jobs? Makes up boyfriends and fiances with kids? That is why it so easy to buy the accident theory. If she does that, she very could make an accident look like a murder.

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

How about "Do you believe in ghosts?"

Do you believe the world in coming to an end in 2012?

How about something simple , like "who is the President of the U.S."??

Maybe they should be allowed to read the newspaper, and be up to date on current events. Asking that they have limited knowledge of high profile case to insure an impartial jury, may not be reasonable in this age of communication technology. Limited knowledge of a murder case could mean LIMITED knowledge in general.

 

[Sustained]

Who doesn't report their child missing for 31 days? What 22 year old makes up friends with so much detail? Makes up jobs? Makes up boyfriends and fiances with kids? That is why it so easy to buy the accident theory. If she does that, she very could make an accident look like a murder.

The answer is simple to all of your queries ... someone who is trying to cover something up ? Accidents don't need to be covered up. All of her lies were a result of trying to cover that she killed Caylee. Everyone testified to what a great Mom she was ... great Moms call 911 if there is an accident.

 

[Cherry Ames]

Who doesn't report their child missing for 31 days? What 22 year old makes up friends with so much detail? Makes up jobs? Makes up boyfriends and fiances with kids? That is why it so easy to buy the accident theory. If she does that, she very could make an accident look like a murder.

Why defend the indefensible?

 

[rbrnmw2]

Reading some of the statements jurors have made on their decision leaves me scratching my head even more.For anyone who hasn't read the articles or watched the videos ,it's worth the trip to Today's Current News thread.

You just can't make this stuff up. Juror #2 wanted to vote guilty,but on Tues his side started losing votes .He was the last to fold. If he stuck it out,if any of them stuck it out ,it would have been a hung jury.:banghead:

He ends by saying it was a bad outcome and after looking at the pictures he doesn't know how anyone could do that to a child :maddening:

:banghead::loser:

I am speechless (at least at a loss for words that don't violate TOS)

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

Miss James---

Thanks for the Welcome. Caylee's Law petition signed. Proud to be a part of it's passage.

 

[Americka]

How about something simple , like "who is the President of the U.S."??

Maybe they should be allowed to read the newspaper, and be up to date on current events. Asking that they have limited knowledge of high profile case to insure an impartial jury, may not be reasonable in this age of communication technology. Limited knowledge of a murder case could mean LIMITED knowledge in general.

IIRC, HHJP stated that jurors were allowed to read the newspaper after information related to the trial was redacted.

 

[TexasLori]

The DT did not have to prove an accident occurred, but just the notion of it makes a reasonable person conclude that it just as well could have been an accident covered up as well as a murder. Each individual juror is allowed to determine exactly what reasonable doubt means to them. There is no scientific calcualtion. If there was, we would not need a jury at all. The guilt or innocence of a person could be easily determined by plugging evidence into a computer and the computer could spit out the answer. We all know that the jury is not supposed to base any decision on whether they like the defendant, the attorneys etc, or what they have heard in the media, from friends or family etc, but we also know that it always plays into the verdict. That is why the defendant is not made to wear prison clothing, be in shackles, etc. It would predjudice them even further. Why is the jury even sequestered? Because everyone knows it is human nature to use these things in coming to a conclusion. It is called being human. That is how trials are. The jury is sequestered to eliminate as much subjective reasoning as possible, but it is always there. Our legal system is not infallible, but it is the best there is, as there is no better alternative.

I myself did not see enough evidence proven in the trial either. There are others on this board, although the minority, that feel the same way. Not only did I not see the evidence, I did not like some of the "fantasy evidence" the state provided, like Dr. Vass. I thought he was creepy and was pusing the envelope with his conclusions. When I found out his laboratory was a research laboratory as brought out by the defense, it gave his testimony even less credibility, IMO. I thought Dr. G was arrogant and I did not like her tone and condenscending attitude. I felt her manner of death statement was speculative and not based on science at all. I did not like the "manufactured video of Caylee with the duct tape". I did not like how they tried to say the heart sticker had anything to do with the case. It clearly did not. I felt like the state was severly lacking in real evidence and had to bring these things in to build their case. It is a jurors right to disregard any evidence, on either side, that they do not feel is true and it is up to them and them alone to decide what they want to consider and what they do not.

I totally respect the argument you have put forth. I do not agree with your thinking, but I understand and respect what you are saying. I really wish the jury had given the case as much critical thinking as you have here. That I could live with. But it seems, with what some of the jurors have stated in the press, that they did not.

I wish you and I had both been on the jury. We could have really caused some discussion in good and constructive ways.

 

[Solange82200]

Who doesn't report their child missing for 31 days? What 22 year old makes up friends with so much detail? Makes up jobs? Makes up boyfriends and fiances with kids? That is why it so easy to buy the accident theory. If she does that, she very could make an accident look like a murder.

What kind of person does that? A pathological liar who wants to use and abuse those around her. All her lies had a purpose, and that purpose was to get over on those who trusted her. The prosecutor explained this in great detail. The job lies were obvious, her parents wanted her to work, she wanted to be a bum and not be tied down. The fake boyfriend with a child was an alibi for when Casey would go out with Ricardo or another guy she thought her mom wouldnt approve of (or approve of having Caylee around). She lied to her friend Christina about working at Sports Authority, and Christina would watch Caylee for free so she could go out with men. When Christina found out, they stopped being close. I imagine she felt used and betrayed. There is nothing in her lies that explain her making an accident look like murder. What her lies do show is that she cold and callous enough to take advantage of and hurt everyone around her, for her own wellbeing.

If you still dont believe she is just evil, the fact that she stole from almost everyone who got close to her. She stole 200 dollars from Jesse, 400 dollars cash from Amy, I think over a grand from her bank account, 500 from her dying grandfather to buy a new cell phone and pay her cell bill, and from what we know at least thousands of dollars from her mom and dad.

This reasoning that her lying is somehow consistent with an accident is not plausible to me. I had never even heard anyone say that until Jose said it in opening, so it's kind of upsetting to see people parroting that theory.

Should we have used that with Scott Peterson? Since he lied to his wife about his whereabouts while cheating, it's reasonable that she died by accident and his bizarre behavior caused him to hide her body? I know Casey was weirder and worse with her lies, but they still mean nothing more than that Casey was a sociopath who lacked feelings or compassion for everyone around her, yet we are supposed to believe that she was different with her daughter? She cares about no one but Casey.

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

IIRC, HHJP stated that jurors were allowed to read the newspaper after information related to the trial was redacted.

Hi Americka,

Yes, I was aware they were allowed to read the newspaper during the trial. I was making a "snarky" comment about jurors, in general, being able to have more current event knowledge about a case prior to being selected for the jury. Seems the need for an impartial jury sometimes depends on a group of people with little knowledge of current events. How could you not know about some of the High profile cases--like this one. Seems strange to me.
JMO.