The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #3

[RR0004]

Hate to quote myself, but does anyone know this to be fact? Did these 2 jurors that have spoken to the media this far reveal THEIR beginning vote? Have they stated anywhere that they voted NG to begin with? Anyone? Love to see a link if it has been stated by either.

Sorry...haven't listened...couldn't tell ya. A search may help you to find video of the interviews.

 

[PeteyGirl]

Actually, it IS the state's job to show how she died if they are charging capital murder and put forward a theory as to how it happened. The problem was that their theory was complete speculation, there were no facts to support it. The facts that they did provide had other obvious and more plausible explanations.

I've read and heart samples of the "more plausible explanations" and they are ridiculous.

Btw, the theory put forward by the defence, that Caylee fell into, and drowned in the swimming pool, provides a better explanation for how chlorinated agents may have ended up in the trunk. The only way for that to have happened is for the person to have been doused in chlorinated agents, such that their clothes were soaked. Falling into a Floridian swimming pool seems a pretty good way to achieve that to me. There is no other way to get enough to accumulate in the car. If you were going to knock someone out with chloroform that simply would not have happened.

Chemical science does not support this. Chlorine does not magically transform into chloroform in the quantities measured in that trunk. Just because chloroform sounds like chlorine does not mean they are similar or one becomes the other.

The prosecution also didn't prove that KA drove around with the body in the car for three days, or that a body was even in the car for that matter. All they showed was that something had decomposed there at some point, but that could be just about anything.

Like, for instance, a missing three year old???

So the question to the jury would have been was that Caylee? And if so, who put her there and when? Obviously the jury didn't have answers to those questions beyond the prosecutions speculation. This is why actual evidence that corroborates the theory they are presenting is important.

Listen . . . the trial did not just pop up out of chaos this last May. It was prepared for over almost three years, built up from the scratch of basic building blocks of evidence. With this kind of illogic, a person could not walk down the center of the street without falling over the edge, as the edges of the street would be beyond speculation.

This kind of illogic (with all respect to you as a person, just your post here I'm taking exception to) has been voiced over and over again on this thread and it's sister threads.

Caylee was not just killed or hurt-to-death by "someone". The only way to stay in this frame of logic is to ignore glaring facts presented ad nauseum by the prosecution. I suppose if I put the prosecution on mute every time they opened their mouth, I'd end up with the same kind of conclusion.

Lastly, if KA does have this severe mental illness you suggest,

(she doesn't, as stated by six shrinks)

then the alternative explanation for the evidence would still be consistent with the facts as presented. Because you wouldn't act the way she did doesn't mean that she is guilty of murder. Everyone reacts to a particular situation in different ways, and if someone happens to be mentally ill then they may react in a way very different from how you might react. Her lack of emotion may simply reflect how she is, it is not evidence of wrongdoing.

Human nature is consistent, which is why a science of psychology of it has existed for 200 years. Also benefitting from the consistency of human nature is the justice system and discovery process. Which does nab the bad guy more often than not.

People do NOT react to particular situations in different ways. They react to situations in about twelve or thirteen PREDICTABLE ways (the number is not exact lol). The accidental or deliberate death of your own child can result in a variety of reactions based upon the psychology of the parent. But those reactions are not unlimited or UNPREDICTABLE.

And neither was Casey's She behaved, afterward, as if she were on a reprieve. That is a well explored, well documented predictable reaction of someone with psychopathy (not a mental illness).

What her behavior MEANS is also not some new thing under the sun. It means she didn't care. Her only concern was to not get caught.

Thanks for your post, though, I am only taking exception to what you've written, not your intelligence or concern for Caylee

 

[Sustained]

During the trial, the dt repeatedly asked for a mistrial, and HHBP politely denied the motion. The TH's laughed at the dt for doing this, but they knew it was because the dt has to do so for potential appeals later on. The TH's laughed, because it seemed a forgone conclusion that KC would be convicted. The TH's were convinced the PT was destroying the DT at every turn, convinced the jury was mesmerized by JA and bored to death by JB, convinced that KC's goose was as good as cooked, and the only question was whether she would get the DP or LWOP. I watched the same trial they were watching, and I was feeling dejavu all over again, because what the TH's were saying sounded very much like the responses I had been hearing to my posts for nearly 2 years. When the verdict was read, my response to verdicts 1 thru 3 was "wow", 'wow', and "wow". The decision of the only 12 people in the world that really counted in this case, had reached the same decision I had so very long ago.

Most, if not all of the TH's are lawyers and have far more trial experience that I do and I defer to their experience ... why would all of the TH's have spouted off about FCA being guilty both before and during the trial if they did not they beleive it was true ? The TH's obviously thought there was enough evidence to convict and some of these TH's had been covering the trial for 3+ years. I do rule out any TH that was working for the DT, i.e. LKB.

So if all of these TH's thought after the trial that FCA would be convicted as I did, they obviously thought the State did a bang-up job in presenting the evidence. Which leads to one and only one conclusion ... the jury dropped the ball in a big way. There must have been a disconnect between what the jury thought they had to do, versus what they actually did.

 

[kelian36]

And this lack of emotion is consistent with consciousness of guilt and lack of remorse,not grief.

Yet the jurors ignored that too.

 

[yolorado]

I'm not sure how he did it,but I agree,the foreman became their leader long before deliberations took place. JF became his cheer leader and together they used faulty reasoning to turn 6 guilty verdicts into NG. Had they actually followed instructions I believe the 6 NG verdicts would have become guilty . JMO
I scratched my head at the background of some of the jurors and felt it was totally inappropriate to have them seated.

This process indicated the possibility of several problems.

A jury of one's peers should not be required to possess virtually no knowledge about the situation to be litigated. People who know beans, or SAY they know beans, about a national case in the news for three years may be as likely to nothing about the case after they've heard it as they were before it began.

Change of venue should be severely limited. People who share the same community as the accused should not be excluded simply because of their address. If we trust juries of civilians, ... we should trust them. We should not DQ 'em simply for living in the same location as the person on trial. The money not spent on transporting participants around could be used to pay jurors in high profile cases a living wage.

Sequestration is the devils workshop, or it can be, as I believe it was in this case. By isolating jurors TOGETHER for long periods, away from their familiar routines and contact, it likely it may lead to the same group dynamics and group think which I think was created in this situation where it seems as if one strong opinion leader, or group, determined the outcome in which the jury seems as if it may have acted as one, rather than as 12. Sequestration, imo, should be almost never, ever used. Send 'em home at night. We either trust citizens to serve on juries and do the right thing, or we don't. If we don't, perhaps we should start talking about professionals on juries. Use the money saved on hotel and extra meals to pay jurors in high profile cases a living wage.

 

[PeteyGirl]

I have to say I got most if not all my information here about the case (I guess maybe the defense team did too as they took every crazy theory and ran with it). I didn't much care what the THs had to say...they proved early on that they didn't have all the facts. It's all in the interpretation of the facts which I truly believe the jurors ignored. I would like to say that they analyzed the information presented, but I just can't. I'm glad I'm not alone in this thinking. I'm glad that something is being done...namely Caylee's Law. We have to stop people from hurting and killing our children. There is no room IMPO for people like Casey in our society. I find no comfort in thinking this may have been an accident because the evidence did NOT prove it was. I wish I could, but I get kind of stuck with HOW she was disposed of and HOW she was found.

I didn't watch HLN until the trial itself, which due to working swing shift, I could watch in it's entirety every day (left coaster here). Not changing the channel after the trial day was over introduced me to Dr Drew, Nancy Grace, JVM, Joy Behar, yadda yadda. These folks are primarily entertainers, OK? Definitely they had some of their facts straight, but the shtick poked out and unless I was overwhelmingly brainwashed during those six weeks by the TH, I'd admit the REST of the facts I got was from here.

I listen to audiobooks and watch Animal Planet, History Channel and Discovery Health Channel (whatever it's become after Oprah bought it out). I probably don't know what's happening down the street unless I drive past it (look, a new Walmart :banghead: ). I'm busy with my little farm in the morning, work as a nurse till midnight, and then come home and spend a lot of time alone late at night with whatever critter is trying to sit on my computer. Today it is a week old duckling named Willow who hatched alone in my incubator and appointed me as her mother duck. Peteygirl is the name of my first pet goose. I live with my head up my own rear end in my own private world except for the info I get from this forum.

So I am practically a media virgin, and am really cynical besides about the media and it's version of the news.

I put what I do have together from Websleuths and the doc dumps. And I spent a lot of time reading the posts and linked articles from pro-verdict folks before I jumped in here. FWIW, I feel I've got a good a handle on the facts as it gets. I tend to trust the legal system as it is. I have a very trusted BS detector (working 17 years as a psych nurse who really wanted to believe the best in people has foisted this upon me).

The comfort I find is yes, in Caylee's Law, for what it's worth, but more in the way life works. Casey's Bella Vita is toast. She is a condemned woman, and there are worse things than death, like, being a pariah. Not that she has the emotional wherewithal to notice, but it will still conscript her life to a very small, stunted thing. Add to that her psychopathy, inability to feel or give love, to bond with others, to find an enduring connection to the good things in life . . . who needs prison? I pray every day for her ovaries to die, but that's about the extent of it.

 

[PeteyGirl]

This process indicated the possibility of several problems.

A jury of one's peers should not be required to possess virtually no knowledge about the situation to be litigated. People who know beans, or SAY they know beans, about a national case in the news for three years may be as likely to nothing about the case after they've heard it as they were before it began.

Change of venue should be severely limited. People who share the same community as the accused should not be excluded simply because of their address. If we trust juries of civilians, ... we should trust them. We should not DQ 'em simply for living in the same location as the person on trial. The money not spent on transporting participants around could be used to pay jurors in high profile cases a living wage.

Sequestration is the devils workshop, or it can be, as I believe it was in this case. By isolating jurors TOGETHER for long periods, away from their familiar routines and contact, it likely it may lead to the same group dynamics and group think which I think was created in this situation where it seems as if one strong opinion leader, or group, determined the outcome in which the jury seems as if it may have acted as one, rather than as 12. Sequestration, imo, should be almost never, ever used. Send 'em home at night. We either trust citizens to serve on juries and do the right thing, or we don't. If we don't, perhaps we should start talking about professionals on juries. Use the money saved on hotel and extra meals to pay jurors in high profile cases a living wage.

These are some very important points. Who said pure ignorance (of a case) equaled objectivity?

And I agree about sequestration. That is very hard on people, it almost asks too much. Isolation is well known to bring out primitive behavior. There is a lot more to this, just no time to put it into words.

 

[logicalgirl]

What I find amazing about this process is how many people prefer to believe "hidden things" - and "secrets" things are supposively tucked behind something else just waiting for them to be discovered and behold - the truth!

I don't know if it's the Harry Potter syndrome or what....

Sure, I have secrets, you have secrets, FKC has and so do CA and GA. But what's that got to do with this case? Really do the ornaments lying around a living room have anything at all to do with how sound the structure of a building?

Strip the ornaments, the oh so interesting things that "just might be" that so are much fun to infer, whisper about or whatever, and what you've got is a very simple case. It's not complicated at all. All the evidence points to one person. A woman who killed her own child. It's a very rare murder that has a smoking gun - and even fewer that have witnesses. Not that an eye witness will give an accurate description of anything they saw.

But the "maybe" detail dabblers....:waitasec:

And just for the record? The so-called Jury Foreman? Don't believe a word he said about the initial vote. The man has an agenda. (suggest it's about his FBI brother and how two can play justice). If three other jurors we have not yet heard from give me "similar" stories - and note I say similar, not exactly the same stories - then I mark down what he said as having some value in it.

 

[KarmaGet'em]

Hate to quote myself, but does anyone know this to be fact? Did these 2 jurors that have spoken to the media this far reveal THEIR beginning vote? Have they stated anywhere that they voted NG to begin with? Anyone? Love to see a link if it has been stated by either.

JF originally voted for Guilty of manslaughter in the 6-6 vote.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1107/16/sitroom.01.html

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) GARY TUCHMAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (On camera): They tell me the original vote for the aggravated manslaughter was 6-6.

JENNIFER FORD, JUROR, CASEY ANTHONY MURDER TRIAL: Correct.

TUCHMAN: Which side of the six were you on?

FORD: The manslaughter.

 

[MissJames]

JF originally voted for Guilty of manslaughter in the 6-6 vote.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1107/16/sitroom.01.html

And juror # 2 originally voted for Felony 1 . He said the next day "our side started to lose votes" . He was the last hold out. He sounded devastated . He also said that when he looked at the pictures of Caylee with the duct tape across her face he just couldn't imagine why someone would do that to her.It was clear he still felt Casey was guilty ,but the foreman wore him down. IIRC the foreman kind of bragged about it in his interview,probably not realizing he had just outed himself for not following jury instructions.

 

[pcrum12]

Here's the Greta interview with the foreman where he is talking about the 10-2 pre-vote. Still looking for others...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK, for murder, it was 10 to 2, 10 saying -- it was 10 innocent, 2 guilty.
VAN SUSTEREN: And about -- if you went in about 2:15, when do you think that was?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I can't remember exactly when that was.
VAN SUSTEREN: Hour, two hours, three hours, next day?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Probably about -- well, it wasn't the next day, but we went in on the first day. It was within the first hour.
VAN SUSTEREN: So there was not a lot of persuading or anything that had to be done. I mean, the...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Not for the pre-vote.
VAN SUSTEREN: Not for the pre-vote.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No.
VAN SUSTEREN: So there were two that -- were they adamant on guilty or just uncertain, or how do you measure their level of...
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I believe with one, there was an uncertainty, one that was pretty adamant about it.
VAN SUSTEREN: Adamant that it was guilty?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Uh-huh.
VAN SUSTEREN: And what later changed that to not guilty, do you think?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I never -- I never really -- with that person, I didn't get into that. It changed through our deliberations...


http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-the-record/transcript/exclusive-casey-anthony-jury-foreman-039everything-was-speculation039?page=2

Thank You.

 

[IfIMay]

JF originally voted for Guilty of manslaughter in the 6-6 vote.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1107/16/sitroom.01.html

probably planned to show that yes.. minds can be changed. Everything about these people is suspect in my eyes.

 

[MissJames]

Most, if not all of the TH's are lawyers and have far more trial experience that I do and I defer to their experience ... why would all of the TH's have spouted off about FCA being guilty both before and during the trial if they did not they beleive it was true ? The TH's obviously thought there was enough evidence to convict and some of these TH's had been covering the trial for 3+ years. I do rule out any TH that was working for the DT, i.e. LKB.

So if all of these TH's thought after the trial that FCA would be convicted as I did, they obviously thought the State did a bang-up job in presenting the evidence. Which leads to one and only one conclusion ... the jury dropped the ball in a big way. There must have been a disconnect between what the jury thought they had to do, versus what they actually did.

Even Cheney Mason said she was obviously guilty before he became her lawyer.

 

[PeteyGirl]

What I find amazing about this process is how many people prefer to believe "hidden things" - and "secrets" things are supposively tucked behind something else just waiting for them to be discovered and behold - the truth!

I don't know if it's the Harry Potter syndrome or what....

<<snipped>>

Or CSI syndrome.

Having serious doubts is one thing. But manufacturing alternate explanations from . . . well, from where? . . . appears to be the theme.

And I agree with the poster who stated that perhaps the "truth" presented by the evidence was just too ugly to bear, was so PERSONALLY devastating that it challenged the foundations of beliefs held dear.

So, confabulating alternate theories that do not rattle cherished belief systems could explain away the ugliness of the evidence.

Everyone has jokingly stuck their fingers in their ears and said "La la la!". It's just my opinion, but I have to wonder if this didn't play a part.

I think some folks find a piece of their identity in going against the grain, being oppositional and a devil's advocate, just for the sake of it. There's not much substance behind their insistence, but there's a lot of vehemence. It's because somehow it's about them personally, not so much the objective facts or evidence.

 

[pcrum12]

Even Cheney Mason said she was obviously guilty before he became her lawyer.

do you have a link? TIA

 

[kelian36]

Or CSI syndrome.

Having serious doubts is one thing. But manufacturing alternate explanations from . . . well, from where? . . . appears to be the theme.

And I agree with the poster who stated that perhaps the "truth" presented by the evidence was just too ugly to bear, was so PERSONALLY devastating that it challenged the foundations of beliefs held dear.

So, confabulating alternate theories that do not rattle cherished belief systems could explain away the ugliness of the evidence.

Everyone has jokingly stuck their fingers in their ears and said "La la la!". It's just my opinion, but I have to wonder if this didn't play a part.

I think some folks find a piece of their identity in going against the grain, being oppositional and a devil's advocate, just for the sake of it. There's not much substance behind their insistence, but there's a lot of vehemence. It's because somehow it's about them personally, not so much the objective facts or evidence.

bbm

EXCELLENT POINT!!!

 

[kelian36]

do you have a link? TIA

You may be able to search for the link. I know it's here. Actually it's also in someone's siggy line.

 

[suzihawk]

do you have a link? TIA

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWb_ZztZOKM"]&#x202a;LAW EXPERT DISCUSS REMAINS FOUND NEAR THE ANTHONY HOME&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Caligram]

I believe that this jury had their minds ready to make a decision, once it became their responsibility to provide a work product. They must have thought that they were extremely special to get freebies while being wined and dined at the expense of the taxpayers. To also be provided with entertainment meant they were an extraordinary group. It was my understanding that the entertainment extras so carefully planned by HHJP for them was due to his kindness and compassion for the job they were sworn in to do, to help relieve the stress of what they were exposed to as a jury panel in the courtroom.
Rather shameless then, to take and take what was given and go away without giving back by entering into the serious deliberations agreed upon. This was a jury by ambush, diverted by perverted perjury. I haven't read the jury interviews, but from what was commented on the male who gave interviews as the jury foreman. Appalling that one person could nominate himself as jury foreman, if that is what he did, and then "help" the others along to agree with his decision. I believe that he also was allowed to have his laptop with him when not in the courtroom. The jurors must have some interesting case material and possible book notes, simply be reading here on WS. Yet, having no previous knowledge of this case, a decision was hastily rached and the jury hastily left, no comments, buh bye.
So wrong, so very wrong. Justice was not even a consideration. Not for Caylee Marie.
This is all my own opinion.

 

[pcrum12]

Even Cheney Mason said she was obviously guilty before he became her lawyer.

So, the interview with Cheney Mason was posted (thank you) and I listened and watched it again. Matter of fact, twice. Where again in this interview does Cheney say she was obviously guilty?

Am I crazy? And just not hearing it?

Is there some other interview you are speaking of?