The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #3

[pcrum12]

Mason says "You can pretty much predict there's going to be a life sentence in a plea or have a circus trial, get convicted, and then get life".

I infer from that statement that he believes she is guilty and will get a life sentence. Why else would he predict a life sentence ? This is a man who believes in the jury system and the Constitution, right ?

Nowhere in that interview does he stated SHE IS GUILTY. He states she will probably be convicted - not the same.

 

[pcrum12]

At approximately 2:15 in the video CM says,

"You can pretty well predict that there's going to be a life sentence. And, and either on plea and get it over with or have a circus trial and then be convicted and then get life."

I don't know how else one can interpret that other than he's saying he thinks she's guilty. :waitasec:

He was right about one thing, though. It certainly was a circus trial to which he contributed much to that atmosphere.

Saying she will be convicted and saying she is guilty are most definitely two different things.

 

[pcrum12]

It's amazing to me, information is requested, you provide it, and yet the message isn't grasped and then they're gone.

Actually, I'm right here. And no, will be convicted and she is guilty are two diferent things.

 

[KarmaGet'em]

Nowhere in that interview does he stated SHE IS GUILTY. He states she will probably be convicted - not the same.

LOL. Kind of a twist on the words, like JF said about the verdict - "Not Guilty does not mean she is innocent".
Which makes me curious - the title of this thread is "The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?" - You obviously agree with the verdict - now does that say that you feel there was not enough evidence for a guilty verdict? or do you feel that she is innocent? According to JF, they are not the same thing.
Just curious. How many here that agree with the verdict think that KC is innocent in the death of her daughter?

 

[pcrum12]

..it's WHAT he says:

Cheney-----"You can pretty well predict that there's going to be a life sentence. And, and either a plea and get it over with, or have a circus trial and then be convicted and then get life."

..using logic and common sense-----it can be reasonably deduced that the speaker ---is predicting that one way or another, kc anthony is going to get a life sentence.

..no-one "predicts" a life sentence for someone they think is innocent.

..if he DID think she was innocent----he would have been shouting THAT loud and clear-----but he didn't.

..therefore----he either believed that she was guilty--or that the evidence (even then) was strong enough that a plea would get her life--or a trial would get her life.....convicted/Guilty/life sentence.

..just b/c you didn't "hear him say"----i think kc is guilty.------doesn't mean that he didn't infer such through what he DID say.

..which i believe was a HUGE problem with the jury.

..they HAD available to them all of the trial testimony/physical evidence/expert opinions/videos/pictures/jail calls/CSI reports etc etc---to use in their deliberations----applying logic/common sense/drawing reasonable inferences/connecting dots...

..but it appears that they too said:

----"Am I crazy? And just not seeing it?"

b/c the state did not provide them with a video.

I do not agree. Saying "she is obviously guilty" did not and was not inferred. He simply stated the trial will be a circus, and that she would probably be found guilty or take a plea for that very reason. And, I might add, the trial was a circus, heck it was a circus for 3 yrs prior to trial thru the media. MOO

 

[pcrum12]

Asked for proof..
Just providing you some proof as to how this juror voted to begin with...
cheers to you..
:great:

I'm the poster that asked for proof. And yet to have seen any that Cheney stated "she is obviously guilty" and have only seen personal interpretation as to what he actually did say means.

 

[kelian36]

It is my very own opinion that the members of the jury formed their very own opinions the minute the "P' word popped out of JB's mouth. Whenever I see his name now, you can be sure what word association comes to mind.

IMO

I agree. In fact I said the same thing last night. OS + p word = jurors non guilty verdict.
Such an injustice............. a little 2 year old girl found murdered and tossed into the swampy dump pile in the woods............just 15 houses away from where she lived with her birth person. Found in a hamper liner from her home, found duct taped with duct tape from her home, found in 3 trash bags from her home, with her blankie from her home.


How do the jurors sleep at night?:shocked2:

 

[askfornina]

LOL. Kind of a twist on the words, like JF said about the verdict - "Not Guilty does not mean she is innocent".
Which makes me curious - the title of this thread is "The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?" - You obviously agree with the verdict - now does that say that you feel there was not enough evidence for a guilty verdict? or do you feel that she is innocent? According to JF, they are not the same thing.
Just curious. How many here that agree with the verdict think that KC is innocent in the death of her daughter?

i firmly believe that i do not know what happened.

 

[pcrum12]

Personally, CM says whatever gets his mug on TV.

It is risky to apply logic/common sense and draw reasonable inferences. It is risky because you're gonna have to take responsibility for it. I think some folks are so intimidated by the risk that they avoid making decisions at all. Then, they can blame someone else (like the prosecution) rather than themselves if it all goes sideways.

They just felt "sick" that they "had" to acquit this person who obviously had SOMETHING to do with Caylee's death. If only the prosecution had done their JOB and presented decent evidence, THEN none of this crap (read: public criticism) would have happened.

It's not THEIR fault a possible killer got to walk. It was the prosecutions fault. And that mean, unfair public, criticizing them for doing their best with the crappy excuse for evidence they were forced to work with!

Not only does Casey Anthony walk free, so do the jurors who've rationalized their cowardice into some kind of moral highhorse. They refused to bring a criminal to justice and found a clever (but transparent) explanation for doing it.

I'll admit I have avoided responsibility countless times in my life, most of the time I do it automatically. I'd just rather "not decide" and then when the consequences come, I can say "well I was just sitting here minding my own business when . . ."

I believe I can relate with how the jury appears to have handled their responsibility. If folks are honest, I think we all can.

No amount of clever fake "morality" or "integrity" one might convince oneself of makes for real morality or integrity.

They saw the gravity of their responsibility, and instead of rising to the occasion -- admittedly a very serious one -- they copped out.

I've done it in my life. And suffered for it. I don't see anything unfair to the jury about pointing this out about them. It's not like they are the first people to commit an act of extreme cowardice. It's practically the human condition to get yourself in a pickle like this

In my Opinion, If the jury acted cowardly and copped out - they could have simple voted her guilty of 1st degree murder and been CHEERED for their verdict by the public which had Casey pretty much convicted on emotions on day 31. I do not agree with your post that their NG verdict was them copping out and being cowardly. IMO, they took the jury instructions and applied them. Period.

 

[pcrum12]

Did you ever look up the video and hear the words he uttered? Someone posted it back a page or 2.
Dont expect everyone else to do the searching, really!

Lol. I seen the video many many times. And yes I watched and listened to it two more times after someone posted here after me asking for PROOF of what one poster stated (Cheney Mason stated she was obviously guilty) which again WAS NOT TRUE. You might take note that the poster who stated such did NOT provide the link. When making a statement as FACT. It is common practice on this forum to ask for a LINK. Which I did! I do not expect anyone to do my on searching. <modsnip>

 

[kelian36]

Unlike the jurors I can connect the dots.

Juror #3 said she could not vote guilty on any charges because KC would get the DP. She said if lesser charges had been included she could have voted guilty. That tells me in no uncertain terms that #3 did not understand even the basics of her job as a juror. She was specifically instructed not to consider punishment during the guilt phase and lesser charges were included.

The foreman told Greta that they were not allowed to consider the 31 days. Even Greta looked astonished at that one. He also told Greta that the DP was written on the verdict paper which was laying on the table while they deliberated. Either he lied or had no clue what he was talking about.

Since you've seen the interviews I won't look up the links.

:goodpost:

 

[KarmaGet'em]

i firmly believe that i do not know what happened.

Fair enough. Thank you for your response. I suppose I should have posed the question - How many here that agree with the verdict think that KC is innocent of all charges that she was found NG on?

 

[KarmaGet'em]

In my Opinion, If the jury acted cowardly and copped out - they could have simple voted her guilty of 1st degree murder and been CHEERED for their verdict by the public which had Casey pretty much convicted on emotions on day 31. I do not agree with your post that their NG verdict was them copping out and being cowardly. IMO, they took the jury instructions and applied them. Period.

No, if they had simply voted her guilty of 1st degree murder they would have had to stick around for the sentencing phase, which would have cut into (some of) their vacation plans.
As 3doglady pointed out, JF revealed some major errors on their part by considering the penalty during the guilt phase, etc. which does not show that they took the jury instructions and (correctly) applied them. IMO

 

[kelian36]

I disagree with the verdict.
There was more than enough evidence presented to render the right verdict--a guilty one.
I'm ashamed of our justice system because it allowed the jurors to take a child's murder so lightly. The jurors allowed a (mo) murderer to walk out of jail free...no punishment for killing her child. (mo)
Like some said previously........1 village ------------12 idiots.

 

[askfornina]

Fair enough. Thank you for your response. I suppose I should have posed the question - How many here that agree with the verdict think that KC is innocent of all charges that she was found NG on?

i think she was very obviously involved. i just don't know to what extent. if i were on the jury, i would just not feel comfortable making that leap to a guilty verdict without more information. this is a controversial statement and i am not interested in arguing it, just simply answering your question.

i have said this before, but here it is again. i think this is the exact moment in time that the DT sealed the deal:

 

[pcrum12]

No, if they had simply voted her guilty of 1st degree murder they would have had to stick around for the sentencing phase, which would have cut into (some of) their vacation plans.
As 3doglady pointed out, JF revealed some major errors on their part by considering the penalty during the guilt phase, etc. which does not show that they took the jury instructions and (correctly) applied them. IMO

I just do not think IMO that this jury considered their vacations etc and voted NG just to get out of there. We will have to respectfully agree to disagree.

 

[kelian36]

Let's see, the jurors took aprox. 10 hours for deliberation. 10 hours to discuss a murder trial...remember a child was murdered. (mo)
No jurors requested to review ANYTHING.

Those jurors were ready to go home.
July 4th week, summer in full swing, vacations planned, a coach getting ready for summer practice....................sad sad commentary on jurors and how they handle a trial. mo

 

[EPfan]

i think she was very obviously involved. i just don't know to what extent. if i were on the jury, i would just not feel comfortable making that leap to a guilty verdict without more information. this is a controversial statement and i am not interested in arguing it, just simply answering your question.

i have said this before, but here it is again. i think this is the exact moment in time that the DT sealed the deal:

I agree with you. But for me, after the prosecution rested, I felt empty because I just saw a theory that wasn't proven. I don't think they focused on the chloroform or duck tape to tie it to KC, yet is was said to be the murder weapons. Even in closing arguments JA said he hoped the chloroform was used before the duck tape was applied. Well I could make this long but I won't. HOPED isn't a word you should use if you know. Respectfully, most posters here on the forum really strongly believe that the verdict was wrong but when you ask for the evidence it's the same ole same ole. Circumstantial and they just know. In the real world you have to prove it was murder, when charged with murder. The proof wasn't there in the prosecutions case and jurors knew that as soon as they were sent to deliberations. I remember thinking I just can't see a guilty verdict here. When watching a trial like this you have to put yourself in the "Innocent until proven Guilty" mode. I applaud the jury for having the guts to do what they thought right even though they knew it wasn't going to be the favorite with the public.
I definitely think KC was there but I think it was some sort of accident and like a child she freaked and pretended it didn't happen. We won't ever know too many lies, and not just KC.

 

[Devon]

In my Opinion, If the jury acted cowardly and copped out - they could have simple voted her guilty of 1st degree murder and been CHEERED for their verdict by the public which had Casey pretty much convicted on emotions on day 31. I do not agree with your post that their NG verdict was them copping out and being cowardly. IMO, they took the jury instructions and applied them. Period.

I agree. I think the jury was extremely courageous in returning a verdict based NOT on emotions or their personal opinions of KC's character or behaviour, but on the LAW - the jury instructions, the evidence presented IN court and according to the standard of BARD.

I'm amazed at the number of posters who have taken the limited comments from 2 or 3 jurors as being representative of some sort of dereliction of duty by the entire jury. Those few who have given interviews were essentially just answering selected questions with a mixture of factual information (the process of their deliberations) together with some of their OWN opinions and feelings (which clearly, and quite rightly, did not influence their verdict decisions).

I can perfectly understand a juror feeling "sick to the stomach" at not being able to find a defendant guilty of any serious wrongdoing when the defendant has behaved in a truly despicable manner and when a sweet toddler's body was found skeletonised, scattered around a dank wooded area and chewed by animals. It's heart-wrenching, and I get the distinct impression (from those few juror comments) that they wished they could have found her guilty of something more, but the evidence just wasn't there for counts 1 - 3 (and I agree) and the state did not charge on anything else that might have been applicable to these particular circumstances.

They could not, should not, and DID not, use those feelings of disgust, anger or sadness to justify a verdict on any of the major charges when the evidence alone was inconclusive. JF's comment about 'connecting the dots' was absolutely right, IMO. She obviously understood the concept of connecting the dots but quite rightly said (not verbatim) that if there were just too many question marks about the evidence then they couldn't just fill in the blanks with speculation, accusations etc. and they clearly concluded (as I and many others have) that the state did not prove those charges BARD.

And yes, just in case anyone is wondering, I HAVE been following the case from the beginning, have been a member of this forum since October 2008 and have read (many times over) ALL the discovery. Even knowing ALL that I know about the case, I would have voted the same way as the jury did.

 

[suzihawk]

I agree. I think the jury was extremely courageous in returning a verdict based NOT on emotions or their personal opinions of KC's character or behaviour

You're absolutely correct. The jury did not base their verdict on KC's character or behavior, which they should have. Instead, they based it on the emotional 'testimony' of the defense opening statement and on GA's character and behavior.

MOO