2011.07.08 - Dateline NBC

[wildchild1961]

That's precisely the point. If the SAO had been able to show "crumbs", we wouldn't be having this debate. There weren't crumbs. I understand circumstantial evidence and the context in which it is to be utilized and considered in a criminal court proceeding, and I would not have convicted either. The more I examine the verdict and the aftermath, I'm amazed she was charged with Murder 1. I think the charges had more to do with ego on the part of the prosecutor than any supposed "outrage" over ICAs acts. The fact that the next day JA was all over the media supports that notion. After such a heart wrenching loss and stunning outcome, you'd think the last thing he'd do is a press junket.

Actually... if I had to spend 3 years being silent while a buffoon I had no respect for told all sorts of wild stories and lies to the media about what was taking place. I would have been the first to have my say in the media once the restraints were gone. I believe its referred to as "repressed anger".

pat

 

[Boytwnmom]

from, I think, juror 2, that the 6 NG jurors stated there was no way they would convict her of anything ever? I thought I read that. If so, I find that highly improper. It's fine if they went into deliberations believing she was NG but the point of deliberations is to share all the views of each juror. This sounds like some forceful personalities, like maybe the forman, the gym teacher, basically coerced the others to abandon their positions without allowing discussion becasuse it was irrelevant what the others thought as they made it clear they would never change their minds regardless of what arguments were advanced. From that, I can imagine the potential animosity brewing if the Guilty jurors insisted on being heard and going over the evidence, instructions etc as that would keep them there longer and it wouldn't ever change as the NG's would never budge no longer how long they deliberated.

What I don't get is why those who voted G didn't insist or stick to their guns and hang the jury. Was it the sequestration that bonded them more than the usual 12 strangers that sit on a jury. Was there more need to please, to go along with the popular or dominant ones? Did the NG's insist that it would keep them there for weeks if the G's insisted on not changing and possibly becoming a hung jury as they knew the judge could keep them there deliberating for a very long time becasue so much time and money had been spent on the trial and thus they would be kept there even longer if the G's insisted and wouldn't it be better to just get it over with and go along?

I was on several juries before I went to law school and that was certainly not how it worked. I was in my early 20's and we had to serve for a term of the court. I had January which was a 5 week term so I was on several cases. I was the foreman in a couple of cases, relatively minor, DUI, assault etc and I know that I, as did all the other foreman I served with, made everyone fully and completely express their opinions and conclusions regarding the evidence and what they thought of it in relation ot the charges and jury instructions and I know this often affected the outcome as there's always things others haven't thought of or considered or understood and it also served to correct people who had gotten it wrong and needed to have certian things explained better. I feel like we spent much more time, relative to the nature and complexity of the case and evidence, deliberating than these jurors did by any stretch of the imagination. I have seldom, maybe never, been so disappointed by my fellow citizens.

I think they deliberated less than 7 hours because some of the jurors were dressed up, when they had been dressing casually during the trial, as if they expected to finish up that day. By the time they settled in, finished up on the paperwork, then sat and talked about how they would handle the media after being released (and we just know they did) it probably was close to lunch. They finished lunch and there you have it. Having served on a jury I'm guessing they spent a total of 3 hours tops. Nothing wrong with this if they all agreed on the evidence. If some of the juror's had questions and were admonished for speaking up about those questions then there was a real problem. We already know there was a heated debate about the voting and the silence of the other jurors makes you wonder what really happened here. jmo

 

[Lovejac]

O/T kind of.

Is anyone else getting that stupid link posted on their FB. It states that a videotape of casey confessing to murder has been leaked.

Don't bother, it's a scam.

 

[LyndyLoo]

And yet from what the 3 jurors have said publicly, they all liked Baez a lot. They liked his 'style.' And they thought the state team was not nice enough to them.

And they thought she was SINCERE and probably told the truth about the pool accident. And they totally rejected all of the states evidence and witness testimony as unproven, YET two of them said they believed George was there and involved and one said he took the possible sexual abuse into account.

They basically listened to Baez's opening fairy tale, accepted it hook, line and sinker, then zoned out and enjoyed their little vacation until it was time to checkout.

There is something really really wrong there..I have never ever heard it before that any jury found an obvious guilty party INNOCENT because they didnt like the prosecution...That to me "Yells" that this jury did NOT reach any decision based on evidence..but Likes or dislikes.!!!!!.Yikes!! You guys better do a better job when vetting any new jurors in the future..

I blame some of this on the RUSH to "Strike" a jury..and Swarmy JB appeared so kissy kissy..sweet (wanted to puke) and the only combative DT was CM and hello!! all those guys ended up OFF the jury panel..LOL...

Can you imagine if no DP on the table..Trial would have been sooner, no such DP vetting needed..and yowza..There very well could have been a guilty verdict..at least enough to put KC there for decades to come!!!

 

[jon_burrows]

I think she did testify and that's another thing that ticks me off about the whole thing. She sat staring straight at the jury and with every witness she'd shake her head to indicate they were 'lying', she'd mouth words pretty easy to lip-read, if the testimony was sympathetic towards her she'd attempt to cry as if she agreed with it. She testified the whole time without having to be cross-examined. JMO

ITA. I blame it on JBP. He knew the DT was playing every dirty trick in the book. He saw her shaking her head and mouthing words for the jury's benefit. He did nothing. He should have called a side bar that included her and told her that if she had something to say, say it under oath on the witness stand.

He threw the middle finger guy in jail. Also the guy who asked a reporter how to get out of jury duty. The most important person to the case and he lets her do whatever she wants. I couldn't believe my eyes when she was helping 'her boys' with the computer cables. Hmmm wonder if they would allow a 6'4' body builder charged with 1st degree murder to handle a potential weapon.

So basically ICA's act worked on juror #Einstein. Good job JBP NOT.

IMO

 

[Nefriahaia]

Can you imagine if no DP on the table..Trial would have been sooner, no such DP vetting needed..and yowza..Ther very well could have been a guilty verdict..at least enough to put KC there for decades tpo come!!!

I've been thinking maybe prison was just gonna be to comfortable for her. Everything happens for a reason...maybe we just don't know what that reason is yet.

 

[LambChop]

That's precisely the point. If the SAO had been able to show "crumbs", we wouldn't be having this debate. There weren't crumbs. I understand circumstantial evidence and the context in which it is to be utilized and considered in a criminal court proceeding, and I would not have convicted either. The more I examine the verdict and the aftermath, I'm amazed she was charged with Murder 1. I think the charges had more to do with ego on the part of the prosecutor than any supposed "outrage" over ICAs acts. The fact that the next day JA was all over the media supports that notion. After such a heart wrenching loss and stunning outcome, you'd think the last thing he'd do is a press junket.

JA is no longer a prosecutor for Orange County. He planned on retiring after this trial. I would think he has a right to do whatever he wishes to do now as he no longer works for the State of Florida. He's been handling cases like this for 30 something years. We all have to remember SA did not ask for this case, it was assigned to them. They got no pleasure out of doing it, it's their job. They never were on GMA, Today Show, LKL or any of those shows like defense during the time KC was in jail awaiting trial shouting she's guilty. Someone has to be the gatekeeper and we are the one's who support these people with our taxes. They still deserve our respect.

As for the Murder 1 charge. I believe that was because of the duct tape. But then maybe the crumbs were under the duct tape but we'll never know will we? jmo

 

[Angelonline]

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.

I did not watch any pretrial, during trial or post trial media. In fact I rarely watch TV. But I did read all the evidence, transcripts, depositions, etc and I came to the conclusion based on EVIDENCE that Casey Anthony was guilty. I hate hearing people blame everyones outrage on media coverage. I think the outrage is more over the jury not reviewing the evidence fully, because if they had it is hard to believe they would have reached the same verdict.

 

[Pollywog]

"why would casey kill her daughter when there wasn't any evidence of prior abuse... she was a loving mom."

i guess he missed the part about casey not having worked a day in caylee's life to support her, that she had left this parental task up to george and cindy. or the part about her kicking back with her bf the same day caylee "drowned". honestly, were these jurors plucked from the fire sale rack? good grief.

This is the first one I heard and realized he had no clue. He siad she had a built in babysitter in her parents so she could come and go as she pleased :banghead: the when the nursing student used the phrase or something similar " we said not guilty but that dose not mean she is innocent" I wanted to reach into the TV and just smack her!

IMO, the people did not have a clue about anything, did not understand what they were there for and obviously did not care enough to listen. I wish the same karma for them that I wish for the A's including ICA.

 

[LambChop]

And yet from what the 3 jurors have said publicly, they all liked Baez a lot. They liked his 'style.' And they thought the state team was not nice enough to them. And they thought she was SINCERE and probably told the truth about the pool accident. And they totally rejected all of the states evidence and witness testimony as unproven, YET two of them said they believed George was there and involved and one said he took the possible sexual abuse into account.

They basically listened to Baez's opening fairy tale, accepted it hook, line and sinker, then zoned out and enjoyed their little vacation until it was time to checkout.

Your kidding, right? What were they expecting a set of Mickey Mouse ears and a free trip to Disney? Oh wait....wrong side. JMO

 

[animlzrule]

JA is no longer a prosecutor for Orange County. He planned on retiring after this trial. I would think he has a right to do whatever he wishes to do now as he no longer works for the State of Florida. He's been handling cases like this for 30 something years. We all have to remember SA did not ask for this case, it was assigned to them. They got no pleasure out of doing it, it's their job. They never were on GMA, Today Show, LKL or any of those shows like defense during the time KC was in jail awaiting trial shouting she's guilty. Someone has to be the gatekeeper and we are the one's who support these people with our taxes. They still deserve our respect.

As for the Murder 1 charge. I believe that was because of the duct tape. But then maybe the crumbs were under the duct tape but we'll never know will we? jmo

BBM. Never said anything about not respecting JA or the SAO. It's curious however, that if the jury's verdict was as surprising, egregious, and casual as so many on WS are claiming, JA would have had it in him to do a press junket. I think people like to believe that the prosecutors are super human crusaders and their passion and reason for living is to see that justice is served. In the end, it's a job and I suspect JA understands that to a large degree this was a performance and his performance was not as compelling as the other guys. I doubt he's losing a lot of sleep over it. He certainly doesn't purport that the jury lies at fault. There is an ugly, sausage making aspect to the legal profession and I don't think anybody directly associated with the trial was particularly shocked at how it all played out.

 

[okiedokietoo]

I am not just picking on the Jurors - when they come out in public and make statements, those statements are fair game, public record and open for debate:innocent:
I am, well at a loss of words by Jennifer Ford saying this:

"If they charged her with other things, we probably could have gotten a guilty verdict, absolutely," Ford said today on "Good Morning America." "But not for death, not for first-degree murder. That's a very substantial charge."

Did she/they not read past the first sentence on the first page?
And this re: Nancy Grace:

"I think a lot of things she says just fuel the fire," Ford said. "I'm against just making decisions on speculation and opinion."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anthony_trial/casey-anthony-juror-nancy-grace-verdict/story?id=14017505
By KATIE KINDELAN and CHRISTINA NG - July 7, 2011

Yes, they reached a verdict but I do not have to say that I think they went over the evidence, made the right decision, understood the jury instructions, took the case seriously nor that they came up with the correct verdict. My opinion about this defendant being guilty is not based on speculation and opinions. It's based on reading forensic evidence for days in order to get close to understanding it and listening to audio and reading for hours upon hours evidence that this Jury obviously didn't spend the time to go over.

So yes I think they talked - IMO this verdict was not a collective consciousness epiphany type event arrived at after a few hours of deliberation.

 

[Mulegirl]

well only two states in the country have a lower high school graduation rate than florida, an ugly statistic which casey has obviously contributed to. i guess scott had the bad luck of being tried in a state with a 68% high school grad rate compared to florida's 59% rate...

I've been trying to remember something about California higher ed. When I went to college there not that many years ago (as a returning adult) I took a critical thinking class. I'm kind of thinking it was a part of the Calif. core curriculum. At least I hope it is. This is making clear to me that, IMOO, it needs to now become part of the required high school curriculum. Ugh.

 

[katydid23]

BBM. Never said anything about not respecting JA or the SAO. It's curious however, that if the jury's verdict was as surprising, egregious, and casual as so many on WS are claiming, JA would have had it in him to do a press junket. I think people like to believe that the prosecutors are super human crusaders and their passion and reason for living is to see that justice is served. In the end, it's a job and I suspect JA understands that to a large degree this was a performance and his performance was not as compelling as the other guys. I doubt he's losing a lot of sleep over it. He certainly doesn't purport that the jury lies at fault. There is an ugly, sausage making aspect to the legal profession and I don't think anybody directly associated with the trial was particularly shocked at how it all played out.

Ashton is retiring after 30 years as a very successful and well respected attorney. I do not blame him for wanting to go public and answer a few questions. Lord knows the DT is all over the media. Why shoudn't he give his perspective as well?

 

[okiedokietoo]

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.

Hear what you are saying and understand your point - (not being combative) just want to say that my opinion of Casey's guilt is not based on pretrial publicity but based on the evidence. And, re: how casey acted - that is a part of this circumstantial case.

 

[animlzrule]

Ashton is retiring after 30 years as a very successful and well respected attorney. I do not blame him for wanting to go public and answer a few questions. Lord knows the DT is all over the media. Why shoudn't he give his perspective as well?

He has every right to go out and voice his opinion. My point is that he and the others involved in prosecuting the case are not screaming for the jurors heads on platters, fueling conspiracy theory rumors, or insinuating that these jurors are too naive, simple or lazy to process the jury instructions. It seems that those most directly involved in the case have a much better understanding of the machinations of the presentation of evidence and how verdicts are rendered than the general public including those on WS. If he and the other prosecutors are not outraged and clamoring for an investigation of the jury or possible misconduct, that should be a big clue to the rest of us.

 

[mrye4709]

Well, Baez told them in OS that they would be asked why they found her NG and he told them what to say. That there was no COD. I think they wrote that down and that's all they remembered. Watching HLN now, I just keep thinking it is gonna change and I know it isn't. I'm still just so upset with this.......

 

[kimmera]

One of the young male juror alternates said that he watched Casey and her body language, and " SHE SEEMED SINCERE." The biggest liar I have ever seen in my life and this guy says she seemed SINCERE.

RSBM~

This is simply disingenuous. IMO. The more I see and hear of these people, the more I think that something is...just not right. :twocents:

 

[jjenny]

Well, Baez told them in OS that they would be asked why they found her NG and he told them what to say. That there was no COD. I think they wrote that down and that's all they remembered. Watching HLN now, I just keep thinking it is gonna change and I know it isn't. I'm still just so upset with this.......

Yep. Exactly right. Baez told them what they are going to say as their reason for voting not guilty during his opening statement.

 

[back2back19]

He has every right to go out and voice his opinion. My point is that he and the others involved in prosecuting the case are not screaming for the jurors heads on platters, fueling conspiracy theory rumors, or insinuating that these jurors are too naive, simple or lazy to process the jury instructions. It seems that those most directly involved in the case have a much better understanding of the machinations of the presentation of evidence and how verdicts are rendered than the general public including those on WS. If he and the other prosecutors are not outraged and clamoring for an investigation of the jury or possible misconduct, that should be a big clue to the rest of us.

Of course JA understands the system better than most but that doesn't mean he isn't upset. I don't think him talking about respecting the system and the verdict means he isn't pissed off. Fact is that's the way life rolls. Even if he demanded an investigation, what would that do? Nothing. The verdict would still be the same and Casey would still be walking out next weekend. Personally, I think if anyone close to the presecution team was screaming to investigate the jury, etc, it would cause all kinds of nasty stuff to happen. The Anthony's are already getting death threats and odds are when Casey gets out, she'll get some too as will her lawyers. As much as I loathe the idea of her walking the streets, she shouldn't have to be afraid of someone coming out of a store to attack her, which I think JA is trying to prevent by saying he respects the verdict and people need to do the same. That people need to ignore her, that's the best way to punish her. I think he's trying to calm things down but that's just me. That's what I get from his interviews.