Did the jury get it wrong, or...

Did the jury get it wrong?

  • The jury got it wrong

    Votes: 1,051 81.9%
  • The state didn't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt

    Votes: 179 14.0%
  • The Defense provided reasonable doubt and the jury got it right

    Votes: 55 4.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 31 2.4%

  • Total voters
    1,283
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

logicalgirl

Peace Hawk
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
16,024
Reaction score
0
I was just reading the juror quotes thread (I haven't watched any of the interviews, as I don't see any need to), and noticed the female juror that is talking said, "we were sick, we weren't ready."

What did they think deliberations are for? That is time to make you ready to make a decision, not time to cut and run. I don't understand that at all, but it shows that they did not understand the evidence, experts, or didn't pay attention, and did not want to spend the time it was going to take to figure it out.

And definitely didn't want to go through another 2 or 3 weeks of penalty phase if they did find her guilty. I mean - imagine - having to spend a whole 6 weeks of their life trying to find justice for a child who was duct taped and thrown away like trash - that just appeared to be too much of personal sacrifice.
 

logicalgirl

Peace Hawk
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
16,024
Reaction score
0
I was really humbled tonight when I heard Ron Goldman's father state that he understood the verdict. He indicated how it differed from the factual and forensic evidence in his son's case against OJ. He seemed genuine in his support of the jury based on the difficulties with evidence in Casey's case.

I found that disturbing...if only because I am still guilty of wanting the jurors to feel guilty.

I found it disturbing because I "heard" that he no more paid attention to the evidence than a quick cursory glance and didn't seem to make the connection that both juries found the defendant "not guilty" - but just that his case is still the biggest injustice. Interesting that Marcia Clark does not agree with him.

I also think it's very sad that because of tweets, texts, news quick summaries, and every thing packaged for quick and superficial consumption these days because we are all so "busy" - that defense lawyers can now be confident they can win their case if they present what I call the "HLN" defense.

Make it quick, make it in sound bites, make it salacious - you'll be sure to be believed - don't expect people to engage in discussion or use their own intelligence to come to their own conclusions - just pump it out and spoon feed! Get it over quick because after all - information about JayLo and her marriage split awaits!

Defense lawyers rejoice!
 

Sustained

Justice for Stacy
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
2,368
Reaction score
3,523
I suspect that each and every one of those jurors thought about Caylee, but were asked to make a verdict based on evidence, not their emotional feelings towards Caylee. I highly doubt she was an afterthought, but like all of these discussions about the jury, none of us really know for sure. Our thoughts about what happened with the jury, at this point anyway, are purely conjecture and projection. JMOO.
Unless they open their mouths and tell us things like "we didn't like it when the State didn't say good morning" or "we didn't consider the 31 days after Caylee died as relevant" or "it could've been an accident" even though 100% of the world calls 911 and doesn't make an accident look like murder.
 

cluciano63

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
41,200
Reaction score
27,185
I found it disturbing because I "heard" that he no more paid attention to the evidence than a quick cursory glance and didn't seem to make the connection that both juries found the defendant "not guilty" - but just that his case is still the biggest injustice. Interesting that Marcia Clark does not agree with him.

I also think it's very sad that because of tweets, texts, news quick summaries, and every thing packaged for quick and superficial consumption these days because we are all so "busy" - that defense lawyers can now be confident they can win their case if they present what I call the "HLN" defense.

Make it quick, make it in sound bites, make it salacious - you'll be sure to be believed - don't expect people to engage in discussion or use their own intelligence to come to their own conclusions - just pump it out and spoon feed! Get it over quick because after all - information about JayLo and her marriage split awaits!

Defense lawyers rejoice!

Although in this case, about 90% of the opinions I heard from TV were that Casey was guilty and that she would be convicted. TV did not help the defense in this case, IMO.
 

natsound

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
5,100
Reaction score
1,743
I had a friend post on my FB page the day before the verdict, saying "I think she'll be acquitted". I thought there was no way that was possible. I argued with him. He said he didn't think the state had proved its case. He looked at it through a completely different lens than I did, but he was right about the outcome.

I do think the state proved their case, however.
 

raysgirl1126

Hampton Roads, Virginia
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
818
Reaction score
1,963
I had a friend post on my FB page the day before the verdict, saying "I think she'll be acquitted". I thought there was no way that was possible. I argued with him. He said he didn't think the state had proved its case. He looked at it through a completely different lens than I did, but he was right about the outcome.

I do think the state proved their case, however.

I said the same thing a couple days before the verdict on my FB page. I was attacked by all my friends, but turns out she was acquitted. I didn't think the state did a very good job proving the case and thats still my opinion.
 

raysgirl1126

Hampton Roads, Virginia
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
818
Reaction score
1,963
Some of the older people on the jury sure could have been hoodwinked if they told the truth and hadn't been following the case. My elderly mother (still in her right mind) hadn't followed the case at all until she started watching the trial. She thinks Casey is innocent, that George is covering for someone, that Cindy did it, and that Jose is in love with Casey. LOL.

I have to say I could almost agree with your mom!! And I've followed the case since day 31!!
 

gladiatorqueen

New Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2011
Messages
254
Reaction score
2
Unless they open their mouths and tell us things like "we didn't like it when the State didn't say good morning" or "we didn't consider the 31 days after Caylee died as relevant" or "it could've been an accident" even though 100% of the world calls 911 and doesn't make an accident look like murder.

I take this to mean that you have never been interviewed? I have, and on a very controversial issue. Apart from a radio interview that was live, in every interview I gave to the media, I was misquoted and my words were generally taken out of context. And on top of that, many of the facts surrounding the issue were wrong!

Just because she said they didn't like it when the State didn't say good morning doesn't mean the jury decided someone's fate based on it. She was answering an interviewer's questions! And the tv station is in control of the editing. It is one of the reason's I never chose to do a tv interview on the issue I had to deal with. I don't expect this juror or the jury foreman has had any experience dealing with the media--it's very hard to control how your words will be contextualized without having lots of advice or practice. IMOO.
 

gladiatorqueen

New Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2011
Messages
254
Reaction score
2
It continues to bother me more and more that NOT ONE JUROR STOOD UP FOR CAYLEE!! I think she was an afterthought in that jury room. Makes me sick everytime I hear anything about "the jurors"!! I want to scream "WHAT ABOUT CAYLEEEE???"

It is very erroneous to think that the jury's job is to stand up for Caylee. It is their job to interpret the evidence presented and come up with a verdict. As cold as that sounds, it is what is expected of them.
 

Sustained

Justice for Stacy
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
2,368
Reaction score
3,523
I take this to mean that you have never been interviewed? I have, and on a very controversial issue. Apart from a radio interview that was live, in every interview I gave to the media, I was misquoted and my words were generally taken out of context. And on top of that, many of the facts surrounding the issue were wrong!

Just because she said they didn't like it when the State didn't say good morning doesn't mean the jury decided someone's fate based on it. She was answering an interviewer's questions! And the tv station is in control of the editing. It is one of the reason's I never chose to do a tv interview on the issue I had to deal with. I don't expect this juror or the jury foreman has had any experience dealing with the media--it's very hard to control how your words will be contextualized without having lots of advice or practice. IMOO.

I actually have been interviewed and was not misquoted. The interviews with the jurors that I'm referring to were all videotaped. Are you saying the audio on these videotapes was doctored ?
 

gxm

Active Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
3,392
Reaction score
23
Edited, yes.

Please clarify. There's a difference between doctoring and editing. Are you saying the tapes were falsified? Or are you saying the tapes were edited (as is much of the material for publication or broadcast)?
 

gxm

Active Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
3,392
Reaction score
23
It is very erroneous to think that the jury's job is to stand up for Caylee. It is their job to interpret the evidence presented and come up with a verdict. As cold as that sounds, it is what is expected of them.

I don't know that I agree with that. It is the job of the entire justice system, of which juries are a part, to make sure that criminals are convicted and innocent people are not. Otherwise the masses will get restless and start taking matters into their own hands. Nobody wants that. As it appears that even the jury (or at least the ones talking) think KC was guilty then they did not do their job. Trying to blame it on the prosecution and/or the jury instructions, as I've read in the media and in other comments, is just excuse making for folks who let a killer go free. JMO, MOO, OMO, etc. etc.
 

gladiatorqueen

New Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2011
Messages
254
Reaction score
2
I don't know that I agree with that. It is the job of the entire justice system, of which juries are a part, to make sure that criminals are convicted and innocent people are not. Otherwise the masses will get restless and start taking matters into their own hands. Nobody wants that. As it appears that even the jury (or at least the ones talking) think KC was guilty then they did not do their job. Trying to blame it on the prosecution and/or the jury instructions, as I've read in the media and in other comments, is just excuse making for folks who let a killer go free. JMO, MOO, OMO, etc. etc.

I see. So we should convict people because we feel like they are the killer even if the evidence doesn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? And because we want "somebody" to pay and bring justice to the victim? Okey dokey then.
 

Solange82200

New Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
I see. So we should convict people because we feel like they are the killer even if the evidence doesn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? And because we want "somebody" to pay and bring justice to the victim? Okey dokey then.

Sigh.. I dont think anyone thinks that Gladiator. What they do think is that when a child is murdered and there is a ton of evidence pointing to the defendant, the jury should at least look over all the evidence and testimony and make one hundred percent sure they are giving the right verdict based on the evidence. I know you think they did, and you know we think they didn't. Obviously that is why some feel they failed Caylee, is because the evidence was there, and not only did they not convict, but they didnt take the time to look at the evidence or ask questions the way we feel they should have. I know you dont agree with that, but it's unfair to say that we want people convicted just because "somebody" has to pay.
 

gxm

Active Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
3,392
Reaction score
23
I see. So we should convict people because we feel like they are the killer even if the evidence doesn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? And because we want "somebody" to pay and bring justice to the victim? Okey dokey then.

Bolding by me. Those are your words, not mine.

IMO, folks who say there wasn't enough evidence to convict KC are folks who are basing their opinion on "feelings" and not facts.
 

Mosby

New Member
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
452
Reaction score
0
Here is Judge H. Lee Sarokin's opinion on this topic. I agree with all he said.

SNIP

"The fact that Casey Anthony was the last person to have custody of her daughter, failed to report her missing (or dead) for 31 days, consistently lied once confronted, and the child was found dead and hidden, and she failed to tell what actually happened despite repeated opportunities to do so to her family, friends or law enforcement, (even when faced with the death penalty) was sufficient to find her guilty -- not necessarily of premeditated murder, but certainly all lesser charges. The duct tape and other forensic evidence provided additional, but not necessary, evidence."

The full text of his informative article can be found at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/casey-anthony-jury_b_898550.html

I totally agree. Loved this article. My stand will always be that this jury either chose not do or was too incompetent to do their job. Take your pick. Worst jury ever.
 

cluciano63

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
41,200
Reaction score
27,185
I totally agree. Loved this article. My stand will always be that this jury either chose not do or was too incompetent to do their job. Take your pick. Worst jury ever.

Everyone always loves an article that agrees with their opinion. There is something out there for everyone, IMO.
 

gladiatorqueen

New Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2011
Messages
254
Reaction score
2
Bolding by me. Those are your words, not mine.

IMO, folks who say there wasn't enough evidence to convict KC are folks who are basing their opinion on "feelings" and not facts.

Could you please outline specifically what "feelings" I am basing my opinion on? And please, don't go over the "evidence" as a way to support your findings. I know where my doubts lie with respect to the evidence and it's not based on feelings.

Thank you in advance!
 

gxm

Active Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
3,392
Reaction score
23
Could you please outline specifically what "feelings" I am basing my opinion on? And please, don't go over the "evidence" as a way to support your findings. I know where my doubts lie with respect to the evidence and it's not based on feelings.

Thank you in advance!

My choice of wording came directly from you (see bold type below) that's why I put the word in quotes. One can only suppose that your position is that we should disregard evidence because "we feel like they are [not] the killer."

I see. So we should convict people because we feel like they are the killer even if the evidence doesn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt? And because we want "somebody" to pay and bring justice to the victim? Okey dokey then.


And, please feel free to clarify your earlier comment on doctoring vs. editing. Were you claiming that the tapes had been falsified or are you merely stating the obvious, that they were edited for broadcast?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top