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.

~n/t~

New Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Messages
17,672
Reaction score
73
Not sure if this was posted by anyone else before but aren't some of you scratching your heads wondering how the court room jury watchers could not read this jury. The tweets I've read said the jury was NOT looking at Casey. I remember one tweet saying Juror #4 didn't take any notes during the pros case but tons of notes during the defense case. I recall one jury "expert" on Vinnie Politan's show (I believe it was the day before the verdict) who said 7 were pro prosecution, 2 neutral and 3 pro defense.

What the heck happened in that deliberation room? How can everyone have been so wrong?
 

Solange82200

New Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Besides the story from Jesse that was missing, why wouldn't it be? It was spelled out by the prosecution. Even without that, anyone with common sense could see it.

Unless of course you chose to forget all the testimony, and not bother to spend more than a couple hours looking at the transcripts and evidence. The motive was explained to them, if they doubted it, looking over the testimony and video and phone calls would have shown them that the prosecution was dead on. Laziness and stupidity should not be so easily forgiven
 

SarahEcho

New Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
412
Reaction score
0
Not sure if this was posted by anyone else before but aren't some of you scratching your heads wondering how the court room jury watchers could not read this jury. The tweets I've read said the jury was NOT looking at Casey. I remember one tweet saying Juror #4 didn't take any notes during the pros case but tons of notes during the defense case. I recall one jury "expert" on Vinnie Politan's show (I believe it was the day before the verdict) who said 7 were pro prosecution, 2 neutral and 3 pro defense.

What the heck happened in that deliberation room? How can everyone have been so wrong?

That's a good point about the predictions. I think it may just be a matter of many knowing they were walking into a powder keg and it changed the equation a bit.

Given I wasn't part of the jury so I can't say for sure but for me, I had trouble keeping track of the defense at times with the turnstile witness stand. Up, down, up, down, up down. I could see myself needing to take notes without the power to rewind.

Experts aren't always right though, the main reason they disagree so often.
 

SarahEcho

New Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
412
Reaction score
0
The motive was weak? I thought it was crystal clear, especially considering the Susan Smith case which had the same motive and she was found guilty. I mean, that jail call home spelled it out even more, how many times did Casey say "I just want Tony's number!".

What a coincidence that the day Caylee died is the day she had plans to spend the night with Tony, but told her mom Caylee would be with the nanny. Hearing the fact that she was willing to let her child sleep in the bed with her boyfriend (Ricardo) at the time shows she is willing to do just about anything to spend time with men. She wanted to be with a man, that is all she ever wanted and Caylee got in the way. I dont see how it could be any more obvious.

Not that the dumb jury would have even put it together, but I wish they had heard when Jesse told the cops how Casey changes who she is based on the guy she is with. That she is a chameleon. He said when she was with him, she became ms innocent church girl. With another boyfriend she died her hair or did something else he said. With Tony, she wanted to be party girl / party every night while Tony was dj-ing. This woman got every ounce of her self worth from having a boyfriend. She changed her entire persona just to adapt to whatever boyfriend she had, she was nothing without a man at her side. It is crystal clear and very typical of these kind of women. Its not too different from woman who let their boyfriends abuse and hit their child just so they dont lose the man. Casey just took it a step further. I dont see how it could get any more obvious.

It still isn't sufficient proof of murder and much of it is hearsay.
 

SMK

New Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
7,952
Reaction score
28
Not sure if this was posted by anyone else before but aren't some of you scratching your heads wondering how the court room jury watchers could not read this jury. The tweets I've read said the jury was NOT looking at Casey. I remember one tweet saying Juror #4 didn't take any notes during the pros case but tons of notes during the defense case. I recall one jury "expert" on Vinnie Politan's show (I believe it was the day before the verdict) who said 7 were pro prosecution, 2 neutral and 3 pro defense.

What the heck happened in that deliberation room? How can everyone have been so wrong?
Well, this is the problem with predictions. I recall tweets saying that when Jose Baez or Cheney Mason spoke, the jury looked bored or sullen. When Jeff Ashton or Linda spoke, they would perk up and look interested. OK, what did these tweets amount to in the end? It obviously did NOT mean pro or con as they thought............
 

Solange82200

New Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
It still isn't sufficient proof of murder and much of it is hearsay.

Strawman argument. That was the MOTIVE. Remember there was other proof presented, did you follow the trial? I was specifically talking about the motive. And hearsay? No, it was testimony. Ricardo's testimony. Recorded phone calls, etc. Isn't that the reason we have people testify?
 

Solange82200

New Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Well, this is the problem with predictions. I recall tweets saying that when Jose Baez or Cheney Mason spoke, the jury looked bored or sullen. When Jeff Ashton or Linda spoke, they would perk up and look interested. OK, what did these tweets amount to in the end? It obviously did NOT mean pro or con as they thought............

Yeah, I remember Kathy Belich saying some jurors were smirking at Dr. Spitz. Unbelievable. I am still so angry, I dont even have words to explain.
 

Solange82200

New Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
Those of you who agree with the jury, where do you think Casey was planning to have Caylee that night? Remember, she told her mom she and Caylee would be gone, and Tony that she was going to be with him. WHERE DID SHE PLAN TO HAVE CAYLEE???????

Another thing that bothers me. Why do people argue things in Casey;s favor that even SHE didnt argue? You want to believe she had raw pork in her trunk when even she didnt say there was? You want to think Ricardo's testimony wasnt true when even Casey never denied it? It is not reasonable to argue points of innocence that even the defendant herself has never argued or refuted. That is what I would call unreasonable.
 

natsound

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
5,100
Reaction score
1,743
Not sure if this was posted by anyone else before but aren't some of you scratching your heads wondering how the court room jury watchers could not read this jury. The tweets I've read said the jury was NOT looking at Casey. I remember one tweet saying Juror #4 didn't take any notes during the pros case but tons of notes during the defense case. I recall one jury "expert" on Vinnie Politan's show (I believe it was the day before the verdict) who said 7 were pro prosecution, 2 neutral and 3 pro defense.

What the heck happened in that deliberation room? How can everyone have been so wrong?

That's why I'm sick and tired of all the "experts". They ALL got it wrong, except the defense experts who said she'll never be found guilty. I looked at them as jokes, but they got it right.
 

Solange82200

New Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
They got it right by accident. Did they say she wouldn't be convicted because the jury would be lazy and lacking of comprehension skills and ability to follow simple instructions? Unless they did, they were right by accident in my opinion.
 

Gracenote

We know that all things work together for good for
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
2,584
Reaction score
35
Ok...someone set me straight. Because I think now I am beyond all reasonable sense..
To me, what this verdict means to me is in any future murder, unless there is a video tape of someone committing the murder, any defendant just walks into the courtroom and makes up any kind of defense they want. And is ludicrous as it is, and no evidence for it...they just walk free..because, hey aliens could have done it...I am at a loss.

I will tell you one thing. I actually had a jury summons for July 6th that I exempted out of because of young children at home..I think it is a very good thing, for whomever it may have been ,I was not a juror..Not saying I would be vindictive. But this has really done a number regarding rationale within the system.. mooooooo

Yes. I can commit a crime then tell the jury that Jstc4caylee abused me, colluded with me, aided and abetted and offer no evidence at all and I can be acquitted. And your life is ruined. Woopie, lets go rob a store and blame it on someone else. I need a new tv.

When I worked in the court system, one had to have evidence of what they said in court and a lawyer had to be truthful and not suborn perjury. I was wrong.
 

com n sense

She yells from the corners, but few seem to hear h
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Messages
511
Reaction score
0
They jury loved Baez. You could hear them all say Good day to Baez but I never heard a peep out of them when the state said good day to them.
It was on the bottom of the tv screen on HLN that 10 jurors voted first degree & 2 voted NG. How on earth did 2 sway 10 that had the truth?
 

natsound

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
5,100
Reaction score
1,743
Just thought I'd post this regarding Double Jeopardy, from legalmatch.com.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/double-jeopardy-lawyers.html

What Is Double Jeopardy?

The Double Jeopardy clause guarantee's that a person will not be tried twice for the same crime or offense in the same jurisdiction. Double jeopardy occurs if someone is charged with a crime and found innocent, and then charged with the same crime a second time.

Double Jeopardy Protects against Three Different Types of Abuses

■A second prosecution for the same offense after conviction
■A second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal
■Multiple punishments for the same offense
Exceptions to the Double Jeopardy Clause

■An individual can be tried twice based on the same facts as long as the elements of each crime are different.
■Different jurisdictions can charge the same individual with the same crime based on the same facts without violating double jeopardy. For example, the federal and state governments can try the same defendant for the same conduct as long as some aspect of the defendant¿s conduct violated both a federal and a state law.
■Double jeopardy prohibits only more than one criminal prosecution based on the same facts and same crime. Thus, even after a defendant is acquitted criminally, a civil suit may still be brought.
Examples
If a defendant is tried for a burglary that allegedly occurred at 1234 Green Street on January 1, 2000 and is acquitted, the defendant cannot be tried a second time for the burglary of that same house on the same date.

If the defendant is tried and acquitted for allegedly selling cocaine at 1234 Green Street on January 1, 2000 to Bill, that same defendant can still be tried for allegedly selling cocaine at 1234 Green Street on January 1, 2000 to John. Each time the cocaine is sold is a separate act and a separate offense, and each can be tried without violating the double jeopardy clause.
 

Dcstew

New Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2010
Messages
118
Reaction score
0
I believe juror # 3's statement to GMA this morning proves they got it wrong....

Casey Anthony juror Jennifer Ford believes that prosecutors could have won a guilty verdict if they had brought a lesser charge than first degree murder, which carried the possibility of the death penalty, for the death of 2-year-old Caylee Anthony.

"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."

What!! If they charged her with lesser things we probably would of gotten a guilty verdict!! So they didn't know about the lesser charges? Plus, their concern was the death penalty. Were they not instructed to not consider the punishment? They got it all wrong?

JA response to Juror #3 comments...
Speaking to CNN, Ashton said the jury "shouldn't have been even considering punishment during the guilt phase."

Ashton said the jury was instructed that sentencing was not part of what they should consider.

"If they did it based on the penalty then they didn't follow the law," he said.

I just can't believe they didn't take this trial seriously and take this time to follow the law!
 

dog.gone.cute

Kyron Horman - Missing Since 6-4-10
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
15,653
Reaction score
1,944
Not sure if this was posted by anyone else before but aren't some of you scratching your heads wondering how the court room jury watchers could not read this jury. The tweets I've read said the jury was NOT looking at Casey. I remember one tweet saying Juror #4 didn't take any notes during the pros case but tons of notes during the defense case. I recall one jury "expert" on Vinnie Politan's show (I believe it was the day before the verdict) who said 7 were pro prosecution, 2 neutral and 3 pro defense.

What the heck happened in that deliberation room? How can everyone have been so wrong?


BBM: Yep ... The "jury watchers" definitely got this group of

:loser::loser::loser::loser::loser::loser:

:loser::loser::loser::loser::loser::loser:

WRONG !
 

1Chump

New Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
798
Reaction score
7
Some of the top legal minds in this country disagree with your opinion.

And for what it is worth many do not.

Just thought I'd post this regarding Double Jeopardy, from legalmatch.com.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/double-jeopardy-lawyers.html

What Is Double Jeopardy?

The Double Jeopardy clause guarantee's that a person will not be tried twice for the same crime or offense in the same jurisdiction. Double jeopardy occurs if someone is charged with a crime and found innocent, and then charged with the same crime a second time.

Double Jeopardy Protects against Three Different Types of Abuses

■A second prosecution for the same offense after conviction
■A second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal
■Multiple punishments for the same offense
Exceptions to the Double Jeopardy Clause

■An individual can be tried twice based on the same facts as long as the elements of each crime are different.
■Different jurisdictions can charge the same individual with the same crime based on the same facts without violating double jeopardy. For example, the federal and state governments can try the same defendant for the same conduct as long as some aspect of the defendant¿s conduct violated both a federal and a state law.
■Double jeopardy prohibits only more than one criminal prosecution based on the same facts and same crime. Thus, even after a defendant is acquitted criminally, a civil suit may still be brought.
Examples
If a defendant is tried for a burglary that allegedly occurred at 1234 Green Street on January 1, 2000 and is acquitted, the defendant cannot be tried a second time for the burglary of that same house on the same date.

If the defendant is tried and acquitted for allegedly selling cocaine at 1234 Green Street on January 1, 2000 to Bill, that same defendant can still be tried for allegedly selling cocaine at 1234 Green Street on January 1, 2000 to John. Each time the cocaine is sold is a separate act and a separate offense, and each can be tried without violating the double jeopardy clause.

You may want to ask this in the legal thread. This is specific to double jeopardy only.

It does not take into account other "laws" and/or "constitional rights that may be applicable to the legality of this.
 

IWillDare

New Member
Joined
May 24, 2011
Messages
88
Reaction score
0
The motive was weak? I thought it was crystal clear, especially considering the Susan Smith case which had the same motive and she was found guilty. I mean, that jail call home spelled it out even more, how many times did Casey say "I just want Tony's number!".

What a coincidence that the day Caylee died is the day she had plans to spend the night with Tony, but told her mom Caylee would be with the nanny. Hearing the fact that she was willing to let her child sleep in the bed with her boyfriend (Ricardo) at the time shows she is willing to do just about anything to spend time with men. She wanted to be with a man, that is all she ever wanted and Caylee got in the way. I dont see how it could be any more obvious.

Not that the dumb jury would have even put it together, but I wish they had heard when Jesse told the cops how Casey changes who she is based on the guy she is with. That she is a chameleon. He said when she was with him, she became ms innocent church girl. With another boyfriend she died her hair or did something else he said. With Tony, she wanted to be party girl / party every night while Tony was dj-ing. This woman got every ounce of her self worth from having a boyfriend. She changed her entire persona just to adapt to whatever boyfriend she had, she was nothing without a man at her side. It is crystal clear and very typical of these kind of women. Its not too different from woman who let their boyfriends abuse and hit their child just so they dont lose the man. Casey just took it a step further. I dont see how it could get any more obvious.

BBM

"Chameleon" has four syllables. That might have made those jurors' heads explode.
 

MyTinkieGirl

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2008
Messages
1,617
Reaction score
805
I am going to go back and re-listen to Judge Perry read the "jury" their "instructions".

From what I remember, I think Judge Perry's instructions were very clear ... and if the jury did not understand them, they knew darn good and well the Judge would have come in and explained those instructions to them ... Judge Perry "bent over backwards" -- and then some -- to accommodate these "unappreciative" jurors.


Below are the links I found.


YouTube - ‪Casey Anthony: Murder Trial - Part 7 - 7/4/11 (Jury Instructions)‬‏


YouTube - ‪Casey Anthony: Murder Trial - Part 8 - 7/4/11 (Jury released to deliberate 12:09 PM EDT)‬‏


I guess it comes out sounding like people...myself.... are mad at the jurors for what they decided...I suppose it's what's coming out about "HOW" they decided and "WHY", that is causing an uproar and leading to questions about their methods.
If you THINK you're doing something right, you're not gonna ask questions....the only way you figure out you got it wrong, is when it's done, then do it the right way. AND, in this case, there's no "do overs". The jurors were obviously interested in the OUTCOME, as opposed to the correct way they were "supposed" to arrive at that decision they were ONLY deliberating.

Humor me....

Case in point....often times, when I buy something that needs to be put together, instead of reading and following all the "confusing" and "long winded" directions, going Step 1, 2,
2a, 2b...."blah, blah, blah" ....I "think" I can just look at the "picture/diagram" and see where the arrows point and "git 'er done"....LOL
BUT...come to find out...the picture doesn't show that the screws, bolts, etc. are "color coded" and NOT interchangable - even though they "kinda" fit in the hole. AND....the REAL, supposed "confusing", directions would have told me that the screws with the end painted blue, needed to go here, instead of THERE, because then, the bolts coded red would FIT properly.
AND...another thing.....you can't put the middle shelf in before the top one...LOL

Sooo....this is why "I" am questioning the deliberations/decisions.

CM's diagram in his closing, "over simplified" the process, like the "picture" I used the FIRST time to build my bookshelves - I BELIEVED I totally had it right from the diagram, and didn't HAVE to go thru or pay attention to the instructions, because they weren't gonna tell me anything much different - except CM's picture didn't even tell me that there were "other" considerations and options which were needed to make a correct decision, he "forgot" to include them , AND his diagram/picture had the jury considering points they didn't NEED or weren't SUPPOSED to be a factor in their deliberating.

And, here comes in the "picture" instead of "directions"....JBP gave the jury the "directions" correctly AND understandably, as were to be followed by law, to come to the legally CORRECT decision...BUT, IMO, it might have been far easier for the jurors to look at the "picture/diagram" introduced by CM, and "git 'er done", as opposed to doing it the RIGHT way, the way it "should" have been done, had they taken the time to do so.....and learn about those "color coded" screws and bolts that were explained in the directions.

Unlike my book shelf I took apart and followed the "directions" and got it done the right way....we're done with this case...and, even though MAYBE the wrong decision was made by taking the "simple" route and by paying attention to only the pictures....this can NOT be undone, nor taken apart and done the RIGHT way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top