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.

csziggy

New Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2011
Messages
686
Reaction score
0
I would like to share with you this article that was written by a dear friend of mine....
I would like to see someone run with this on the change.org site and title it "Caylee's Class".....I am not one that is good with words, but am hoping someone here will help with this.....there is a petiton on there now for understanding the laws for a juror....I would like this one to instruct the public just how to be jurists......please share any thoughts ....http://www.thesouthernvoice.com/2011/07/08/caylee-anthony-proveswhat-jurists-should-know/


In this day and age to help the jury out, the clerk should be able to provide the witness list and evidence list daily so the jury members can then organize their notes and be sure they have the names and evidence designations right. The clerk is already keeping those lists so it should be a simple matter for them to print up a copy for each juror and alternate shortly after the end of the court day.
 

MEM2010

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
845
Reaction score
0
juror 6 identity released!

Doug_Winters Doug Winters
Juror #6 won't talk to the media after $$ demands; his name is Brian Berling -- http://bit.ly/owFJFj CaseyAnthony
 

Tennessean

New Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
64
Reaction score
0
the state never had to prove HOW. they only had to prove caylee was dead. which they did.

The state had to prove not only that Caylee was dead, they had to _prove_ that she was _murdered_. Being dead and being murdered are very different things.
 

February

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
928
Reaction score
6
Juror No.2, who the Times reported is a black male, married and a father of two young children, said he was the last holdout on the jury who wanted to convict Anthony on a lesser charge of aggravated manslaughter, which would have carried a prison term of up to 15 years, according to the newspaper

if you wanted to convict her for lesser charge then why did you change your mind Juror no 2? aggravated manslaughter is far different from Not guilty IMO
 

SMK

New Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2010
Messages
7,952
Reaction score
28
Juror No.2, who the Times reported is a black male, married and a father of two young children, said he was the last holdout on the jury who wanted to convict Anthony on a lesser charge of aggravated manslaughter, which would have carried a prison term of up to 15 years, according to the newspaper

if you wanted to convict her for lesser charge then why did you change your mind Juror no 2? aggravated manslaughter is far different from Not guilty IMO
Maybe he did not want to get into a deadlock. This is the problem: No verdict is ever really "unanimous" in the truest sense.
 

dvdman

New Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2011
Messages
156
Reaction score
0
As I've said many many times before this jury like many others misinterpreted or just didn't understand the LAW and because of that Casey Marie Anthony got away with murder. Let's NOT forget that in the defense's opening statement they put their client at the crime scene. Yet they NEVER presented ANY evidence that George Anthony was there. OMG how could they be so blind to miss things like that in addition to the 31 days, lies, partying, smell, more lies, videos, etc. It still burns inside of me so much just thinking about it.
 

kgeaux

New Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
7,598
Reaction score
18
Another thing? NO, ZERO, NADA hairs from live persons have EVER been shown to have the deathband. None. THAT should have screamed to them: dead body was in the car. Car was cleaned, obviously pretty thoroughly, but one single hair escaped...There was a hair with a death band and there was plenty of expert testimony that a death banded hair ONLY comes from a corpse. That one tiny hair places Caylee in the trunk, AND dead at the same time. It's not rocket science. But it IS science. And there is evidence out there in the scientific community that this means a dead body. Why was that just glazed over as if it did not exist?

The defense has long maintained that so-called death banding is not a reliable form of science.

They only needed one juror to believe them, or to be so confused by their arguments that the juror doesn't know what to believe.

George didn't molest anyone nor did LA. That was a very clever ploy invented by ICA to garner sympathy and steer people away from the fact that she murdered her daughter. It worked. Why anyone would believe anything a known pathological liar and master manipulator would say is beyond me. She was facing the DP and played the jury like fiddles. They will one day see that but it will be too late.

I don't know if anyone was molested, but there are statements by Jesse Grund that Casey told him when Caylee was a newborn that she did not want Lee around the baby because he'd groped her.



Ok I slept on it and changed my mind, I want their names released

It might be dangerous to do that, at least right away.

the state never had to prove HOW. they only had to prove caylee was dead. which they did.

I will with-hold my commentary on my OH-so-humble opinion of any person who cannot understand this simple fact.

The state did have to prove that she was dead due to being murdered. Not just that she was dead.
 

Solange82200

New Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
The state had to prove not only that Caylee was dead, they had to _prove_ that she was _murdered_. Being dead and being murdered are very different things.

Yes, but many of us think murder was proved. Dr. Garavalia seemed to agree. Unless you can point me to a case where a body was hidden and later found to have died by accident. Maybe its happened before, but I find it surprising since there is no logical reason to hide an accidental death.
 

yeknomaras

New Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2008
Messages
1,188
Reaction score
0
Juror No.2, who the Times reported is a black male, married and a father of two young children, said he was the last holdout on the jury who wanted to convict Anthony on a lesser charge of aggravated manslaughter, which would have carried a prison term of up to 15 years, according to the newspaper

if you wanted to convict her for lesser charge then why did you change your mind Juror no 2? aggravated manslaughter is far different from Not guilty IMO

THIS MAKES ME SO ANGRY!!!!! how do you allow someone to just change your mind like that? if he wanted to convict her he should have DONE IT.

grrrrrrrrr

poor Caylee! no wonder she'll never get justice!
 

February

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
928
Reaction score
6
Maybe he did not want to get into a deadlock. This is the problem: No verdict is ever really "unanimous" in the truest sense.

maybe ... or in this process, they'ved learned from casey how to lie too ?
 

Solange82200

New Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
The defense has long maintained that so-called death banding is not a reliable form of science.

They only needed one juror to believe them, or to be so confused by their arguments that the juror doesn't know what to believe.

When you have experts telling you that the death banding has only been seen from dead bodies, I think anyone with a brain could conclude that it was from a dead body (considering there was also the smell of a dead body, what a coinkidink!!!!!). Oh yeah, and the fact that the person the hair came from happened to be... dead! What a coinkidink!!!!!!!!!!!! Instead they chose to listen to "cant spell iron" Jose Baez?


It reminds me of the OJ jurors and their disgust at that newfangled "dna". Why would we trust stupid people to such an important job? Any other job on this earth you need a degree, or some proof of intelligence, but something this important we settle for 12 morons??? How does that make sense?
 

RTC

Active Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2004
Messages
187
Reaction score
48
I was shocked to know that it is legal within our system for a DT to make up phony allegations against innocent people with no follow up or evidence. It is as though it allows this corruption, yet the prosecution cant bring in negative factual evidence against the defendant because it might prejudice the jury. How can this be fair?
This is way the trial was lost, too many false seeds planted that created too much speculation, drama they led away from the truth.
 

Katana

Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2008
Messages
518
Reaction score
1
Juror No.2, who the Times reported is a black male, married and a father of two young children, said he was the last holdout on the jury who wanted to convict Anthony on a lesser charge of aggravated manslaughter, which would have carried a prison term of up to 15 years, according to the newspaper

if you wanted to convict her for lesser charge then why did you change your mind Juror no 2? aggravated manslaughter is far different from Not guilty IMO

I'm sure he felt he was in the minority. I'm not saying it was right for him to give in to the other jurors. He most definitely had a duty to make his own decision and let his voice be heard but, after listening to JF's account of deliberation, it sounded as if she belittled the idea of looking at the evidence because there just wasn't any. I wonder if these couple of jurors that wanted to convict felt bullied by the majority of the others.

I really want to hear from these couple of jurors that wanted to initially convict. I think it would give us a better idea of what went on in deliberations.
 

Puzzler

Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2008
Messages
418
Reaction score
9
Yes, but many of us think murder was proved. Dr. Garavalia seemed to agree. Unless you can point me to a case where a body was hidden and later found to have died by accident. Maybe its happened before, but I find it surprising since there is no logical reason to hide an accidental death.

I can actually see KC hiding an accidentally drowned Caylee, she would NOT want to face the wrath of Cindy and possible negligence charges. But no way can I see KC duct taping an accidentally drowned Caylee's mouth and nose. That baby was murdered, I have no doubt about it.
 

Ninsi

New Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
96
Reaction score
0
Posted this on the wrong thread the first time around....

You know, and this is my opinion only---a lot of THs and a lot of posters and a lot of comment writers are all asking the same question: How could this have happened....and a lot of it is just easy to eat the prosecution's case wasn't strong enough. Well, we here all know (and anyone else who watched the trial) --that it all boils down to one thing: The smarmy, backhanded LIES and sleazy tactics employed by the defense through out the 44 days of trial ACTUALLY worked on this jury. Why aren't there MSM reports on this? Why can't anyone admit what we all saw happen, actually happened???

MOO.
 

Solange82200

New Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
250
Reaction score
0
I can actually see KC hiding an accidentally drowned Caylee, she would NOT want to face the wrath of Cindy and possible negligence charges. But no way can I see KC duct taping an accidentally drowned Caylee's mouth and nose. That baby was murdered, I have no doubt about it.

Good point. The body hiding is a big red flag, but like you said not the only one. You have an expert telling you that no child needs duct tape on the face, experts testifying the duct tape would have been on the face, it just makes no sense to make the opposite illogical conclusion. I have never been so perplexed in my life at someone's thought process.

Also, all the drownings in Florida involving kids and almost never is there a negligence charge. George would have known that. If you want to accept that the death was an accident, like the jurors did, dont you have to accept the accident theory the defense is saying happened? It doesnt make sense to go with a different accident theory that sounds more reasonable to them (like the one you just gave), because the defendant isnt saying that happened. Like I said, it is unreasonable to make up excuses for the defendant that SHE HERSELF never made.

If the baby really drowned and Casey freaked out and hid the body, why did the defense not say so? Instead they said it happened and George hid the body and framed Casey for murder, and Kronk did horrible things with the skeleton. If it was as simple as just Casey freaking out, the defense would have said so. So I think it is unfair for the jury to believe it was an accident, but not believe it happened the way the defense said it did. That is what I call unreasonable and illogical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top