Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[magnolia]

Juror 3 is on Greta, she makes a lot of sense. i dont blame her fro trying to get out there and explain the verdict with all this backlash..although she doesnt have to. If shes getting paid..good for her..

I think their explanations would have been better accepted had they given a press conference on verdict day. I have watched a couple of #3's interviews. I won't go into detail, but IMO, she did not follow the law.

 

[Lovejac]

i dont know what she said before, this is the first Ive seen her interviewed. Shes making sense tonight. Described how KC behavior was very disturbing, they discussed it, it did NOT prove how or when Caylee died. She clarified that its not that the jury thinks KC is innocent, they took the job seriously and did NOT think they could convict when they dont even know for sure what the murder weapon was..was it chloroform or was it duct tape?? Or was it an accident.KC is the one who knows and obviously she aint tellin.
Again...no conspiracy ..so what of they get paid for their troubles, time and interviews..thats how it works in the USA.. NOT innocent, just NOT PROVEN beyond reasonable doubt.

and AGAIN I will say, the jury instruction clearly stated the State did NOT have to prove how she died!! Not only did the judge tell that to the jurors they also had the jury instructions in the deliberation room with them.
Maybe they couldn't see them because they were hidden under the MEDIA INFO!!

 

[french75]

I think their explanations would have been better accepted had they given a press conference on verdict day. I have watched a couple of #3's interviews. I won't go into detail, but IMO, she did not follow the law.

It probably would have but I don't think they're obligated to do so. I served on a jury where we were sick over the not guilty verdict and all I wanted to do was get the hell out of there when it was over. That wasn't a high profile case at all but it was still a murder trial.

 

[nomoresorrow]

I think their explanations would have been better accepted had they given a press conference on verdict day. I have watched a couple of #3's interviews. I won't go into detail, but IMO, she did not follow the law.

I agree.

http://ujsjurors.sd.gov/room.html

WHEN IN DOUBT CONCERNING ANY ASPECT OF A CASE, A JUROR SHOULD ASK THE JUDGE. Jurors must not talk about the case to other members of the jury, lawyers or parties involved, or with any other person until the trial is over and a decision is reached.

The members of a jury are sworn to pass judgment on the facts of a particular case. They have no concern beyond that. THEY VIOLATE THEIR OATH IF THEY MAKE THEIR DECISION ON THE BASIS OF THE EFFECT THEIR VERDICT MAY HAVE ON ANY OTHER SITUATION.

ETA: The ^above^ text is the actual text, including caps, posted on that website.

 

[3doglady]

I posted this in the Did the Jury talk thread but I think this article fits better here. I apologize if this has already be posted but I think it's a very interesting article by Marcia Clark about the jury.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...red-jury-fell-prey-to-idiotic-groupthink.html

Interesting article but I find it hard to believe Jennifer Ford a was a leader. If the others saw her as a leader, they had big problems before they were put on this jury. Jennifer Ford parroted JB's explanations which made no logical sense to the majority of people who followed the trial. None of the jurors have been able to logically explain the verdict. Jennifer Ford shows her complete lack of knowledge every time she's on TV. I don't think she has a clue how clueless she sounds. So someone influenced them to vote in a way even they can't explain. I have a hard time believing that it was all JB. It's much more likely that person was with them every day and got to know them on a personal level.

I tend to think there was one intelligent person on this jury with an agenda. I think that person started immediately persuading people. Maybe he began by using his good looks and charm. (someone who looks like George Clooney?) Some of the jury were probably already leaning his way. The others may have submitted because that person presented himself as an intelligent, know more than anyone else, leader. (someone working on his Masters?) According to #2 they all followed along like sheep even when some of them thought it was wrong. Why?

 

[yolorado]

I also remember Jean C. saying she was concerned a couple were stealth Jurors.

Personally, jmho, I think the defense got at least a couple, maybe more. Again, just speculating but I think because the group was sequestered, a tendency toward group think may have emerged and been dominated at trial by strong opinion leaders.

 

[Lovejac]

Interesting article but I find it hard to believe Jennifer Ford a was a leader. If the others saw her as a leader, they had big problems before they were put on this jury. Jennifer Ford parroted JB's explanations which made no logical sense to the majority of people who followed the trial. None of the jurors have been able to logically explain the verdict. Jennifer Ford shows her complete lack of knowledge every time she's on TV. I don't think she has a clue how clueless she sounds. So someone influenced them to vote in a way even they can't explain. I have a hard time believing that it was all JB. It's much more likely that person was with them every day and got to know them on a personal level.

I tend to think there was one intelligent person on this jury with an agenda. I think that person started immediately persuading people. Maybe he began by using his good looks and charm. (someone who looks like George Clooney?) Some of the jury were probably already leaning his way. The others may have submitted because that person presented himself as an intelligent, know more than anyone else, leader. (someone working on his Masters?) According to #2 they all followed along like sheep even when some of them thought it was wrong. Why?

yes, yes, yes!!!

 

[nomoresorrow]

and AGAIN I will say, the jury instruction clearly stated the State did NOT have to prove how she died!! Not only did the judge tell that to the jurors they also had the jury instructions in the deliberation room with them.
Maybe they couldn't see them because they were hidden under the MEDIA INFO!!

IMO: This jury's deliberation was conducted as though they were attempting to solve a mystery plot with their who, what, when, where, why, and how approach and by law, that was not their obligation;

WHO: Casey Anthony
WHAT: The murder/death of Caylee Marie Anthony
WHEN: June 16, 2008
WHERE: NOT NEEDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY LAW
WHY: NOT NEEDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY LAW
HOW: NOT NEEDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY LAW

 

[Malini2001]

and AGAIN I will say, the jury instruction clearly stated the State did NOT have to prove how she died!! Not only did the judge tell that to the jurors they also had the jury instructions in the deliberation room with them.
Maybe they couldn't see them because they were hidden under the MEDIA INFO!!

But just because they are told the state does not have to prove how she died, doesn't mean the jurors do not want to see it anyway. Do the instructions say they can't hold the fact that the cause of death isn't stated against the state's case? I don't think so - maybe the instructions could be worded better.

But the jury obviously was looking for how and why (according to interviews I have heard) and when the motive and cause weren't spelled out to them in so many words, they didn't feel they could say there was a crime. I don't agree with them, but it seems like those were the things that held them up.

 

[Peepers]

and AGAIN I will say, the jury instruction clearly stated the State did NOT have to prove how she died!! Not only did the judge tell that to the jurors they also had the jury instructions in the deliberation room with them.
Maybe they couldn't see them because they were hidden under the MEDIA INFO!!

The state didnt have to prove how she died, but they needed to narrow it down, was it chloroform or was it the duct tape? were the jurors supposed to just pick one because they thought she was guilty? There was nothing brought in to evidence on that courtroom that put KC with Caylee when she died..no matter what her cause of death was.
I dont like the verdict, but I can see why they came to this conclusion. Its a court of law not a tea party. they took the instructions very seriously; more seriously than other juries?? maybe..but they did do what they were asked to do. 12 people agreed on it, they were not all stupid or lazy or corrupt as portrayed here.

 

[nomoresorrow]

But just because they are told the state does not have to prove how she died, doesn't mean the jurors do not want to see it anyway. Do the instructions say they can't hold the fact that the cause of death isn't stated against the state's case? I don't think so - maybe the instructions could be worded better.

But the jury obviously was looking for how and why (according to interviews I have heard) and when the motive and cause weren't spelled out to them in so many words, they didn't feel they could say there was a crime. I don't agree with them, but it seems like those were the things that held them up.

RE: What the jurors want, above^

A juror takes an oath to deliberate and to reach their verdict based upon the evidence presented. This is not about their personal wants. There is a reason why those elements aren't required BY LAW in order to reach a guilty verdict - that's why they're included in the juror's instructions. I'm sure the jurors wanted alot of things (don't we all) but you cannot simply inject your own "wants", and thereby your own standards, when taking an oath to serve on a jury.

 

[nomoresorrow]

The state didnt have to prove how she died, but they needed to narrow it down, was it chloroform or was it the duct tape? were the jurors supposed to just pick one because they thought she was guilty? There was nothing brought in to evidence on that courtroom that put KC with Caylee when she died..no matter what her cause of death was.
I dont like the verdict, but I can see why they came to this conclusion. Its a court of law not a tea party. they took the instructions very seriously; more seriously than other juries?? maybe..but they did do what they were asked to do. 12 people agreed on it, they were not all stupid or lazy or corrupt as portrayed here.

RE Bold ^ above: So, in your opinion, what evidence was presented that placed someone with Caylee when she died? And who?

 

[Peepers]

I was on a jury, it wasnt murder, it was sexual molestation. It was daunting and heartbreaking. We found him guilty and he will spend the rest of his life in prison. When you are on a jury and someones life (prison or death) is on the line, you take the orders seriously. We all took it very seriously, "evidence" and reasonable doubt" take on a new meaning. I cannot imagine being harassed and ostracized after sitting my time on a jury, inconveniencing my family and tossing and turning about the details. I did my civic duty just like these people did.
It was 12 people, not 1. They deserve to be respected for their time, effort and ability to take the emotion out of their verdict.

 

[Lovejac]

The state didnt have to prove how she died, but they needed to narrow it down, was it chloroform or was it the duct tape? were the jurors supposed to just pick one because they thought she was guilty? There was nothing brought in to evidence on that courtroom that put KC with Caylee when she died..no matter what her cause of death was.
I dont like the verdict, but I can see why they came to this conclusion. Its a court of law not a tea party. they took the instructions very seriously; more seriously than other juries?? maybe..but they did do what they were asked to do. 12 people agreed on it, they were not all stupid or lazy or corrupt as portrayed here.

Regarding your bolded part "There was nothing brought in to evidence in that courtroom the put KC with Caylee when she died..no matter what her cause of death was"

<modsnip> There was evidence that KC was with Caylee when she died!!! The evidence was KC admission that Caylee drowned in the pool, spoken through her attorney during DT opening statement!!!!

Remember the story Jose told?? Caylee was missing and she and George were looking everywhere for her and then George found her in the pool and then KC held her and cried, and cried and cried. And George yelled "LOOK AT WHAT YOU'VE DONE! YOUR MOTHER WILL NEVER FORGIVE YOU!!" And so then they went into cover up mode.....blah blah blah.

 

[TexasLori]

I think where a lot of them got tripped up is that reasonable doubt doesn't equal 100% convinced. Given the evidence presented, what other reasonable conclusion can you come to but that Casey was at least negligible in Caylee's death.

The fact remains that according to the ones who have spoken out they violated several instructions put before them. Not the least of which was discussing the evidence before deliberations.

If they had come to a guilty verdict and these things had come out, Casey would have a good argument for appeal due to unfair trial. Does Caylee not deserve a fair trial?

 

[kelian36]

Regarding your bolded part "There was nothing brought in to evidence in that courtroom the put KC with Caylee when she died..no matter what her cause of death was"

Seriously!!!???? Are you kidding??? There was evidence that KC was with Caylee when she died!!! The evidence was KC admission that Caylee drowned in the pool, spoken through her attorney during DT opening statement!!!!

Remember the story Jose told?? Caylee was missing and she and George were looking everywhere for her and then George found her in the pool and then KC held her and cried, and cried and cried. And George yelled "LOOK AT WHAT YOU'VE DONE! YOUR MOTHER WILL NEVER FORGIVE YOU!!" And so then they went into cover up mode.....blah blah blah.

:rocker: Thanks for telling it like it is.

 

[Peepers]

RE Bold ^ above: So, in your opinion, what evidence was presented that placed someone with Caylee when she died? And who?

there was no evidence when or how
Caylee died, or who was with her. Im not saying it wasnt KC, Im saying there was no evidence or proof of when how where it happened. Thats alot to not have if you are convicting someone of murder. In order to come to a guilty verdict, the jury would have had to draw conclusions of how and where she died. Juries need proof, they are not supposed to guess what happened. We still dont know what happened for a fact, do we?

 

[TexasLori]

This is a sincere post, with no snark at all intended.

For those of you who think the jury voted correctly, what other reasonable explanation do you give for what happened to Caylee?

 

[Peepers]

Regarding your bolded part "There was nothing brought in to evidence in that courtroom the put KC with Caylee when she died..no matter what her cause of death was"

<modsnip> There was evidence that KC was with Caylee when she died!!! The evidence was KC admission that Caylee drowned in the pool, spoken through her attorney during DT opening statement!!!!

Remember the story Jose told?? Caylee was missing and she and George were looking everywhere for her and then George found her in the pool and then KC held her and cried, and cried and cried. And George yelled "LOOK AT WHAT YOU'VE DONE! YOUR MOTHER WILL NEVER FORGIVE YOU!!" And so then they went into cover up mode.....blah blah blah.

<modsnip>, what was the proof? It does not matter what the defense says..the state has the burden of proof. the state didnt say she accidentally drowned..the state said she was killed with chloroform or duct tape, Which is it? and when did it happen? that was not brought in to evidence.

 

[kelian36]

I was on a jury, it wasnt murder, it was sexual molestation. It was daunting and heartbreaking. We found him guilty and he will spend the rest of his life in prison. When you are on a jury and someones life (prison or death) is on the line, you take the orders seriously. We all took it very seriously, "evidence" and reasonable doubt" take on a new meaning. I cannot imagine being harassed and ostracized after sitting my time on a jury, inconveniencing my family and tossing and turning about the details. I did my civic duty just like these people did.
It was 12 people, not 1. They deserve to be respected for their time, effort and ability to take the emotion out of their verdict.

The jurors had a job to do. A job that surely should have taken more than 10 hours. You peepers, mentioned respect-----
Caylee deserved respect.
Caylee deserved justice.
Those 12 jurors ignored much of the facts. That baby didn't walk into trash bags and she didn't put duct tape around her head 3 times.
How will the jurors live with themselves knowing they let a child killer walk?