Did the jury get it wrong, or...

Discussion in 'Caylee Anthony 2 years old' started by wvjules, Jul 5, 2011.

?

Did the jury get it wrong?

Poll closed Aug 4, 2011.
  1. The jury got it wrong

    1,051 vote(s)
    81.9%
  2. The state didn't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt

    179 vote(s)
    14.0%
  3. The Defense provided reasonable doubt and the jury got it right

    55 vote(s)
    4.3%
  4. Other

    31 vote(s)
    2.4%
Multiple votes are allowed.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. CathyinTexas

    CathyinTexas Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,141
    Likes Received:
    170
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Stacy Honowitz said that her law professor told her to bat her eyes at jurors and get them to like her and she would win. It may boil down to that. The jury may have liked Baez and detested Ashton for his bully tactics. Judge Siedlin said there was two prosecutors in that room and implied the judge was too obviously pro prosecution. Also, the jurors were presented with testimony from experts (who Jeff Ashton mocked extremely) and told they could choose to give any of the experts testimony weight in their decision. Because of the defense's experts testimony the jury may have believed that it was reasonable to believe that they were right versus the state's expert witnesses. I believe it was JA's behavior toward Baez and his witnesses that lost the case for the state.
     
  2. gladiatorqueen

    gladiatorqueen New Member

    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Are you serious? The jury is not just for the victim but for defendants too. I truly hope you never find yourself in a situation where you are being blamed for a crime. It's happened to many innocent people.
     
  3. Kavya01

    Kavya01 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    807
    Likes Received:
    1,690
    Trophy Points:
    93
    I am very serious. And I will also hope to not be accused falsely of a crime ever. If that were so I would consider myself a victim.

    Juries have convicted innocents, and released monsters. Is that not THE argument to revise the system?
     
  4. gladiatorqueen

    gladiatorqueen New Member

    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Revise it how? No system will ever be infallible.
     
  5. Peepers

    Peepers Member

    Messages:
    564
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    It seems like we are arguing two different things..or at least speaking for myself..its not that I agree with the verdict, but I can see how they came to the conclusion on the murder charges. When I think of the question "did the jury get it wrong" what comes to me is that the court went through the process of appointing a jury, the lawyers on both sides had the opportunity to question them, get rid of them, etc. Before the opening statements everyone agreed this is our jury, so when they come up with a verdict,, thats what it is. everyone involved agreed on this jury, thus they agreed to take the result. I dont have to agree with the verdict to feel they didnt get it wrong. Personally I feel after listening to some of them I can see why they came to their conclusion..not that I agree. The jurors would have had an opportunity to talk, interview and make money no matter what the result was. We are all still interested, it was not to their advantage in any way to vote not guilty (which does not legally mean innocent). It only means there was not evidence to the jury to deem her guilty. I dont think the jury system is perfect and there are alot of stupid people out there, but I dont agree with saying right off the bat these people are all stupid and lazy.. All 12 of them are stupid and lazy?
     
  6. Kavya01

    Kavya01 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    807
    Likes Received:
    1,690
    Trophy Points:
    93
    A panel of anywhere from 3 to 5 judges depending on the case, will be impartial, focussed on the job, knowledgable, intelligent. The court will be open.
    The judges will remain under constant scrutiny and there will be a system as to working your way up the ladder to hearing high profile cases, starting with misdemeanors etc. They will have to retake the bar every 3 years and undergo independent psych evals and FBI backup checks every year to 2 years to weed out any corruption and burn out as much a possible.

    The appeal system will remain in place.
     
  7. CathyinTexas

    CathyinTexas Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,141
    Likes Received:
    170
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I wondered why the state didn't ask Roy Kronk about the duct tape he should have seen on the skull. Where it was at that time he discovered the remains. Neither side asked him about the duct tape. He could have confirmed that the duct tape was wrapped around the skull. I also think the Prosecution decision to not call him was a mistake.
     
  8. gladiatorqueen

    gladiatorqueen New Member

    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No way. I would prefer to be judged by a jury of peers. The system is working. Just because there is an outcome that people don't like doesn't mean it isn't working. It's the talking heads that have corrupted this process. They convicted her to the masses, and so that is exactly the outcome the public was expecting--in fact, demanding! There should be restrictions on the media, not changes to the jury system. MOO
     
  9. Kavya01

    Kavya01 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    807
    Likes Received:
    1,690
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Part of the education of lawyers and potential judges is to know to IGNORE media hype! Do you not think they'd be able to? I have faith that they could. It would be part of their JOB> And responsibility. If I were one I'd take that VERY seriously.

    A jury of my peers wants to go home to watch survivor and is thinking about mac donald specials or when they can get their pc back to play online games and lie about whether or not they are influenced by media hype. NO thank you!!!
     
  10. gladiatorqueen

    gladiatorqueen New Member

    Messages:
    254
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So, are you saying that you would want to go home to watch survivor and think about a Big Macs rather than focus on the trial?
     
  11. Kavya01

    Kavya01 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    807
    Likes Received:
    1,690
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Au contraire. I am a vegetarian who does not watch tv :D
    It just goes to show you that a judge and prosecutor and counsel would have a hard time finding a jury of MY peers :D
     
  12. grandmaj

    grandmaj Former Member

    Messages:
    43,418
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    One piece of evidence that was determined to be too prejudicial might have made the difference. Cindy's FB posting.

    It is clear from that posting who had Caylee.

    But it was considered too prejudicial. I don't get that...... it was evidence of an event that happened.

    I said about half way through the Prosecution case that this was not going to be a 1st degree verdict. But I sure felt as though the State proved that Casey harmed Caylee and then acted indifferent to anyone trying to find Caylee. She should have gotten the Manslaughter conviction in my eyes.
     
  13. February

    February Member

    Messages:
    928
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    18
    So agree with this..they could have bring down to lesser charge that includes child abuse/neglect or end up in a hung jury for the next court to retry her.. Their verdict has nothing to do with anything that happened to Caylee or any neglect that leads to her death which is obvious in the case IMO..
     
  14. Kavya01

    Kavya01 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    807
    Likes Received:
    1,690
    Trophy Points:
    93
    I take offense to that. I do not judge anyone. That's not my job not my ambition in life. So please kindly refrain from attacks on me.

    I am just saying we are all DIFFERENT folks. And the term "judged by a jury of my peers" is about as relative and wide-open as one can get.
     
  15. nursebeeme

    nursebeeme Registered User

    Messages:
    53,157
    Likes Received:
    113
    Trophy Points:
    0
    folks... remember we attack the post... not the poster.
     
  16. Boodles

    Boodles Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,393
    Likes Received:
    3,360
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't get me wrong, I think LDB and JA did a fabulous job. I paid attention. I could clearly connect the dots. But some people have suggested that they didn't, in my words, "dumb it down" enough for the jury. They were factual, objective, cerebral, logical in their approach. No dirty pool.

    Jose, on the other hand, schmoozed the jury. "Good morning ladies and gentlemen....Good morning Mr. Baez..." Rather than being intellectual, he used schmooze, sleaze and truly unethical tactics. And this was more effective, with this jury, than the "intellectual" approach used by the prosecution.

    There is no excuse for his conduct. He violated the rules of conduct, and he needs to face consequences.

    And the jury....oh boy...I am so truly upset by their lack of ability to absorb, process and infer. It would have taken me several hours to simply delve into and understand the charges! This was a very complex case. They didn't even bother with any details. I am left with the following question about jury trials:

    Is this the new norm? How much do we have to "dumb it down" to get a group of 12 to "get it"? I have lost a huge part of my belief in the system. I do not respect these jurors. They lacked intellect and the cojones to reach a tough decision. How easy to hang your hat on "reasonable doubt" rather than do the 'hard thinking' and demonstrate the courage required to live up to the responsibility they accepted when placed on that jury? They were a complete waste of space.
     
  17. Dragonlady

    Dragonlady New Member

    Messages:
    438
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I was wondering why this piece of evidence along with the text messages between ICA and TL were considered prejudicial when other things were allowed in like the pictures of her partying, the jailhouse tapes and the tattoo were allowed in. :confused:
     
  18. Phoebeb

    Phoebeb Active Member

    Messages:
    2,298
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    I don't understand why texts are too prejudicial. Or any evidence, for that matter. Seems like some of the most incriminating evidence is concealed to protect the defendant, but why? If it proves motive, mindset, why should it not be used?:waitasec:
     
  19. Nikki 01

    Nikki 01 New Member

    Messages:
    1,232
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How in the world did he get misidentified as juror #2 when juror #2 is a young, black male? It's crazy blogs can get away with stuff like this.
     
  20. BeenaBobba

    BeenaBobba Vincit omnia veritas!

    Messages:
    421
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I believe in our justice system, and I'd like to believe that we get things right more often than we get things wrong; however, juries are not infallible. Juries don't always interpret the evidence and/or the law correctly; innocent people are convicted (and even sentenced to death), and guilty people are set free. As much as I dislike that, it happens because our system is not flawless. That being said, I respect the jury's decision, but I do not agree with it. My opinion is not based on mere emotion; it's based on the evidence I saw presented during the trial.

    Here's how I connected the dots based on the evidence:

    The Car

    I believe that there was a dead body in the trunk at some point. This is based on the testimony of several people who have had numerous experiences smelling dead bodies (including Simon Birch, who has also smelled all sorts of garbage/rotten food due to his prior work in waste management), the cadaver dogs, the chemical analysis, and the death band on the hair.

    Here's the thing, though: As the defense pointed out, some of the technology/science the state presented is still new, so it's not 100% reliable. If the state had only presented the hair with the death band, for example, I would have reasonable doubt; however, when you take all of those things together, it's far more reasonable to believe that there was a dead body in the trunk than it is to believe that all of the trunk evidence was incorrect. When I consider the fact that Casey's defense attorney admitted that Caylee died on June 16th, I feel even more strongly about this.

    Access to the Car

    The DT seemed to imply that since George had keys to the car, he also had access to it and may have been responsible for putting Caylee's body in the trunk . . . which is odd when you consider the fact that they'd been fighting so hard to prove that there'd never been a body in the trunk in the first place.

    But the thing is, when would George have had a chance to put the body in the trunk? If I remember correctly, the DT seemed to try to imply that he could have done it after Casey left her car or after it had been towed, but to believe this would mean that one would have to believe that George somehow randomly found her car in a city as big as Orlando, somehow transported a decomposing body in his own vehicle, somehow put it in Casey's car in a public place where he could have been seen, and somehow later came back to take it out. That, IMO, is far less reasonable than believing that Casey put the body in the trunk, even if you only go on the basis that she had more access to the car. (Of course, there are other things that tie Casey to trunk and to the crime itself, and I'll get to that in a bit.)

    Chloroform

    Regardless of whether or not the chloroform site was visited eighty-four times, it seems clear that someone* searched for it -- along with instructions on how to make it. That alone isn't too damning, but it is when you consider that the reason the computer was searched to begin with was due to unusually high levels of chloroform in the trunk. If the state had only presented the computer searches without presenting the evidence of chloroform in the trunk (or vice versa), then I would have reasonable doubt on this issue. The chloroform in the trunk could have been explained away by cleaning products, but when you view the evidence in conjunction with the computer searches, it seems far more sinister and a lot less coincidental. True, there is no proof that chloroform killed Caylee, but since evidence of Caylee's dead body and chloroform were both found in the trunk, there seems to have been some sort of connection. Personally, I've always believed she used the chloroform to knock Caylee out before placing the duct tape over her nose and mouth because there'd be no reason to place duct tape over her nose and mouth if she'd already been killed by the chloroform. I think it's likely that she used the chloroform to prevent a struggle.

    *I'm not even going to mention Cindy's testimony because I think the state proved pretty conclusively that she was at work when those searches were made. George was also at work when these searches were made, so that leaves us with Casey.

    The Duct Tape

    This, IMO, was the murder weapon. Like Jeff Ashton said, there is absolutely no reason to put duct tape over the nose and mouth of a child, regardless of whether the child is dead or alive. Some people have speculated that the duct tape may have been used to stage a kidnapping, but this did not look like a kidnapping; it looked like a murder by suffocation. Kidnappers generally use duct tape to prevent someone from making noise, so if this was a staged kidnapping, the duct tape would have only covered her mouth. There would have been no need for three pieces to cover her nose and her mouth. Others have suggested that she may have used the tape to prevent decompositional fluids from coming out of her nose and mouth, but by the time her body was decomposed enough to be leaking fluids, that would be the equivalent of putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. Her face, along with the rest of her body, would have already been leaking.

    So ... did someone put the duct tape on Caylee's skull after it was already decomposed, which is what Dr. Spitz suggested? First of all, why would anyone do that? There is absolutely, positively no evidence that any of the investigators tampered with the scene. The defense claims that Roy Kronk moved the body and may have placed the tape on Caylee's skull, but why on earth would he do that? Why would he care if her mandible became detached from the rest of her skull? What reason would he have to risk tying himself to the scene -- and, therefore, possibly implicating himself -- if all he cared about was claiming the reward money? I'm also not the least bit concerned about the lack of DNA on the tape and the lack of tape residue on the skull. After all, both had been exposed to the elements for six months, so that's not too unexpected.

    Basing his opinion on the "pet cemetery" testimony, one of the alternate jurors thought that the tape could have come from the burial, but that doesn't really make sense. First of all, the Anthonys didn't place duct tape on their pets' faces. Secondly, the presence of the duct tape on the nose/mouth area -- with the mandible still attached -- strongly seems to indicate that the duct tape was placed on her face prior to decomposition, otherwise the mandible would have become detached when her face decomposed.

    Tying Casey to the Crime Scene

    The laundry bag Caylee was found with came from the Anthony home. The remains of the shirt found with Caylee's body hadn't been seen in the Anthony home, but Caylee was seen wearing it in a photo she'd had taken with Casey. Therefore, it's logical to assume that Casey may have kept it with her in a diaper bag. IIRC, Cindy also testified that she hadn't seen Caylee's Winnie the Pooh blanket since May of 2008, so it's logical to assume that Casey also had this in her possession. As far as I'm concerned, these things (along with other things, of course) rule out everyone in the Anthony home except for Casey.

    The Manner of Death and Other Things

    Dr. G said that Caylee died as the result of homicide by undetermined means. She based this on the duct tape and the manner in which Caylee was found. She also said that whenever an accident happens, 911 is always called. When you take this into consideration -- along with the rest of the evidence -- it seems reasonable to conclude that Caylee did not die as the result of an accident. There is no logical reason to make an accident look like a murder.

    And last but not least, we have Casey's behavior. As you may have noticed, I've listed this last. Contrary to popular belief, it's possible to come to the conclusion that Casey killed Caylee without even looking at her behavior; however, when you look at her behavior in conjunction with everything else, it's pretty damning.

    All that being said, I have no idea why the jurors were unable to put the puzzle pieces together. Like Vinnie Politan said, what other reasonable explanation is there that explains all the circumstances? Many of the jurors have said that they needed a motive, a concrete cause of death, a time of death, a place of death, etc., but legally, none of those things were required. Don't believe me? Take a look at their jury instructions.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice