Did the jury get it wrong, or...

Yes. If the defendant had been a man and the victim his wife, given the exact same circumstances the jury would have convicted him of 1st degree murder in the blink of an eye. They made this decision based on emotion and the inability to see a young attractive woman and understand her for what she is. Blind and gullible and easily manipulated by the defendants gender and level of attractiveness - that's what happened to this jury, among other things.

<modsnip>

 

Yep, and other <modsnip> criminal defense attorneys will be watching new arrests, hoping to find a case with similar attributes. And copycatting the Baez' modus operandi. And view it as a lottery ticket that could set them up for life, just like Baez and his cohorts did.
It is apparently easy to influence a lay jury that judges solely based on emotions/appearances.

 

Of course it is easy. The defense lawyers want the defendant to dress and look a certain way. If it was all about the evidence and evidence only, the way defendant looked wouldn't matter one bit. And so Casey wasn't sitting there in a get up we saw her in her "party photos," but in prim and proper outfits with prim and proper hairstyle.

 

Well to be fair the media frenzy is never going to end. The 24-hour news cycle is not a fad; it's a reality. I guarantee this isn't the last time we are going to see something of this nature and there will have to be changes made in jury selection.

 

It kills me to read that because if she'd actually taken the time to listen to and/or look through the testimony and evidence, she would have seen that Sandra Osborne testified that Yuri Melich asked her (in August of 2008, mind you) to check if chloroform was searched for on the Anthonys' computer. There's no reason why he'd ask her to search specifically for chloroform if they hadn't already found the "shockingly high" levels of chloroform in the trunk.

 

By the way, did <modsnip> Juror #2 offer any theories as to how this 2 1/2 year old child committed suicide in this manner??

 

How can the jury believe that george would dispose of the body if it was an accident?!?! This would not have happened if it was an accident!!! What would George have to gain by doing this?

 

YES this jury got it wrong! Not that it matters, but who was the jury foreman?

 

Juror # 11, the good-looking gym teacher.

 

Peeled probably wasn't the right word. They actually had to cut the tape away. That's what it looked like to me. Remember, I stated I was simply your average joe blow. It's evidence found with the body, on the skull. It should have been looked at, and discussed. Witness reports should have been read and gone back over.

Caylee was there for 6 months. There was no biological left. She was out in the elements, animals feasted on her.

But go back thru the testimony from 6/9/11. This is where part of connecting the dots come in. That pic of the duct tape was what was removed from Caylee's skull.


I went back and listened. I couldn't remember who said what and how so I took notes this time. It's important to go back and see how they removed the skull, how it went to the Orlando ME lab, and removed. Some pics of this are on orlando sentinels website. Also descriptions of what they saw, photographed. We didn't see it because it wasn't published to the public, or the skull was pixellated, but only to the courtroom. The jurors did see it.

CSI Hanson? Haskell?

http://www.youtube.com/user/Sierra1947#p/c/0B1A4D04341B97F8/28/LCUtWcLXxfY

29:00 - demonstrates debris line, circumference, trying to remove skull and tape together, how he lifted the skull
(there is a pic of this on Orlandosentinel.)


http://www.youtube.com/user/Sierra1947#p/c/0B1A4D04341B97F8/29/ZRifQKKq540

cont from previous vid.

Tried to keep everything together when collecting the skull and tape. This doc collected from the scene and delivered to the lab.

Around 14:00 asked why he collected (lifted the skull) the way he did was to keep duct tape skull and hair mat the way they found it.

Same video: Utz, ME

25:00 skull hair and tape discussion/evidence arrived at lab
Also talks how evidence was separated and photographed. More later.
27:00 skull and tape at lab
28:00ish - skull and tape at lab looking at skull, describes several pieces of tape on the lower half of the face and jaw. hair.
31:00 ish - right side and back, mat, hair strands, tape. tape appears to come around to the side.
skull from rear and left side, debris obscures, hair mat, plant roots
skull tilted, supported by someone being held up to see face of skull.
describes tape being attached to each other - thinks there were 3 separate pieces.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Sierra1947#p/c/0B1A4D04341B97F8/30/HCrcwKorE3s

part 7

skull from different angle. tilted so you can see bottom of the mandible. see tape. hair.plant roots and leaves. mandible stays in place.
tape no longer adhesive, but it was still stuck to some hair,tape fabric stuck to hair and part of mandible.


4:30 asked if the tape was removed, yes. some hair and fabric had to be cut to maintain integrity of the tape.

4:50 skull - mandible and tape removed. ---?? backed up to the below discussion

7:14 mandible and tape looking at skull tilted on the left, right side lower jaw and mandible, lifts tape to show how the fabric of the tape is attached to mandible, on left side,some hair is still stuck to tape. mixed in with plant roots.

multiple layers of tape.
------

10:50 picture of tape after it was removed (same one I linked to on orlandosentinel.) this is what the tape looked like after it was removed, separated from the remains. separation of layers of the tape, fabric backing separated. This was sent to fbi.


I'll say it again. The jury did not go over the evidence. And it doesn't seem to me that they even listened to testimony as it was going on. I did. I remembered it, seeing the pics, and generally what was said, altho if you had tested me on it I would have failed. I didn't take notes at the time. I had to go back and refresh my memory. If I had any doubts about duct tape, I can tell you that one picture confirmed for me how Caylee died.

 

Of course there was a cause of death, called homicide/unnatural death. Just not a 100% sure specific cause of death due to the six month delay of finding the remains but a 100% for sure homicide/unnatural death and beyond reasonable doubt. Only KC knows that answer. The other option would be a natural death, highly unlikely, but also still a cause of death. Every dead person has a cause of death, otherwise, they would still be alive. Pretty elementary to me.

 

ICA is probably still laughing at the jury saying I can't believe they bought that BS, what a bunch of idiots.

IMO

 

Heat and moisture degraded all of the organic material; all tissue related to Caylee and any skin cells that could provide DNA were broken down and gone...all that was left were BONES and some hair. The tape was degraded as well - the cotton fibers of the tape had biodegraded leaving only synthetics; much like what happened to Caylee's "Big Trouble" shirt - the plastic and synthetic materials were barely in tact and the organic compounds were long gone. Seems to me that tape went through the same degradation time frame as the body and the clothing. Staining on duct tape after submersion in water? Don't think so. That's reaching.

 

It seems to me the jury was very lazy and did not try to establish a time line on significant events that may have supported the defense...like this one or like Cindy's testimony involving the ladder.

I don't think the jury deliberated based on the evidence; I think they just went along with Jose's opening and don't even understand drawing a reasonable inference or basing their decision exclusively on evidence presented at trial.

 

Here's an interesting thought by Marcia Clark on the sequestration and the tribe mentality:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...red-jury-fell-prey-to-idiotic-groupthink.html

 

was that it was the easiest and required the least amount of effort to adopt. That required no evidence review because there was absolutely no evidence of anything JB said in his OS. To them, good story, no need to review the evidence, job done, go home and cash in.

 

Thank you, and ITA!
:banghead:

 

as more jurors speak out it is looking more and more like they were looking for motive and cause of death, two things I was dinstinctly under the impression the state didnt have the burden of proving. Am I worng? So I would say YES, THEY DIDNT FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS AND GOT IT WRONG. Again, goes back to a flawed jury selecton process.

 

The jury got it wrong. You know that analogy that lawyers often use about what a circumstantial case is like? It goes like this: If you go to bed and there is no snow on the ground, and you wake up the next morning and there is snow on the ground, you can reasonably conclude that it snowed during the night -- even if you didn't see it snow.

I think these jurors would have had to see it snow before they could conclude that it did in fact snow.

Juror #3 said something to the effect that the prosecution did not "connect the dots" for them. Well, getting from "I see snow" to "it must have snowed in the night" is what connecting the dots is all about.

Duh!

 

I don't think the jury went with the forensic evidence so much because its obvious that the State's experts and the defense witnesses contradicted each other at times. I think the jury went with River Cruz's statement of George stating that it was an accident. That statement may have put enough reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. I believe KC is guilty of manslaughter at least, but in the jury room maybe things are viewed totally different.

I cannot remember this being established so maybe someone can answer this question for me: Was it ever emphasized during the trial that KC always slept at either her house or at Amy's until she met TL? KC stayed with TL the whole time after Caylee died except for the times TL was away in New York. I just thought if the State had emphasized that KC was hardly ever away from home with Caylee longer than a day or two and since she was obviously lying when she told CA she was in Tampa, it should have been obvious she didn't come home for a reason.

Its one thing to be in denial regarding the death of your child, but to not tell your family of which you live with about your child's drowning is beyond reasonable. Also, to not call the emergency services to report the drowning, you would have to be mentally challenged if you were not trying to hide something. KC is not mentally challenged so she had to be hiding something.

Obviously the jury missed some important facts in this case.