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.

Boytwnmom

Verified Attorney
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
1,653
Reaction score
298
and Bill Mahar all agree. I don't think that's a group that generally gets together. What I see is that people who followed the case and were knowledgeable about it and understand the law and the jury instructions and the charges think she's guilty. People who aren't knowledgeable are using the verdict and people's reaction to make political or other points.

For example, I read the Boston Globe. A columnist there went after the people who criticize the jury to make a point about mobs and Nancy Grace etc and then related she had never followed the case. She was using the case to make a point without actually caring about or addressing the case. I'm seeing/reading a lot of that.





You know what I would like to see....I would like a poll that shows a demographic of NG people vs. Guilty people.
Liberal?
Conservative?
Middle of the road?
I think it would show alot.
 

ziggy

Active Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
4,750
Reaction score
18
Website
Visit site
I agree. It is the PERFECT way for her to torture her parents forever. She will taunt them, knowing they will never know or get the chance to love their new grandchild. Spite. That is what she is made of. Spitefulness.

I agree! Congratulations George, Cindy and Lee...you get to live with the fact that another baby has to have Casey as a mother and there's nothing you can do about it. Your grand scheme to free her will haunt you for the rest of your days.
 

Schu7

New Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2011
Messages
657
Reaction score
0
These jurors had enough of sequestration. They wanted to go home and not take time reviewing the evidence and decided that might as well acquit her instead of reviewing the evidence. just lazyness in MOO


Your post in a way begs this fundamental guestion on the courts, jurors and our society. How is it, that we trust jurors with the final say in justice in our system. Yet we do not trust them to not watch the news. Talk to each other. Read newspapers. Thus we lock the jurors up in sequestration. These jurors have to pass a criminal back ground test, among other tests. They as jurors are the "peers" of of society. So why do we not trust them???
 

ziggy

Active Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2003
Messages
4,750
Reaction score
18
Website
Visit site
Have ya'll ever wondered why more of the jurors haven't spoken out? Do you think they finally realize what WRONG they have done by allowing this woman to walk free? Do you think they understand NOW what reasonable doubt is?

No I think they will fall in line with what people typically do: justify their bad decision somehow instead of just admit to a mistake or to giving in to group think tribe pressure or whatever you want to call it - or even admit the sequestration was too difficult. They will make excuses for themselves. It's what people with no nads typically do.
 

manatee

New Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2008
Messages
1,699
Reaction score
1
Your post in a way begs this fundamental guestion on the courts, jurors and our society. How is it, that we trust jurors with the final say in justice in our system. Yet we do not trust them to not watch the news. Talk to each other. Read newspapers. Thus we lock the jurors up in sequestration. These jurors have to pass a criminal back ground test, among other tests. They as jurors are the "peers" of of society. So why do we not trust them???

this case is different because of all the publicity and sequestration. most cases don't last weeks and there are no vested interest. it seems the jury is in a rush to make lots of money. that does not happen in other cases. yes, i don't trust THIS jury. the evidence in this case was as clear as day. clearer than scott peterson or even oj.
 

natsound

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
5,100
Reaction score
1,743
Just incase you guys don't know the Jury Foreman is going to be giving an Interview Tonight @ 10pm on Greta Van S.

I don't know if I can stomach another lame explanation by a juror without smashing my TV. The only thing I want to see is Kathi Belich walking out of the federal courthouse with a new indictment... the United States vs. Casey Anthony.
 

3doglady

Certified Coffeeaholic
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
3,724
Reaction score
0
Just incase you guys don't know the Jury Foreman is going to be giving an Interview Tonight @ 10pm on Greta Van S.

I'm boycotting all jury interviews. Greta put out a statement that he was not paid for the interview. Someone on Greta wire asked if he was paid a licensing fee for a picture. Her reply was "What picture?" LOL I guess that answers that question. Sidestep, spin, sidestep.

She was on Shep Smith's program promoting her interview. Shep asked if the law required COD to be determined for a guilty verdict. She looked surprised then said: In the sense that COD is needed to determine murder. I think that tells us what to expect from this interview. Maybe a few softball questions at best. If anyone watches and hears anything that half way makes sense please post it. Thanks.
 

cv1964

New Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2011
Messages
91
Reaction score
0
I don't think they were lazy, I just think they really don't understand that it was THEIR job to decide the who, what, when where and why. For some reason they needed a "smoking gun" a live witness. I don't agree with that thinking, I just think that is what they thought. It's crazy. I wish I could have been on that jury.

The one jury duty I DID have, I remember how HARD the jury instructions were.. they were almost nonsensical. If anything can be done to prevent this happening again, it will be that jury instructions become clear, written for the average person, and not in legalese.

We DID take the time to get clarification, but if it helps, that clarification was no better than what we already had and we were a fairly educated and diverse group of jurors.

I would personally love to see the system overhauled so that cases like this are based on a preponderance of the evidence rather that 'reasonable doubt"... I think it is a much clearer and fair system.

The more the jury talks the clearer it becomes how little they understood of their role, punishment, RD, etc. They didn't understand more than they understood. JP was clear and they had written instructions. It was just a sloppy deliberation by people too confused and too lazy to get clarification. Of course #3 couldn't even be bothered to deliberate. That's comforting.
 

JusticeSeeker1960

New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
569
Reaction score
0
The foreman said he was sickened and disgusted to sign the not guilty verdict form knowing Anthony may have been responsible for Caylee's death, but like other jurors said he felt the state did not prove how she died.
Strickland said that attitude could reflect a fundamental misunderstanding.
"Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. Seldom are cameras running when someone kills a child or a child is abused," he said.
Really?:maddening::sick::banghead:
 

ItalinBella27

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
96
Reaction score
0
I don't know if I can stomach another lame explanation by a juror without smashing my TV. The only thing I want to see is Kathi Belich walking out of the federal courthouse with a new indictment... the United States vs. Casey Anthony.


I agree! That would be wonderful to see Kathi Belich with an indictment. :woohoo:

What makes me sick is that she will be running wild. I'm sure she will flaunt her freedom, regardless of what her handlers tell her. This case is making me sick! Poor little Caylee.
 

JusticeSeeker1960

New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
569
Reaction score
0
I'm boycotting all jury interviews. Greta put out a statement that he was not paid for the interview. Someone on Greta wire asked if he was paid a licensing fee for a picture. Her reply was "What picture?" LOL I guess that answers that question. Sidestep, spin, sidestep.

She was on Shep Smith's program promoting her interview. Shep asked if the law required COD to be determined for a guilty verdict. She looked surprised then said: In the sense that COD is needed to determine murder. I think that tells us what to expect from this interview. Maybe a few softball questions at best. If anyone watches and hears anything that half way makes sense please post it. Thanks.

He talks to her outside and he doesn't show his face.....I wouldn't either..wouldn't want anyone to know I was too incompetent to read the jury instructions or ask questions or look at evidence or....etc, etc
 

natsound

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2008
Messages
5,100
Reaction score
1,743
I agree! That would be wonderful to see Kathi Belich with an indictment. :woohoo:

What makes me sick is that she will be running wild. I'm sure she will flaunt her freedom, regardless of what her handlers tell her. This case is making me sick! Poor little Caylee.

She will get herself into trouble, I guarantee it. She will pay. Sometimes the wheels of justice turn slower than we want them to.
 

TexasLori

Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2011
Messages
782
Reaction score
2
I agree. It is the PERFECT way for her to torture her parents forever. She will taunt them, knowing they will never know or get the chance to love their new grandchild. Spite. That is what she is made of. Spitefulness.

I am 50/50 whether she will have a baby or not. But I think if she does this is the exact reason she will.
 

Boytwnmom

Verified Attorney
Joined
Jul 26, 2008
Messages
1,653
Reaction score
298
these jurors and not willing to challenge their thought process even though they were clearly wrong on the law. I feel like there is some media agreement that it might inflame people too much like we'll all become a lynch mob or something. This is important! This was a high profile case and the jury was wrong about what they thought was required to convict and are going about jabbering confidently about their incorrect process and no one is saying "BOO". Yes, juries can be questioned. We accept the process not each individual jury decision. When something is so glaringly wrong it needs to be called out. I'm sorry if these jurors will feel attacked or made to feel stupid but this is really really important to our justice system. A potential juror can be watching these interviews right now and taking in the "fact" that there needs to be a cause of death established. Juror 3 (who I find irritating beyond all belief but i digress) goes on and on about "where did it happen" in public, in her car, no one could tell us. UGH!!!! Good for Strickland-plus he knows the defense in this case and how dirty and unethically they played all along.



The foreman said he was sickened and disgusted to sign the not guilty verdict form knowing Anthony may have been responsible for Caylee's death, but like other jurors said he felt the state did not prove how she died.
Strickland said that attitude could reflect a fundamental misunderstanding.
"Circumstantial evidence is still evidence. Seldom are cameras running when someone kills a child or a child is abused," he said.
Really?:maddening::sick::banghead:
 

TexasLori

Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2011
Messages
782
Reaction score
2
Just incase you guys don't know the Jury Foreman is going to be giving an Interview Tonight @ 10pm on Greta Van S.

Thanks! I will not be watching. I haven't watched anything post trial yet (not even Ashton, even though I respect him greatly) because I cannot bring myself to. I will definitely not watch a juror.
 

TexasLori

Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2011
Messages
782
Reaction score
2
Interesting video by Judge Stan Strickland! I'm not sure if this was already posted, but I thought it was really interesting regarding the jurors. The verdict threw him for a loop too!

http://www.wesh.com/casey-anthony-extended-coverage/28512989/detail.html

Ugh. I am so tired of hearing they were disgusted about giving that verdict. They were not disgusted. People who are disgusted work through it. Look at evidence again. See what they can find her guilty of, not throw in the towel so soon.
 

TexasLori

Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2011
Messages
782
Reaction score
2
I'm boycotting all jury interviews. Greta put out a statement that he was not paid for the interview. Someone on Greta wire asked if he was paid a licensing fee for a picture. Her reply was "What picture?" LOL I guess that answers that question. Sidestep, spin, sidestep.

She was on Shep Smith's program promoting her interview. Shep asked if the law required COD to be determined for a guilty verdict. She looked surprised then said: In the sense that COD is needed to determine murder. I think that tells us what to expect from this interview. Maybe a few softball questions at best. If anyone watches and hears anything that half way makes sense please post it. Thanks.

These are the questions the interviewers need to be asking. Somewhere we need to get a national discussion going about jury instructions and/or understanding the concept of reasonable doubt.
 

JusticeSeeker1960

New Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
569
Reaction score
0
I don't know if I can stomach another lame explanation by a juror without smashing my TV. The only thing I want to see is Kathi Belich walking out of the federal courthouse with a new indictment... the United States vs. Casey Anthony.
When I was on change.org today I saw 2 new petitions. One was a petition to investigate the DT & the other was to have Casey tried at the Federal level....does anyone know anything about these? The one about Casey only had 20K signatures on it which surprised me if it's ligit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top