If This Had Been a Non-Jury Trial ....

[6stringer]

I agree that this jury was incompetent, but couldn't JBP have overturned their decision on the spot if he had wanted to? I think he is being protective of this jury (not wanting to release their names) because he was the one who pushed them through during voir dire. He wanted to get the trial moving quickly. Perhaps he thought the evidence against KC was so outstanding that even someone with bricks for brains would vote guilty to at least manslaughter. However he didn't seem to ensure that this jury was death penalty qualified, and he paid the price for rushing too much and not ensuring they understood the meaning of reasonable doubt and circumstantial evidence. In retrospect he could be feeling guilty about the role he played in this jury selection and his instructions before deliberations, and the subsequent poor consequences that resulted from his overconfidence.

BBM...I would say quite the opposite. he knew there was nothing all along. and the Jury was not incompetent

 

[6stringer]

If Caylee would have had ANY OTHER 12, Caylee would have justice today.

disagree...any law abiding citizen serving on that jury would come back with the same verdict. face it, the state did not have enough, sad as it may be, there were too many questions unanswered to form a guilty verdict

 

[Sustained]

If he was an appointed judge he would likely follow the law and the standards of evidence. If he was elected then in a high profile case it is possible that he would follow general public sentiment and convict irrespective of the evidence.

Not likely ...convict on public sentiment .... that's laughable.

But, assuming he respects the law I don't think he would have convicted her of the homicide charges because the evidence simply wasn't there. Given the circumstances of the case he might have convicted on the child neglect charge however, in addition to the false information charges. It depends on what the criteria for aggravated child neglect as opposed to "regular" child neglect are. You could argue that Caylee was not in KA's care when all this happened, and that the GPs had her. So, a conviction there would depend on if the state proved that KA had physical custody at the time (beyond what the GPs claim).

There is no doubt that her behaviour post-mortem was reprehensible, but that is not a crime (unless it involved being an accessory after the fact, but she was not charged with that).

Nope, you're right ... in and of itself, bad post-mortem behavior is not a crime. But it reeks of consciousness of guilt which is considered circumstantial evidence in a court of law.

And she was not charged with aggravated child neglect either ... the child neglect charge was dropped when the State charged her with 1st degree murder. The actual charge was aggaravated child abuse.

Comments in blue ...

 

[Sustained]

disagree...any law abiding citizen serving on that jury would come back with the same verdict. face it, the state did not have enough, sad as it may be, there were too many questions unanswered to form a guilty verdict

Do tell, what questions were unanswered ? Are any of those questions relevant to making a decision as to FCA's guilt ?

 

[logicalgirl]

As HHBP said the other day in the probation hearing - Anything that could go wrong in this case did go wrong. I think because of her age, and it was only "one":maddening: murder, he would have given her life without parole.

And we wouldn't be still talking at length about this trial or trying to recommit to our belief in a justice system that works, when it didn't work this time.

 

[MissJames]

BBM...I would say quite the opposite. he knew there was nothing all along. and the Jury was not incompetent

In the sidebar on June 24th HH repeatedly referred to the DT's opening statement as a THEORY and their statement about GA molesting Casey as a " SUPPOSEDLY DASTERDLY DEED" .He clearly thought there was nothing THERE .Not the other way around. HH saw a lot of the evidence that didn't come in because it was so prejudicial .He knows who and what Casey is and what she did.

I still have hope that he is conducting an in-house investigation to possible jury misconduct .At the very least ,I hope he is investigating how they came to ignore his deliberation instructions .

 

[biggirl]

In the sidebar on June 24th HH repeatedly referred to the DT's opening statement as a THEORY and their statement about GA molesting Casey as a " SUPPOSEDLY DASTERDLY DEED" .He clearly thought there was nothing THERE .Not the other way around. HH saw a lot of the evidence that didn't come in because it was so prejudicial .He knows who and what Casey is and what she did.

I still have hope that he is conducting an in-house investigation to possible jury misconduct .At the very least ,I hope he is investigating how they came to ignore his deliberation instructions .

Thank you is not enough Miss James! Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[MissJames]

disagree...any law abiding citizen serving on that jury would come back with the same verdict. face it, the state did not have enough, sad as it may be, there were too many questions unanswered to form a guilty verdict

Well,first of all, the foreman and juror #3 have made it clear as glass that they did not follow the law while deliberating. Two jurors voted that there was enough to convict her of felony murder. Including those two ,there were 6 who felt there was enough to convict on manslaughter. The foreman even stated that HE helped convince those jurors they had to vote NG,but HE was using faulty information to come to that decision based on his own statements.

Had the jurors revisited the instructions they would would have excluded the OS and would not have considered the possible DP sentence in making their decision,therefore I believe it would have been a guilty verdict all the way around. Possibly a hung jury if there was anyone who continued to ignore the jury instructions and the law.

 

[MissJames]

Both the defence and prosecution cases likely would have been quite different if they were presenting to a judge rather than a jury, so it is hard to be sure.

If he was an appointed judge he would likely follow the law and the standards of evidence. If he was elected then in a high profile case it is possible that he would follow general public sentiment and convict irrespective of the evidence.

But, assuming he respects the law I don't think he would have convicted her of the homicide charges because the evidence simply wasn't there. Given the circumstances of the case he might have convicted on the child neglect charge however, in addition to the false information charges. It depends on what the criteria for aggravated child neglect as opposed to "regular" child neglect are. You could argue that Caylee was not in KA's care when all this happened, and that the GPs had her. So, a conviction there would depend on if the state proved that KA had physical custody at the time (beyond what the GPs claim).

There is no doubt that her behaviour post-mortem was reprehensible, but that is not a crime (unless it involved being an accessory after the fact, but she was not charged with that).

I really don't know how anyone could argue that Caylee was in GA 's care .By her own statement Casey said she left the home with Caylee.She hasn't made a statement since then. HH would not even allow the mention of GA molesting Casey in the closing argument because there was not a shred of evidence.If you can't add molestation into the mix then what's the excuse why Casey acted with no remorse or grief for the 31 days? The dominoes tumble when the molestation charge is knocked down. There was NO accidental drowning .Casey was unaffected by Caylee's death because she killed her with no remorse.

 

[logicalgirl]

BBM...I would say quite the opposite. he knew there was nothing all along. and the Jury was not incompetent

And that's why he said just last Friday morning that every thing that could go wrong in this case did go wrong....

Uh huh.

 

[Tugela]

In the sidebar on June 24th HH repeatedly referred to the DT's opening statement as a THEORY and their statement about GA molesting Casey as a " SUPPOSEDLY DASTERDLY DEED" .He clearly thought there was nothing THERE .Not the other way around. HH saw a lot of the evidence that didn't come in because it was so prejudicial .He knows who and what Casey is and what she did.

I still have hope that he is conducting an in-house investigation to possible jury misconduct .At the very least ,I hope he is investigating how they came to ignore his deliberation instructions .

If it is prejudicial, it is not evidence, it is non-relevant information intended to inflame an emotional responce to the detriment of the facts of the case.

There is no reason to believe that the jury ignored his instructions.

Btw, you are forgeting that the prosecutions argument was ALSO a theory, since they had no direct evidence of anything implicating KA. The jury found that there was insufficient evidence to support the prosecutions THEORY, so they voted to aquit as they are supposed to do in that situation. It does not mean they took the defence's theory as evidence, that was equally unsupported. But, when presented with two alternative theories of what happened, the evidence was NOT THERE to say that one or the other (or something else) happened. Hence reasonable doubt and the aquital.

 

[Tugela]

I really don't know how anyone could argue that Caylee was in GA 's care .By her own statement Casey said she left the home with Caylee.She hasn't made a statement since then. HH would not even allow the mention of GA molesting Casey in the closing argument because there was not a shred of evidence.If you can't add molestation into the mix then what's the excuse why Casey acted with no remorse or grief for the 31 days? The dominoes tumble when the molestation charge is knocked down. There was NO accidental drowning .Casey was unaffected by Caylee's death because she killed her with no remorse.

Yes, and the court established that she was being deceitful at that time for the purposes of covering up something. She was convicted of that. You can't have it both ways and claim some of what she said was true and other parts not, as it suits your argument against her. You have to dismiss all of it or accept all of it.

To show physical custody you would need to have independent witnesses to that fact, not go on what the people who may/may not have had custody claim. As far as I can tell there was no evidence that Caylee ever left the Anthony's residence, her body was found close by, together with materials associated with the Anthony's residence. So, disregarding what KA/CA/GA claim, why would you think that KA had physical custody? Other than that she was the mother and as the mother was supposed to have physical custody? But, that doesn't mean that she actually DID though.

Regarding molestation, you rarely can prove that charge since it is allmost allways a he said/she situation. It wasn't entered into evidence because that would have required KA to testify to that fact, which in turn would have required her on the witness stand. Obviously she was not going to do that since it would have allowed her to be questioned on other things as well. There is also the fact that it would not be relevant to the case at hand, would be regarded as inflammatory, and therefore not admissable anyway.

 

[Sustained]

To show physical custody you would need to have independent witnesses to that fact, not go on what the people who may/may not have had custody claim. As far as I can tell there was no evidence that Caylee ever left the Anthony's residence, her body was found close by, together with materials associated with the Anthony's residence. So, disregarding what KA/CA/GA claim, why would you think that KA had physical custody? Other than that she was the mother and as the mother was supposed to have physical custody? But, that doesn't mean that she actually DID though.

GA testified that FCA/Caylee left the Anthony home around 1 PM on the 16th. There was no evidence presented by the defense to refute that testimony. How can you discard what GA testified to ? And CA testified that she had not seen Caylee since the 15th ...again there was no evidence presented by the defense to impeach CA's testimony. So, you can speculate that Caylee never left the Anthony home with no evidence to back up that theory ?

If someone had seen Caylee at Target on the afternoon of the 16th and testified to that in court, would you automatically discard that testimony as well ?

 

[Francine]

GA testified that FCA/Caylee left the Anthony home around 1 PM on the 16th. There was no evidence presented by the defense to refute that testimony. How can you discard what GA testified to ? And CA testified that she had not seen Caylee since the 15th ...again there was no evidence presented by the defense to impeach CA's testimony. So, you can speculate that Caylee never left the Anthony home with no evidence to back up that theory ?

If someone had seen Caylee at Target on the afternoon of the 16th and testified to that in court, would you automatically discard that testimony as well ?

I think the jury fell hook line and sinker for Baez' lies about George. The foreperson even said in an interview that they thought George was hinky (paraphrased). And, I can't remember if this came up in the trial, but wouldn't the cell phone pings have been used as evidence as to Casey's whereabouts and the time she left the home on the 16th?

 

[Chilly Willy]

I think the jury fell hook line and sinker for Baez' lies about George. The foreperson even said in an interview that they thought George was hinky (paraphrased). And, I can't remember if this came up in the trial, but wouldn't the cell phone pings have been used as evidence as to Casey's whereabouts and the time she left the home on the 16th?

In his depo, Jesse Grund said he spoke to Casey late in the afternoon - I believe it was sometime between 3 and 4, right around the same time that Casey was making the frantic calls looking for a babysitter. He said he heard Caylee in the background. George and Cindy were both at work at that time. I wish the prosecution had presented that evidence during the trial.

A friend on a non-crime related board can't understand why George has never been charged with killing Caylee and hiding the body. It's so apparent that people did indeed take the defense "theory" as fact, when there is absolutely no evidence to support it and much to contradict it. I will never understand how the jury could discount all the factual proven evidence presented against Casey, while accepting Baez's fantastical and illogical theories as truth. :banghead:

 

[Chilly Willy]

I think the jury fell hook line and sinker for Baez' lies about George. The foreperson even said in an interview that they thought George was hinky (paraphrased). And, I can't remember if this came up in the trial, but wouldn't the cell phone pings have been used as evidence as to Casey's whereabouts and the time she left the home on the 16th?

Cell phone records and computer use showed her at home in the afternoon while George and Cindy were at work. For whatever reason, the prosecution did not present this evidence.

 

[Tink]

Regarding molestation, you rarely can prove that charge since it is allmost allways a he said/she situation. It wasn't entered into evidence because that would have required KA to testify to that fact, which in turn would have required her on the witness stand. Obviously she was not going to do that since it would have allowed her to be questioned on other things as well. There is also the fact that it would not be relevant to the case at hand, would be regarded as inflammatory, and therefore not admissable anyway.[/QUOTE]

Wait a second.

If Casey was innocent, why would she not want to go on the stand to testify about being molested? Why would she be worried about being questioned about other things? She'd simply have to tell the truth. And if this (the molestation) is not relevant to the case, why was it a major part of the defense's opening statement, and, judging by comments from the jurors, a major part of the jury's decision-making process?

It is obviously never possible to exclude everything in any legal case. Yes, it is possible that blue aliens from the planet Jupiter beamed Caylee up to their spaceship, killed her, put duct tape on her face, and left her body in the woods. But when you add together ALL the circumstances (Casey's previous behaviour of lying and stealing, her computer searches for ways to kill people, her elaborate and persistent lies, her behaviour during the jailhouse visits, the duct tape found on Caylee's body, etc.) her guilt is abundantly clear.

The molestation was intended to be a way to explain her incredibly bizarre behaviour. Without that as a reason (and frankly I think it would NOT explain it even if it was true), the only other explanation is that she killed her child in order to have the beautiful life she wanted and felt no remorse.

Tink

 

[GiantPickle]

Cell phone records and computer use showed her at home in the afternoon while George and Cindy were at work. For whatever reason, the prosecution did not present this evidence.

Totally correct me if I am wrong but weren't the cellphone records entered in to evidence??

 

[luvmygarden]

Regarding molestation, you rarely can prove that charge since it is allmost allways a he said/she situation. It wasn't entered into evidence because that would have required KA to testify to that fact, which in turn would have required her on the witness stand. Obviously she was not going to do that since it would have allowed her to be questioned on other things as well. There is also the fact that it would not be relevant to the case at hand, would be regarded as inflammatory, and therefore not admissable anyway.

Wait a second.

If Casey was innocent, why would she not want to go on the stand to testify about being molested? Why would she be worried about being questioned about other things? She'd simply have to tell the truth. And if this (the molestation) is not relevant to the case, why was it a major part of the defense's opening statement, and, judging by comments from the jurors, a major part of the jury's decision-making process?

It is obviously never possible to exclude everything in any legal case. Yes, it is possible that blue aliens from the planet Jupiter beamed Caylee up to their spaceship, killed her, put duct tape on her face, and left her body in the woods. But when you add together ALL the circumstances (Casey's previous behaviour of lying and stealing, her computer searches for ways to kill people, her elaborate and persistent lies, her behaviour during the jailhouse visits, the duct tape found on Caylee's body, etc.) her guilt is abundantly clear.

The molestation was intended to be a way to explain her incredibly bizarre behaviour. Without that as a reason (and frankly I think it would NOT explain it even if it was true), the only other explanation is that she killed her child in order to have the beautiful life she wanted and felt no remorse.

Tink[/quote]


I think,

That statement is why her attorneys are spinning their wheels for her in every way possible because they know she will never tell the truth about ANYTHING. The more they fight for her the more they prove she is a liar
and always will probably be a liar. I think since she was aquitted they need to move on and let her take some responsibility for her actions.
Now they are only working for themselves, the payday at the taxpayers expense. People are really going to get angrier watching their $$$$ spent at the whim of KC.
If she could tell the truth she would not be hiding, using other people to survive. She would be out proving to the world she is honest and be apologetic for the past lies not hiding. KC is a coward.

 

[Chilly Willy]

Totally correct me if I am wrong but weren't the cellphone records entered in to evidence??

You could be right, I don't recall anyone clearly testifying that the pings showed Casey to be home that afternoon after George left for work, but I didn't watch every day. I got much of my info from the recaps here and don't recall any discussion of the pings.