Mistakes made that led to Casey being aquitted...

Tugela

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
2,719
Reaction score
455
This is also valid. I have never served on a jury. But, I have served on committees that can get very heated. As a person who does not relish conflict, I "check out" and let the loudest person carry on.

Sounds like this juror is very much like that. He wanted out of the space with these people, so if he agreed, he could leave.

Introverts probably are not good for jury selection.

Jurors are not supposed to be advocates one way or another, if they are doing that they are engaged in misconduct. The evidence is supposed to speak for itself, either it is compelling or it is not. If it is not compelling then they are supposed to acquit. The fact that he talks about "pushing harder" means that he was a bad juror to start with and did not understand his function in the trial.

At the end of the day even if someone is acting inappropriately you still have a vote, so that is no excuse.
 

Bishop Black

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2021
Messages
292
Reaction score
666
So I was watching the arguments by the prosecution and the defense on CourtTV - off the top of my head, why was there no charge for improperly disposing of a corpse (even if murder or manslaughter charges didn't stick), given that even the defense attorney (Jose Baez) attested in his argument for the baby drowning, that she and her father hid the body to avoid criminal charges?
 

RANCH

United we stand, divided we fall.
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
16,047
Reaction score
28,557
So I was watching the arguments by the prosecution and the defense on CourtTV - off the top of my head, why was there no charge for improperly disposing of a corpse (even if murder or manslaughter charges didn't stick), given that even the defense attorney (Jose Baez) attested in his argument for the baby drowning, that she and her father hid the body to avoid criminal charges?
I don't think there is a law in Florida that covers that.

2005 Florida Code - :: CRIMES :: OFFENSES CONCERNING DEAD BODIES AND GRAVESChapter 872

Dylan Redwine's mother Elaine Hall helped to pass a change in the law in Colorado that increases the penalty in that state for that offense.

Tampering with a deceased body went from misdemeanor to felony
Tampering with a body is usually charged when a person intentionally “destroys, mutilates, conceals, removes or alters” a human body to impair legal proceedings, according to the bill. It is often tacked on to high-profile cases.

Mother of Dylan Redwine pushed new law now used in high-profile crimes
 

singhlatesh62

Former Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2022
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I realize that there was reason not to but I think FCA should have been arrested after all that night (if only booked for suspicion or theft or whatever) and have had Allen & Melich take it from there...
 

Curiouser+Curiouser

Active Member
Joined
May 28, 2015
Messages
39
Reaction score
184
LE not meeting up with Roy Kronk back in August immediately upon his reporting that he found what turned out to be Caylee's little body so they could check out that area. Instead that child's body lay there for months, only for the are4a to be subsequently flooded, thereby further destroying evidence.

HUGE FLUB. IMO
And making fun of him, from memory. Being rude and dismissive at the very least.
 

Curiouser+Curiouser

Active Member
Joined
May 28, 2015
Messages
39
Reaction score
184
The Prosecution did not connect the dots for the jury and did not tie it all up in a big pretty bow. They gave them too much credit, assumed they would be smart and figure things out. They should have also let Tony and the ex Forgot his name speak...because Casey didn't want a bf that loved caylee which is why she broke up with the first dude...and tony didn't want girls... Also it needed to be brought out that she hated Cindy more than she loved Caylee. This all needed to be brought to light, cause you have to assume the jury knows nothing.
I agree. They didn't tell the story and they didn't highlight damning evidence eg. that the boyfriend only knew lies about the CA. That everyone was fooled by her. That she spun a web of crap. If they'd been able to tell the jury a coherent story they might have had a chance. I think they were totally gobsmacked by the defendant throwing her father under the bus in an unbelievably callous way. It threw them off. Who could predict that? Ugh
 

DrQ

Curiosity Chromosome in DNA
Joined
Sep 7, 2015
Messages
237
Reaction score
1,308
IMHO I always found it hard to believe that the jury did not convict her on any of the major charges. Speculation is that juries are reluctant to give the death penalty to a woman. After watching the entire case on TV, there were times that the prosecution acted arrogant. Unfortunately, juries can react to the personality and behavior of either counsel. CA's defense was able to cast the Reasonable Doubt card. Highly likely that no one wanted to give a young woman the death penalty if there was any doubt whatsoever that she may have not done anything. CA is lucky to have gotten the jury she did. My feeling....guilty...just saying
 

Curiouser+Curiouser

Active Member
Joined
May 28, 2015
Messages
39
Reaction score
184
IMHO I always found it hard to believe that the jury did not convict her on any of the major charges. Speculation is that juries are reluctant to give the death penalty to a woman. After watching the entire case on TV, there were times that the prosecution acted arrogant. Unfortunately, juries can react to the personality and behavior of either counsel. CA's defense was able to cast the Reasonable Doubt card. Highly likely that no one wanted to give a young woman the death penalty if there was any doubt whatsoever that she may have not done anything. CA is lucky to have gotten the jury she did. My feeling....guilty...just saying
Imo she's a disgusting human being and the world would be better off without her.
 

HopeForUs

Active Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2010
Messages
60
Reaction score
135
Many mistakes...overcharging to try and scare the truth out of her being the biggest. Prosecutors assuming the jury's intelligence level being #2.
It's been a long time and there's a lot of water under the bridge. That being said I honestly believe that Caylee drowned while FCA was on the phone all morning. If you read her phone records you'll see that she was on the phone all night and most of the morning. She probably ignored Caylee and she got in the pool alone. FCA then panicked and called her parents in a flurry of phone calls. She couldn't get them to answer, so She then decided to fake a kidnapping by the "nanny" to cover her rear end. I don't think that she's smart enough to make chloroform. She dumped poor Caylee in the nearest spot available and couldn't believe that she wasn't found sooner. The duct tape and the rest was supposed to be a cover for kidnapping from "Zanny" (I do believe that she had been drugging Caylee with xanax for a while because she was beginning to be able to communicate FCAs lies) She's a terrible person and totally got away with a minimum of child neglect and abusing that poor baby's body. The only justice for Caylee will in the next life. Everyone failed her and it hurts my heart. All IMHO
 

[email protected]

New Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2022
Messages
8
Reaction score
20
I'm going to ad the Sunshine Laws which led to the media frenzy which made it impossible to select a jury pool who hadn't already made their own conclusions, so they felt they needed to find jury members who had been living under a rock or otherwise not interested in current events, don't watch news, don't read newspapers, don't blog etc etc ...

I'm going to ad Nancy Grace et al here too.
Sorry about your kitty, I know you gave her the best life!
 

glamourkitty1922

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2012
Messages
2,154
Reaction score
6,489
They couldn't prove how she died, so they should have tacked on a charge like involuntary homicide or probably better yet, negligent homicide. They overcharged her. I've been on multiple juries and we don't just listen and then make a decision, we have rules to follow. We are told what evidence is needed to reach each charge. In my opinion, since I wasn't in there, every charge required an ACTION, and there needed to be a charge that required nonaction, like neglecting to watch after your child.
 

Ozoner

On Time Out
Joined
Jun 8, 2013
Messages
4,128
Reaction score
15,557
Judge Belvin Perry screwed up when he allowed Jose Baez to mis-instruct the jury on the law during closing arguments. Baez told the jury that they could not find Casey Anthony guilty of murder if a cause of death could not be determined, and that is not true under the law. Perry should have stopped Baez right there and informed the jury that that Baez was not correct. The jury accepted Baez's inaccurate interpretation of the law, and that is what led to the acquittal. I was watching closing arguments on T.V. prior to the verdict, and I thought, "What in the hell is wrong with that judge? Why is he letting Baez mislead the jury about the law?" I was still stunned when the not-guilty verdict was announced, but I knew immediately what had led to it.

The prosecution screwed up by letting someone as stupid as Jennifer Ford serve on the jury. I watched an interview that she gave after the trial was over. She had no critical thinking skills whatsoever. (There really needs to be some kind of intelligence test for jurors.)
 

Ozoner

On Time Out
Joined
Jun 8, 2013
Messages
4,128
Reaction score
15,557
They couldn't prove how she died, so they should have tacked on a charge like involuntary homicide or probably better yet, negligent homicide. They overcharged her. I've been on multiple juries and we don't just listen and then make a decision, we have rules to follow. We are told what evidence is needed to reach each charge. In my opinion, since I wasn't in there, every charge required an ACTION, and there needed to be a charge that required nonaction, like neglecting to watch after your child.
This is not true. You do not need to know how she died to know that it was murder. It is not the jury's job to determine whether a homicide occurred. The coroner had already determined that. The tape over Caylee's mouth and Casey's behavior were enough to proved first-degree murder. Even though the prosecution is not required to prove the motive, the motive was readily apparent. The jurors were idiots who didn't understand their role.
 

claudicici

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
3,157
Reaction score
2,161
Website
www.myspace.com
I also think they focused way to much on the month after caylee died instead of the month leading up to her murder
 

Amster

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2005
Messages
11,326
Reaction score
2,043
The “judge” handpicked the jury. Verdict was preordained after that. Biased judge against the prosecution is all that is needed.
I’ll never, ever wish a moment of peace for any member of the Anthony family. All of them.
 

GatorFL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
1,930
Reaction score
12,990
Website
www.ferrarichat.com
Judge Belvin Perry screwed up when he allowed Jose Baez to mis-instruct the jury on the law during closing arguments. Baez told the jury that they could not find Casey Anthony guilty of murder if a cause of death could not be determined, and that is not true under the law. Perry should have stopped Baez right there and informed the jury that that Baez was not correct. The jury accepted Baez's inaccurate interpretation of the law, and that is what led to the acquittal. I was watching closing arguments on T.V. prior to the verdict, and I thought, "What in the hell is wrong with that judge? Why is he letting Baez mislead the jury about the law?" I was still stunned when the not-guilty verdict was announced, but I knew immediately what had led to it.

The prosecution screwed up by letting someone as stupid as Jennifer Ford serve on the jury. I watched an interview that she gave after the trial was over. She had no critical thinking skills whatsoever. (There really needs to be some kind of intelligence test for jurors.)
You're sort of playing wordsmith with Baez's closing argument. Either that or the passage of time has clouded your memory. Nevertheless, it's all there for anybody to Google.


Defense attorney Jose Baez began his closing argument by telling jurors they have more questions than answers, including the biggest: How did Caylee die? Neither prosecutors nor the defense have offered firm proof of how Caylee died.

"It can never be proven," he said. That alone should give them reasonable doubt that Anthony killed her daughter, he said.

Nothing he said was inaccurate or inaccurate under the law.

JMO
 

Ozoner

On Time Out
Joined
Jun 8, 2013
Messages
4,128
Reaction score
15,557
You're sort of playing wordsmith with Baez's closing argument. Either that or the passage of time has clouded your memory. Nevertheless, it's all there for anybody to Google.


Defense attorney Jose Baez began his closing argument by telling jurors they have more questions than answers, including the biggest: How did Caylee die? Neither prosecutors nor the defense have offered firm proof of how Caylee died.

"It can never be proven," he said. That alone should give them reasonable doubt that Anthony killed her daughter, he said.

Nothing he said was inaccurate or inaccurate under the law.

JMO
Wrong. It is inaccurate under the law. Cause of death and manner of death are not the same thing. If not knowing the cause of death constituted reasonable doubt, then virtually no one could be convicted of murder if the body weren't found before the decay of soft tissues occurred. The judge should have clarified that it was not necessary for the jurors to know the cause of death in order to conclude that Caylee was murdered. There was ample evidence for that.
 

GatorFL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2009
Messages
1,930
Reaction score
12,990
Website
www.ferrarichat.com
Wrong. It is inaccurate under the law. Cause of death and manner of death are not the same thing. If not knowing the cause of death constituted reasonable doubt, then virtually no one could be convicted of murder if the body weren't found before the decay of soft tissues occurred. The judge should have clarified that it was not necessary for the jurors to know the cause of death in order to conclude that Caylee was murdered. There was ample evidence for that.
I'm sorry, the words you used to characterize what happen do not reflect the actual words used in the trial. You're playing wordsmith. If there was a reason for the prosecution to object, they should have. The prosecution failed to show either the cause or the manner of death. Best argument that the prosecution had was the duct tape near the front of the skull and they were claiming she used chloroform. Counterarguments by the defense is expected and acceptable. Suggest you look up Florida Statutes for 782.04 and 782.07.
 

Ozoner

On Time Out
Joined
Jun 8, 2013
Messages
4,128
Reaction score
15,557
I'm sorry, the words you used to characterize what happen do not reflect the actual words used in the trial. You're playing wordsmith. If there was a reason for the prosecution to object, they should have. The prosecution failed to show either the cause or the manner of death. Best argument that the prosecution had was the duct tape near the front of the skull and they were claiming she used chloroform. Counterarguments by the defense is expected and acceptable. Suggest you look up Florida Statutes for 782.04 and 782.07.
Yes, the prosecution should have objected, but the judge doesn't have to wait for an objection to address something that egregious. I disagree that the prosecution failed to show the manner of death. There was enough evidence for any normal person with average critical thinking skills to reasonably conclude that the manner of death was homicide.

Did you see the interview with brain-dead Jennifer Ford? It was clear that the jury chose to acquit because they did not know the cause of death, and the cause of death is not necessary for a first-degree murder conviction (in Florida or any other State).
 
Top