Mistakes made that led to Casey being aquitted...

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Prosecution's persistence on the chloroform as the method of death when there wasn't really anything to back that up in the eyes of the jury. Had they only know about the fool proof suffocation searches I feel their case would have been built very differently.
I would hope so but the forensic evidence went completely over their heads, JMO.
 
I will never forget Nancy Grace, when the jury did a finding of "Not Guilty" for "tot mom". Her expression was priceless. Literally, her mouth dropped open, she was absolutely speechless.

I watched the trial on Court TV, and I personally think, that if the prosecution had gone for manslaughter or negligence, she would have been found guilty. When it was a death penalty case, and the jurors had a slight doubt...they didn't go with "reasonable doubt", they did a hard stop, and decided to aquit.
BBM: My mouth was also dropped open along with a look of total disbelief.
 
I will never forget Nancy Grace, when the jury did a finding of "Not Guilty" for "tot mom". Her expression was priceless. Literally, her mouth dropped open, she was absolutely speechless.

I watched the trial on Court TV, and I personally think, that if the prosecution had gone for manslaughter or negligence, she would have been found guilty. When it was a death penalty case, and the jurors had a slight doubt...they didn't go with "reasonable doubt", they did a hard stop, and decided to aquit.
You would think that if the corpse had duct tape over the mouth and nose that the jury would realize that this baby girl was murdered. JMO
 
Missing the 'foolproof suffocation' search done on the home computer was the hugest mistake, probably costing the prosecution the trial. They couldn't have used experts when looking at that computer. Along with the 'how to make chloroform searches' that would have been serious.
And if Stan Strickland had remained the judge, there would have been no bs allowed by Baez, and no moving the defense table so that Casey's facial reactions could be viewed by the jury as silent testimony.
Would have been a totally different trial! And would Strickland have allowed Baez' opening statement?
 
Missing the 'foolproof suffocation' search done on the home computer was the hugest mistake, probably costing the prosecution the trial. They couldn't have used experts when looking at that computer. Along with the 'how to make chloroform searches' that would have been serious.
And if Stan Strickland had remained the judge, there would have been no bs allowed by Baez, and no moving the defense table so that Casey's facial reactions could be viewed by the jury as silent testimony.
Would have been a totally different trial! And would Strickland have allowed Baez' opening statement?
DOES ANYONE EVER SEE A NEW TRIAL AND JUSTICE FOR CAYLEE? I'm losing my marbles this woman is out living her life!!
 
While a sequestered jury may have been necessary, too many things were done IMO that led to jurors "over bonding." Weekend trips to Disney, the "Dessert Lady" BS and so on led to bonded jurors who engaged in group think. No way would they be comfortable fighting it out with fellow jurors nor would they be comfortable deliberating when some jurors had vacations plans. There's plenty of blame to go around but I think the judge carried a lot of the responsibility. I think too he made errors in rulings re: selection of jurors.
MOO
 
One, main thing for me:

Judge Perry ordering one of the strictest sequestrations ever, such that the jurors were almost prisoners themselves.

There were multiple lesser-included charges such as child neglect or manslaughter, that the jury could have found her guilty of. They chose none. Not one. Why? IMO because it would have extended their 8 week sequestration to a penalty phase.

During the sequestration, they were not allowed to go to the hotel pool or bar. They couldn’t watch tv. They didn’t have phones. They were given pre-approved movies to watch. They had to have books approved. No newspapers. They had visits with their families, supervised, in a picnic area, once per week. Their rooms were guarded.

To me, that was punitive.

Since the verdict, such strict sequestration has not happened much at all. Courts around the country paid attention.

Just think about it. Did the state fail to prove even child neglect? The only charge they found her guilty of was the only charge that didn’t necessitate a penalty phase.

I still remember (but can no longer find) an article featuring an anonymous juror who spoke about how they could merely look out the window of the hotel, down at the sparkling pool that they couldn’t use. Why mention that when talking about the verdict?
 
"The State didn't prove their case for first degree murder."

That's just an opinion. And in my opinion, you could form 50 different juries and the majority would believe the State did prove their case, and would've convicted her. MOO.

And I also don't believe any of this fluff about how George is somehow a criminal, murderous mastermind. Tank you Jose Baez for randomly throwing out accusations he was a "pilaf rice-file folder" with zero evidence.
 
I didn't hear this from the prosecution during the trial, but the media played recordings of her jail house phone calls. One phone call, she told her brother to "look in places familiar to us". The location where Caylee was found was in an area where they would have played, or walked through between their house and their elementary school. That indicated to me that she knew where the body was long before anyone found Caylee.
 
The principle of double jeopardy does not apply in certain circumstances. There are exceptions where a retrial is permissible, and in the case of CA these are 1) new, compelling evidence that was not available during the initial trial, (the prosecution may seek a retrial); 2) procedural errors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: byo
The principle of double jeopardy does not apply in certain circumstances. There are exceptions where a retrial is permissible, and in the case of CA these are 1) new, compelling evidence that was not available during the initial trial, (the prosecution may seek a retrial); 2) procedural errors.

None of that is true. No matter what evidence may come to light, the prosecution cannot seek a retrial (even if Casey confessed). Procedural error is something that would overturn a conviction, not something that would warrant a retrial.
 
The biggest mistake was the prosecution skipping over the fight that happened between Casey and Cindy, giving Casey special treatment as a defendant and not properly searching the area where Caylee's remains were found when Roy Kronk reported seeing the skull in August.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
99
Guests online
2,224
Total visitors
2,323

Forum statistics

Threads
599,730
Messages
18,098,773
Members
230,917
Latest member
CP95
Back
Top