The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #4

Status
Not open for further replies.

runsdeep

New Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2011
Messages
439
Reaction score
5
reporters in the court room said jurors took little notes and some left their notes in the chairs when they left the courtroom to go deliberate. i think they snoozed the whole time except for when an anthony took the stand. they took in the gutter talk and shut out the intellect.
 

seeing_eye

New Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
117
Reaction score
0
I respect your opinion because IIRC you followed a thorough process to analyze, debate, deliberate, and process the evidence and ... you reached a conclusion.

I respect that. If there were others like you on the Jury and you reached a NG verdict ... I can respect that.

However ... just because the Jury reached a verdict that is consistent with those who agree with a NG verdict does not imply they did the right thing.

The pushback is not just about the verdict but because of the 'process', or lack of that was followed to get there. It isn't about the time spent either.

To me, it is all about years, months, days, hours were invested in putting together this trial, presenting it and, closing it and ... the Jury did not follow a reasonable process as we all did to reach our conclusions -- even with the limited view that they got.

There was a rush to verdict and they basically did a few straw polls, did not review weeks of evidence to refresh their minds, did not even read their notes (if they took any) -- they batted it around in a chit-chat, took the pulse and, everyone went with the majority so they could be done and go home.

There was not due-diligence observed in performing their civic duty ... no matter what the result ... that's what most posters are objecting to.

They don't get a pass in my book and warrant respect just because they supported my opinion ... or not. :twocents:

You said it perfectly. It was my opinion during jury selection that most of the jurors picked did not want to be on a sequestered jury and was concerned about how long they would be sequestered. I believe the jury decided to go with the verdicts that would not keep them any longer for a penalty phase. It is my opinion that is all with which they were concerned.
 

seeing_eye

New Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
117
Reaction score
0
And to add to your post Baz, I still KNOW that Michael Jackson was a pedophile, and I didn't celebrate him, only the fact that he no longer walks this earth!!! I change the channel if his music is on the radio, I continue to boycott it!

You can count me on the same bench where you sit. I watched the MJ trial, and the evidence proved to me that he was a pedophile. I never celebrated him and I am glad the earth has one less pedophile now.

I also never forgot OJ's horrific acts on Nicole and Ron.
 

jaleigh

Former Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2011
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
You said it perfectly. It was my opinion during jury selection that most of the jurors picked did not want to be on a sequestered jury and was concerned about how long they would be sequestered. I believe the jury decided to go with the verdicts that would not keep them any longer for a penalty phase. It is my opinion that is all with which they were concerned.


While eating dinner at a cookout weeks ago, current news topics came up for discussion. Besides the upcoming anniversary of 9/11, the most heart felt and anger causing discussion was about Caylee's murder and Casey A's trial and verdict. I guestimate that half the people attending thought the jurors were not only incompetent but also didn't- as you said -didn't want to be sequestered.

It's shameful.

mo


`
 

eileenhawkeye

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2010
Messages
8,763
Reaction score
123
Why was this trial so short compared to other high profile ones? I believe OJ's trial lasted 10-11 months, and Scott Peterson's trial lasted 6-7 months. Were the jurors sequestered for those trials? Why such a big difference between them?
 

lauriej

'wild rose country...'
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
4,427
Reaction score
24
Why was this trial so short compared to other high profile ones? I believe OJ's trial lasted 10-11 months, and Scott Peterson's trial lasted 6-7 months. Were the jurors sequestered for those trials? Why such a big difference between them?

..the jury in the OJ case was sequestered for the entire 8 1/2 months---

"At 10 am on October 3, 1995, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty. It had arrived at the verdict by 3 pm the previous day, after only four hours of deliberation, but Judge Ito postponed the announcement."


..the jury in the scott peterson case was not sequestered, until deliberations-----

"The total deliberations lasted almost 44 hours, after the jury heard five months of testimony from 184 witnesses. The jury has been sequestered since deliberations began Nov. 3. The jury did not deliberate during the weekend of Nov. 6-7."
 

thedeviledadvocate

New Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
761
Reaction score
1
The jury was chosen, and according to HHBP, and the state of Florida, as law requires, this jury was death qualified. For the most part, these jurors were not avid followers of the KC story. Aside from one or two jurors, both sides were satisfied with jury selection. HHBP was legally satisfied with jury selection, and the trial began. After jury selection, most felt this was a fairly well educated, death qualified jury.

The one huge difference between what this jury observed during the trial, as compared to what the general public observed for 3 years, is that for 3 years, we did not hear cross examination by the defense. Yes, there were some statements made by the defense, but these were trivialized by the media and the public. KC lied, therefore, the DT was comprised of liars, and their statements were lies. JB was an inexperienced lawyer, that learned the hard way, that the media is not necessarily your friend.

The media basically tried and convicted KC in the court of public opinion from the moment the 31 days was first uttered. From that moment on, everything reported by the media was reported in a way, as to support the assumption of guilt. With the release of docs, etc., via the Sunshine Law, the media highlighted to the high heavens anything and everything that even remotely suggested guilt, and either trivialized or ignored anything even the slightest bit exculpatory. With this type of coverage, it is not surprising in the least, that over 70% of the general public believes KC is guilty.

The fairly well educated jury did not enter day 1 of the trial with the same mindset of the general public. They were instructed to presume innocence until the prosecution proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They heard the states OS, immediately followed by the DT's OS. The state detailed 31 days of abhorrent behavior by KC. The public was pleased, the TH's were proclaiming the trial was all but over. LDB and JA were Caylee's champions, and KC was going to get the needle. Then, the unthinkable happened. JB gave his OS, and stunned everyone. The judge informed the jury that OS's were not evidence. For a couple of hours, the TH's were almost rendered speechless. There was going to be a defense presented, and they were shocked. By days end, the TH's had recovered, and let the spin begin. The TH's had the state winning, because, well, they have said for 3 years the state would win, so it was way to late to change now. The jury however, may not have been on the same page as the TH's at this point. They listened to hours of KC is evil, and in a few minutes, JB had offered an alternative theory that, if true, would negate the states OS. The trial had started, and it was evident from OS's that this DT was far more prepared than they had been given credit for in the media. The state would have to prove their case to 12 jurors, who were not already certain beyond a reasonable doubt that KC murdered Caylee. This is a high standard of proof, where even a strong belief of guilt does not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The state called GA to the stand, and asked if he had ever molested KC. His response was no, but as we found out after trial, the jury did not find GA to be a credible witness, which seemed to be a major factor in the verdict. The state then placed a number of witnesses on the stand that confirmed KC's lies and abhorrent behavior, but surprisingly made her look like a good, caring, loving mother. The TH's poohpoohed the amazing mother testimony, and ballyhooed the abhorrent behavior, much to the delight of the general public. Yes, the state is going to win this case hands down. The state followed with the forensics, and the DT attempted to poke holes in everything the state presented. Here, JB's inexperience again came shining through, as his questions were frequently objected to, and when he failed to give a legal reason why he can ask the question, the judge sustained the objection. The TH's loved it, and gave the prosecution kudos daily, during the prosecutions CIC. The TH's basically ignored or minimized the DT's cross examinations. The jury however, was not listening to the TH's, they were listening to the witnesses, the prosecutors, and the defense lawyers. The TH's were saying the jury was riveted when the prosecutors were speaking, but were yawning and seemingly bored when the DT was speaking. The public had no reason to question what the TH's were saying, and could not observe the jury on television. This holds true for the note taking as well, on one hand the jurors had over 400 pages of notes in the deliberation room, on the other hand the jurors were rarely taking notes.
The DT stated to HHBP that they did not have to present a defense, to which HHBP replied, "then ya'll lied to me." WHOA stop the presses, the judge said the DT were liars. The best soundbyte to come from the trial since OS. The media had a wonderful time with that statement, and the TH's felt that the states case was pretty much now just a formality, with the only question being how long the jury will take in deliberations to convict KC of all charges. According to them, the DT had no defense to present or they would not have said that to HHBP. Case closed.

The DT then presented their CIC. When they attempted to bring into evidence the proof of molestation by GA, they were legally thwarted at every turn. Which led the public to believe that one of the two jaw dropping statements made by JB in OS was an outright lie, since he did not show one iota of proof. JB did manage to get enough evidence in about the other shocker in OS, that Caylee drowned in the pool, that HHBP ruled JB legally could argue the theory Caylee drowned, but could NOT argue the theory GA molested KC.

The TH's, after each day of testimony throughout the trial, gave the prosecution the win for the day, thus confirming daily what the media had been saying all along, that KC was guilty. The general public was very accepting of this analysis, because this confirmed what they also believed, and it was nice to have the TH's verify what they believed.

The battle of the forensic experts, for the most part was downplayed by the media. When the forensics seemingly became too boring, the media opted to replay the jailhouse tapes, over and over, with little tidbits about the forensics sandwiched in. No need for boring the public with the boring forensics, when she already obviously has a fork in her, she's done. The TH's were happy to let the public know, that JA's skill had turned each defense witness into a witness for the state, confirming everything the states witnesses had already stated in regards to the forensics. Here again, the jury was not listening to what the TH's had to say, and it seems the jury may not have come to the same conclusion that the TH's had. The state introduced an expert with a sniffer machine, that was corroberated with several witnesses stating they smelled human decomp, as well as two cadaver dogs alerting in the A's backyard, and one alerting to the trunk of the Pontiac. The state also introduced a single hair with apparent decomp, bug testimony, and a hard to see stain. The DT countered this evidence very well, unless you were only listening to the TH's analysis of this part of the trial. The TH's were giving daily doses of JA is the master of forensics in the courtroom. The burden of the state is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and as impressive as JA seemed to be in the courtroom, the forensic testimony of the experts was often confusing, and contradictory depending on which expert you were listening to. It is up to the state to make this evidence crystal clear. Confusion equals doubt. JA needed to eliminate any questions about the forensics, but he failed. The state did not do the further testing on the adipocere like substance that would have eliminated the doubt there. The state did not explain how the shockingly high levels of chloroform found in the trunk related to the murder of Caylee. The states expert could not say the hair with apparent decomp could not have come from a living person. The state did not explain how it could be possible that there was no dna or blood found in the stain in the carpet, or why that stain was barely visible instead of being a big black stain. Fairly well educated jurors could easily find reasonable doubt with the trunk evidence. The state failed here. The TH's however, trumpeted their champion JA, and made certain the world knew he had made every DT witness a witness for the state, which of course, reinforced what the media has believed all along.

Area A. The TH's had this part of the trial pegged as all PT. No doubts about this area, and again, the state was racking up daily wins, and the final straw that would break the DT's back was the case winning testimony of Dr. G. No doubt could possibly remain after it was stated that 100% of all drownings in Dr. Gs area called 911, and that there is no explanation for duct tape being on a childs face other than homicide. The DT's Dr. Spitz was ridiculed by the media and the general public. As was the plant lady, and the grief expert. This case, in the eyes of the TH's was a slam dunk now, and the general public wholeheartedly agreed.

In the states closing argument, JA said, something along the lines of "we can only hope that chloroform had been used on Caylee before the tape was applied. JB ripped into that statement very convincingly. JB gave an impassioned closing statement about fantasy forensics, etc. Then CM finished the DT's closing statement with a very impressive hardcore presentation about reasonable doubt in the eyes of the law, to which neither the prosecution nor HHBP objected to in any way.

Was this fairly well educated, death qualified jury in reality a bunch of mindless mice, that followed the pied piper of a juryforeman to a not guilty verdict on the charges that mattered? The TH's think so. This verdict contradicted everything they had been saying for the past three years. A few jurors spoke out, and the edited interviews shined a rather negative light on the jury as a whole, but it certainly made the TH's and the media look better. The media would never edit an interview to put themselves in the most positive light possible would they? It seems to be forgotten that the initial vote in regards to the 1st premeditated DP charge was 10 - 2 not guilty. According to the jurors, this was quickly changed to a unanimous not guilty after only a couple hours. This was the only charge where a verdict of guilty would keep the jurors sequestered throughout the penalty phase. So, those who believe the jury voted not guilty on charges 2 and 3 because they wanted to go home asap and didn't want to stay sequestered for the penalty phase are mistaken, as that was not the case. Immediately after closing arguments had been completed, and deliberations had begun 10, thats right 10 of these 12 jurors, did not believe the state had proven KC committed premeditated murder beyond a reasonable doubt. 10 of 12. In the court of public opinion that is mind boggling. The jury very quickly unanimously found guilty verdicts on counts 4 - 7. Now, they were left with counts 2 and 3, roughly 2 hours in to deliberation. The initial vote found 6 guilty 6 not guilty. At this point, does this mean there were 6 fairly well educated jurors who found her guilty, and 6 not so bright jurors who could not follow the dots? The simple fact that the vote was 6 to 6 points out that the states case was not anywhere near the slam dunk that the TH's had been calling it. If the 6 guilty voters were fairly well educated (which they must have been or why would they have voted for guilty), then how did the not so bright 6 persuade the intellectually superior 6 to change their vote. The initial 6 to 6 vote does not make it sound like one person strong armed the other 11 into changing their votes to not guilty. The intial 6 to 6 vote should be shocking to the general public, and the TH's as well, since pre deliberation the popular opinion was more like 11 to 1 no where close to 6 to 6. At the end of closing statements, half of these jurors (who had listened to all the cross examination and dt witnesses without the benefit of media spin) were convinced that KC was not guilty on the first 3 counts, 10 of 12 on count 1. A few more hours and counts 2 and 3 were unanimously voted as not guilty. As with the OJ verdict, this one will be debated for years to come.

Was the public misled by the media. Did the media overhype the evidence, overrate the prosecution, underrate the defense, and simply not give any attention to the exculpatory evidence? Was this jury, that had been deemed fairly well educated and death qualified, and almost certain to find KC guilty on all charges, right up until the verdict was read, suddenly mindless sheep, unable to assess evidence, unable to connect the dots, and strong armed by one into a not guilty verdict on the first 3 counts? Although I am in agreement with the jury on this verdict, I have no doubt whatsoever, that the debate over whether this verdict was right or wrong will go on for a long, long time.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.
 

yolorado

New Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
2,154
Reaction score
2
If Caylee's death was an accident, why wasn't it reported by KC for 31 days, or by KC and her defense attorney before three years past? Isn't is some kind of legal malpractice to allow one's client to sit in jail three years waiting for a DP trial when it was only an accident? If it's not, shouldn't it be? Why wasn't 911 called at the time of the accident if there was one, and why did the accident victim end up thrown away in a swamp to be munched upon by animals rather than cremated or buried? Why doesn't a mother have to explain any of that? Most of all, WHY in the name of everything that is holy do we live in a society that doesn't hold a mother accountable for either murder, or just as bad- NOT calling 911 to summon help which might have saved her child's life or for having to prove that it wouldn't have!? How is not calling 911 alone not serious child abuse? How can we live in a society where this type of behavior, if true, wouldn't, in an of itself, result in a lengthy prison sentence? The reaction to this verdict isn't the media leading stupid sheep, too silly and stupid to read the constitution who should rather be grateful to be lectured to and led by their defense oriented "betters." This is a sensible reaction to shameless defense attorneys and, apparently, a whole system that has shaped and then embraced a misguided philosophy of what should constitute "justice" and "law" into which truth and real justice do not fit. This woman's child is dead, unreported by her, and she is free. THAT alone is unjust and cause for grave concern that the US legal system has gone badly, badly astray.
:banghead::rollercoaster::rollercoaster::rollercoaster:
 

lauriej

'wild rose country...'
Joined
Oct 28, 2004
Messages
4,427
Reaction score
24
It seems to be forgotten that the initial vote in regards to the 1st premeditated DP charge was 10 - 2 not guilty. According to the jurors, this was quickly changed to a unanimous not guilty after only a couple hours. This was the only charge where a verdict of guilty would keep the jurors sequestered throughout the penalty phase.

So, those who believe the jury voted not guilty on charges 2 and 3 because they wanted to go home asap and didn't want to stay sequestered for the penalty phase are mistaken, as that was not the case.

Immediately after closing arguments had been completed, and deliberations had begun 10, thats right 10 of these 12 jurors, did not believe the state had proven KC committed premeditated murder beyond a reasonable doubt. 10 of 12. In the court of public opinion that is mind boggling. The jury very quickly unanimously found guilty verdicts on counts 4 - 7. Now, they were left with counts 2 and 3, roughly 2 hours in to deliberation. The initial vote found 6 guilty 6 not guilty..

..that deliberation timeline isn't correct, according to what their foreman said.

..they began deliberations at approx. 2:15 ----they 1st elected a foreman, and "about an hour later", 3:15, took the 1st 'raise your hands' pre-vote, which resulted in the 10 NG-2 G.

..( deliberated for a couple of hours i guess, i don't know when they broke for dinner and the evening.)

..one of the 2G's was 'uncertain' the other 'adamant'.

..the next day (verdict day) they began with getting the counts 4-7 "knocked out" , and then went back to counts 1-3.

..at some point on day 2, the 2 G's dropped it----and they went on to get the 6 NG-6 G aggravated manslaughter vote.

( i don't have a link, but i'm sure J11 or J3 said that vote was just before lunch? i seem to think it was J3, i remember being a little shocked that jenniferF was one of the initial 6 Guilties on that..)

..we know they got from 6-6 to--- 0 G-12 NG not too long after lunch b/c we heard they had reached a verdict---there was a bit of a break to get all parties into the courtroom---and we heard the verdict at 2:15 or so..

..also, i personally never thought they didn't vote guilty on count 1 b/c they would be sequestered longer for the penalty phase------i did think they wanted out of there in general, b/c of the sequestration they'd already been through....and therefore rushed deliberations.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-th...reman-039everything-was-speculation039?page=3
--jury foreman--GVS--
 

MissJames

a yellowflutterby changed my life : )
Joined
Dec 5, 2008
Messages
6,738
Reaction score
1,580
In response to TDA's post,I'd like to make an observation.

If the jury didn't know a guilty vote didn't automatically mean the DP, that they were not supposed to even consider the sentence while determining guilt ,they probably didn't know a conviction of the lesser charge would not mean sequestration during sentencing. There's a LOT these jurors just didn't quite grasp.
 

RANCH

United we stand, divided we fall.
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
15,582
Reaction score
26,481
In response to TDA's post,I'd like to make an observation.

If the jury didn't know a guilty vote didn't automatically mean the DP, that they were not supposed to even consider the sentence while determining guilt ,they probably didn't know a conviction of the lesser charge would not mean sequestration during sentencing. There's a LOT these jurors just didn't quite grasp.

I agree. That they misunderstood one of the most basic yet critical parts of their job leaves one to wonder what else they misunderstood.
 

FL Convict

New Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
30
Reaction score
3
In response to TDA's post,I'd like to make an observation.

If the jury didn't know a guilty vote didn't automatically mean the DP, that they were not supposed to even consider the sentence while determining guilt ,they probably didn't know a conviction of the lesser charge would not mean sequestration during sentencing. There's a LOT these jurors just didn't quite grasp.

Whaaaaat?

Those questions are supposed to be asked. Maybe they asked them....???


To answer the question... I watched the trial in prison(recently released), and none of us thought first degree murder.
The opinions there were manslaughter, child abuse(3F), agg manslaughter of a child, not guilty.

Interesting trial.
 

thedeviledadvocate

New Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
761
Reaction score
1
..that deliberation timeline isn't correct, according to what their foreman said.

..they began deliberations at approx. 2:15 ----they 1st elected a foreman, and "about an hour later", 3:15, took the 1st 'raise your hands' pre-vote, which resulted in the 10 NG-2 G.

..( deliberated for a couple of hours i guess, i don't know when they broke for dinner and the evening.)

..one of the 2G's was 'uncertain' the other 'adamant'.

..the next day (verdict day) they began with getting the counts 4-7 "knocked out" , and then went back to counts 1-3.

..at some point on day 2, the 2 G's dropped it----and they went on to get the 6 NG-6 G aggravated manslaughter vote.

( i don't have a link, but i'm sure J11 or J3 said that vote was just before lunch? i seem to think it was J3, i remember being a little shocked that jenniferF was one of the initial 6 Guilties on that..)

..we know they got from 6-6 to--- 0 G-12 NG not too long after lunch b/c we heard they had reached a verdict---there was a bit of a break to get all parties into the courtroom---and we heard the verdict at 2:15 or so..

..also, i personally never thought they didn't vote guilty on count 1 b/c they would be sequestered longer for the penalty phase------i did think they wanted out of there in general, b/c of the sequestration they'd already been through....and therefore rushed deliberations.

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/on-th...reman-039everything-was-speculation039?page=3
--jury foreman--GVS--

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20077931-504083.html

The juror also shed light on what happened during voting in the jury room. They all agreed Casey Anthony was guilty of four counts of lying to law enforcement, then discussed the most serious charge - first-degree murder.
The first vote was 10-2 against first-degree murder. The vote on Tuesday was 6-6 for manslaughter. Arguments grew heated and a jury foreman calmed them all down, Juror No. 2 told the paper.

I was going by what juror #2 had said above. The jury foreman may be more accurate.
 

FL Convict

New Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
30
Reaction score
3
I'd like to know how they convinced the 6 that she was not guilty. That is pretty impressive. It's not easy to convince people who are dead set on whatever they believe.
 

cityslick

New Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
7,230
Reaction score
4
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20077931-504083.html

The juror also shed light on what happened during voting in the jury room. They all agreed Casey Anthony was guilty of four counts of lying to law enforcement, then discussed the most serious charge - first-degree murder.
The first vote was 10-2 against first-degree murder. The vote on Tuesday was 6-6 for manslaughter. Arguments grew heated and a jury foreman calmed them all down, Juror No. 2 told the paper.

I was going by what juror #2 had said above. The jury foreman may be more accurate.

Another interesting question that I would like to have answered:

The logical assumption is the original 2 that voted guilty on 1st degree probably also voted guilty for manslaughter. I'd be interested to hear from the 4 jurors that initially voted NG on 1st degree but voted guilty on manslaughter. What made them think she was guilty of manslaughter but not premeditation?
 

Sustained

Justice for Stacy
Joined
Jul 5, 2008
Messages
2,368
Reaction score
3,523
Another interesting question that I would like to have answered:

The logical assumption is the original 2 that voted guilty on 1st degree probably also voted guilty for manslaughter. I'd be interested to hear from the 4 jurors that initially voted NG on 1st degree but voted guilty on manslaughter. What made them think she was guilty of manslaughter but not premeditation?

Here's a question I'd like them to answer :

Why did they come to court in their "Sunday go to meeting" clothes on the 2nd day ? To meet the media ... well, I guess that didn't happen. Maybe because they already had arrived at their verdicts ... shocking.
 

thedeviledadvocate

New Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
761
Reaction score
1
Another interesting question that I would like to have answered:

The logical assumption is the original 2 that voted guilty on 1st degree probably also voted guilty for manslaughter. I'd be interested to hear from the 4 jurors that initially voted NG on 1st degree but voted guilty on manslaughter. What made them think she was guilty of manslaughter but not premeditation?

Just guessing about this, but it seemed the state was basically trying to imply, that the chloroform search and the chloroform levels in the trunk were indicative of premeditation. Since the state showed no evidence of chloroform being made, bought, or ever being used by KC, maybe those 4 didn't see premeditation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top