The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #4

Status
Not open for further replies.
I didn't get that feeling at all about the jury foreman. He sounded to me like he thought KC was in some way responsible, but he along with the other jurors struggled with the evidence presented, and together they reached the verdicts they reached. He sounded bothered when talking about the dumping of Caylee's body in the swamp.

No one proved anyone other than KC was responsible. DT never proved anyone else was involved. The constant changing of her stories, Nanny took Caylee, Nanny met her in JBP, knocked KC down and took off with Caylee, RK did it, Caylee drowned. While KC did not have to testify her lies spoke for her. Something that was lost on the jury. If the jurors felt KC lied about her father they could only come to one logical conclusion and that is the state proved their case.

It sure would have been interesting to hear what went on in that jury room because the few jurors we have heard from just don't make any sense. jmo
 
..they also all said at some point or another in their various interviews that they thought she was guilty of "something"!-- "wished there were additional charges that they could have charged her with" -- "sick to their stomachs" when they reached their NG verdict--"not guilty doesn't mean innocent!"....etc.

..what about the 5 lesser charges on the jury instructions then? they couldn't even convict her of the least serious option available to them---child abuse?

..i don't believe they even considered the "lessers".

..just signed off NG on counts 1-3 of the indictment and G on counts 4-7......without going further to the "lesser included crimes" section #'s 8, 9,10,11 and 12....on the jury instruction sheets.

..or the foreman---saying that yeah, kc's behaviour was bad ,disgusting, over the 31 days------but----they weren't allowed to consider anything but her behaviour on june 16th . ( huh???)

..the jury instructions said they were to consider (ONLY) the evidence presented ----well, the "31 days" and everything she did during those days WAS presented through testimony/pics etc. and entered as evidence-----apparently their fearless leader the JF didn't "get" that..

..that was a critical mountain of evidence right there-----which the JF did not consider, clearly he did not understand the jury instructions as to what was and what wasn't to be used in deliberating their verdict.

..and if you are not considering all of the evidence that you should be considering in deliberations-----how can the arrived at verdict be correct?

They probably put more thought into what the Dessert Lady was bringing them than whether or not Casey was responsible for Caylee's death! :maddening:
 
If these jurors had any kinds of doubts, they were always free to ask for a review of transcripts and evidence. What we had here were 12 Emily Litella's that took the easy way out, and did not do their duties to the best of their ability. JMO, of course!
Hey now, Emily Litella was only hard-of-hearing, not stupid!
 
I'm not familiar with "acandyrose" as a site, but only with ours and thehinkymeter - are you able to provide more information on this site?

Main site

http://www.acandyrose.com/

Link to Casey Anthony Case info

http://www.acandyrose.com/caylee_anthony_directory_index.htm

31 day detailed timeline.

http://www.acandyrose.com/casey_anthony_31days.htm

I was pointed to this site by other WS'ers as a credible source of information particularly in regards to the very detailed 31 day time line.
 
You know, I was watching a show about a man that went on trial for murder without a body. The jury was interviewed, and I swear, at first they sounded like a twin of the Pinellas 12. A lot of evidence and witness's testimony was discarded. Now, they did have a harder case here, but you know what? They deliberated for days, and ultimately asked to see phone records that when they went over them, they realized this man was lying about where he was the night of this poor woman's death. They ended up convicting him of murder. This in a case without a body and only circumstantial evidence. When it seemed they might be hung, this jury didn't cave to the majority, but went back over evidence to be able to come to a unanimous decision. That is what a good jury should do.

It made me so much more angry at the Pinellas 12 because they didn't care enough to go back over anything. They didn't care about making sure they came to the right decision. They just wanted out. It's just disgusting to me how shallow, egotistical, and uncaring the Pinellas 12 jury was. They just went with the popular vote, not with what their guts were telling them. No one can ever convince me that this was a just and right verdict. It wasn't. It was a travesty.
 
Snipped the part of this post that I'm responding to:

..they also all said at some point or another in their various interviews that they thought she was guilty of "something"!-- "wished there were additional charges that they could have charged her with" -- "sick to their stomachs" when they reached their NG verdict--"not guilty doesn't mean innocent!"....etc.

..what about the 5 lesser charges on the jury instructions then? they couldn't even convict her of the least serious option available to them---child abuse?

..i don't believe they even considered the "lessers".

..just signed off NG on counts 1-3 of the indictment and G on counts 4-7......without going further to the "lesser included crimes" section #'s 8, 9,10,11 and 12....on the jury instruction sheets.

For me, the lesser charges raised the same unanswered questions, and the prosecution didn't prove those either. If I were a juror looking at the most serious charge and voted NG on that one because I didn't think they'd proved who did what, where, when etc., I'd have the same problem with the lesser charges. I'd have to believe that the prosecution proved that Casey was responsible for Caylee's death to convict on any of them, and they just didn't do that.
 
<respectfully snipped>

It sounds like they did a lot of deliberating. As far as the legality of how and when she died, that isn't necessary to prove murder, but it caused many gray areas for the jurors. When there are gray areas, in my opinion, there is reasonable doubt. It was the prosecutors job to remove all reasonable doubt, and in this case, with this jury, the prosecutors were unsuccessful.

Excellent post (all of it!), but this part I really appreciated. It reflects exactly how I read the JF's comments and how the jury viewed what was presented. Thank you.
 
I just don't get it.

Casey was responsible for Caylee, PERIOD. She was Caylee's mother.
Caylee ends dead, bagged, duct taped, and in a swamp.
Casey lies about it for thirty one days.

What more proof could anyone possibly need than THAT to make Casey responsible for what happened to Caylee? I just don't understand the disconnect there. She was responsible for Caylee. Caylee ends up dead. Casey lies about it. What is the disconnect there? What makes Casey Anthony so dang special that those simple truths aren't enough to convict her? People keep saying there wasn't enough evidence. Casey-Caylee-dead Caylee-Casey lies. What the heck am I missing here?
 
I just don't get it.

Casey was responsible for Caylee, PERIOD. She was Caylee's mother.
Caylee ends dead, bagged, duct taped, and in a swamp.
Casey lies about it for thirty one days.

What more proof could anyone possibly need than THAT to make Casey responsible for what happened to Caylee? I just don't understand the disconnect there. She was responsible for Caylee. Caylee ends up dead. Casey lies about it. What is the disconnect there? What makes Casey Anthony so dang special that those simple truths aren't enough to convict her? People keep saying there wasn't enough evidence. Casey-Caylee-dead Caylee-Casey lies. What the heck am I missing here?

If any of that were true, then every parent whose child is killed by somebody else would also be 'responsible' and would be charged with his/her death. After all, they were responsible for their child who ended up dead. For example... if a babysitter kills a child, the kid's Mom would be charged just because she's the Mom.

That's not how it works.
 
Biased media reporting? Biased against whom? Can't say it was biased against FCA! Her lawyer JB was "down and dirty" with the media, and never turned down an opportunity to get his mug on camera. He also fought against a media gag order. Funny thing is, he also said the media was "biased." Hypocrisy, thy name is Jose Baez! :rolleyes:

There were also a few down and dirty moments by Mason. Snarky comments and fipping the media are 2 that immediately come to mind.
 
Did you miss the Defense CIC testimony and exhibits of Caylee and the pool and at the sliding door?

Maybe 2 minutes were spent on the exhibit akaphotos. Photo 1 showed Caylee standing at the glass door. Photo 2 showed her standing on the pool ladder with her grandmother standing behind her.

Proved pretty much nothing imo.
 
Yes speculation and inference - which is exactly what the prosecution presented as well. The reason we all continue to debate this is that neither side presented proof of what happened only speculation and inference.

I viewed it differently. I watched the state present a concise, well thought out theory.
 
If any of that were true, then every parent whose child is killed by somebody else would also be 'responsible' and would be charged with his/her death. After all, they were responsible for their child who ended up dead. For example... if a babysitter kills a child, the kid's Mom would be charged just because she's the Mom.

That's not how it works.

if I'm reading posts correctly, no one here is talking about a babysitter or a child dying on a babysitters watch.


Caylee Marie Anthony died by the hands of her mother imo. No body goes partying for days after their child dies. No body acts like their child went poof into thin air. Except FCA.

From the very beginning people felt the hink about FCA. Things kept pointing towards her taking her child's life.

Remember, Caylees body was found a few hundred feet from the A's home.

Convenient for the killer, not a coincidence for the killer.
 
if I'm reading posts correctly, no one here is talking about a babysitter or a child dying on a babysitters watch.

Of course not, and I didn't say that they were. I was responding to a poster who stated that Casey was the child's mother and is therefore responsible for what happened to her, PERIOD. And it's not that simple. There are many other examples I could have given to show that it doesn't work that way; I just used the babysitter one as an example.
 
I appreciate your explaining this MarthaM. I enjoy reading everyone's post and opinions!
 
Snipped the part of this post that I'm responding to:



For me, the lesser charges raised the same unanswered questions, and the prosecution didn't prove those either. If I were a juror looking at the most serious charge and voted NG on that one because I didn't think they'd proved who did what, where, when etc., I'd have the same problem with the lesser charges. I'd have to believe that the prosecution proved that Casey was responsible for Caylee's death to convict on any of them, and they just didn't do that.

..you would have to have the SAO prove that kc was responsible for caylee's DEATH--( and would want the who, what, why, when, where..)----to vote guilty on the bottom most rung lesser charge of child abuse??..hmmm...that's interesting.

..you would pretty much require the SAME evidence/proof to vote guilty for murder-------as you would require from the SAO to vote guilty for child abuse.

..that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
 
..you would have to have the SAO prove that kc was responsible for caylee's DEATH--( and would want the who, what, why, when, where..)----to vote guilty on the bottom most rung lesser charge of child abuse??..hmmm...that's interesting.

..you would pretty much require the SAME evidence/proof to vote guilty for murder-------as you would require from the SAO to vote guilty for child abuse.

..that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

It makes perfect sense to me. Rereading the jury instructions makes it even clearer.

Per the judge's instructions, I would have to believe that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey killed Caylee to convict her of any of the homicide charges. They didn't. And again per the judge's instructions, I'd have to believe that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey intentionally injured Caylee to convict on Aggravated Child Abuse. They didn't. So yes, I'd need essentially the same evidence for any of those charges; they'd have to have proven that she did it, and they failed.

And that's what the jury decided, too.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59297005/Jury-Instructions-Casey-Anthony
 
It makes perfect sense to me. Rereading the jury instructions makes it even clearer.

Per the judge's instructions, I would have to believe that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey killed Caylee to convict her of any of the homicide charges. They didn't. And again per the judge's instructions, I'd have to believe that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey intentionally injured Caylee to convict on Aggravated Child Abuse. They didn't. So yes, I'd need essentially the same evidence for any of those charges; they'd have to have proven that she did it, and they failed.

And that's what the jury decided, too.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/59297005/Jury-Instructions-Casey-Anthony

You may infer she did it. It is reasonable to infer she did it when the facts are presented. She had custody of Caylee and she had custody of the vehicle. It is unreasonable to think GA did it. These ridiculous people went on the premise of "Beyond the Shadow of a Doubt". They had a doubt, so therefore they set her free. They were not bound in logic whatsoever. They were emotionally strewn people who aligned themselves with the Defense Team. They went for the underdog. They fell "in love" with a tiny (small due to DT antics) narcissist witch.

This case was lost when the DT moved the table to rest in front of the jury, giving the opportunity to see how the DT interacted with the defendent. The jury bonded daily with the DT, they considered the defendent a victim and delivered a verdit to prove it. They detested the prosecution. What you will never hear them say is that they liked the felon. They liked her and they liked baez and mason. Because they liked her, they let her walk. They justify it by telling us the prosecution didn't prove their case. I will get out my violin. I heard it before from a jury in LA about 15 yrs prior. There was another bunch of emotionally laden people who also fell in love with the defendent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
177
Guests online
1,321
Total visitors
1,498

Forum statistics

Threads
587,125
Messages
17,876,200
Members
226,967
Latest member
spiderx
Back
Top