Why did the jury reach this verdict?

magnolia

War Eagle
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Messages
88,026
Reaction score
1,081
I personally have wondered if HHJP is not partially to blame for their decision. I know alot of you love JP, but hear me out. The jury loved him, he treated them well, there is no doubt about that. HHJP bent over backwards for the defense, IMO opinion to prevent a verdict overturned on appeal. He schooled JB daily on the law, often let them question witnesses outside of scope, he sometimes ruled in their favor as a precaution, when IMO he should not have, he allowed things said in JB's closing that were clearly breaking the rules, and he did not come down on JB hard enough for his behaviour. Many times the jury saw this judge treat JB with kid gloves. Now ALL OF US know it was to prevent a mistrial and prevent a verdict that would be easily overturned, however I dont think the jury understood that. Looking back I now think that the jury probably thought that the judge was being so nice to the DT because he thought their client was not guilty! I know if someone I like and respect treats someone nicely I usually also assume that I can trust that person too. In addition HHJP seemed harder on the prosecution, he held them to higher standards, I get that, but did the jury get that?? What do you all think?

I agree with a lot of this and will add that I have always hated how he did the jury selection and was afraid just for this reason. I do feel the state had a lot more they could have and should have presented that showed a clearer picture of motive and other evidence. I know there were multiple reasons for not piling it on also but obviously since they don't get a re-do they should have.

I agree with a lot of it too.
 

Wholehearted

New Member
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
721
Reaction score
1
"Alternate juror #14, Russell Huekler, agrees with the jury’s verdict.

“We don’t know how she (Caylee) died,” the alternate juror told Fox News. “It just comes down to probably an accident that the family didn’t know how to cope with…the prosecution failed to show motive.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/05/meet-jurors-casey-anthony-trial/#ixzz1RGi6C4GZ

Just read this. If he's representative of what the sitting jurors thought. . . it's just unreal. Could this case have been won if they were able to bring in the IM's between Casey and Tony? What if Cindy had actually been honest about what kind of mother Casey was?
 

magnolia

War Eagle
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Messages
88,026
Reaction score
1,081
I personally have wondered if HHJP is not partially to blame for their decision. I know alot of you love JP, but hear me out. The jury loved him, he treated them well, there is no doubt about that. HHJP bent over backwards for the defense, IMO opinion to prevent a verdict overturned on appeal. He schooled JB daily on the law, often let them question witnesses outside of scope, he sometimes ruled in their favor as a precaution, when IMO he should not have, he allowed things said in JB's closing that were clearly breaking the rules, and he did not come down on JB hard enough for his behaviour. Many times the jury saw this judge treat JB with kid gloves. Now ALL OF US know it was to prevent a mistrial and prevent a verdict that would be easily overturned, however I dont think the jury understood that. Looking back I now think that the jury probably thought that the judge was being so nice to the DT because he thought their client was not guilty! I know if someone I like and respect treats someone nicely I usually also assume that I can trust that person too. In addition HHJP seemed harder on the prosecution, he held them to higher standards, I get that, but did the jury get that?? What do you all think?

I agree with a lot of this and will add that I have always hated how he did the jury selection and was afraid just for this reason. I do feel the state had a lot more they could have and should have presented that showed a clearer picture of motive and other evidence. I know there were multiple reasons for not piling it on also but obviously since they don't get a re-do they should have.

Yep,I agree with a lot of it too.
 

Maven2379

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2009
Messages
995
Reaction score
1
Website
maven2379.wordpress.com
I think they were just lazy, no notes during the trial, didn't ask to see any of the evidence, they wanted to go home and knew this would get them there quicker!
 

RR0004

New Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2008
Messages
20,001
Reaction score
16
"Alternate juror #14, Russell Huekler, agrees with the jury’s verdict.

“We don’t know how she (Caylee) died,” the alternate juror told Fox News. “It just comes down to probably an accident that the family didn’t know how to cope with…the prosecution failed to show motive.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/05/meet-jurors-casey-anthony-trial/#ixzz1RGi6C4GZ

Just read this. If he's representative of what the sitting jurors thought. . . it's just unreal. Could this case have been won if they were able to bring in the IM's between Casey and Tony? What if Cindy had actually been honest about what kind of mother Casey was?
There is nothing that will explain away a child being duct taped and thrown into the woods to be chewed on by animals. To have ignored that is IMO ignoring the purpose of having a jury in the first place...to consider ALL of the evidence.
 

magnolia

War Eagle
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Messages
88,026
Reaction score
1,081
I'm sure Scott Peterson would have loved to have had this Jury.
 

qtc

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
110
Reaction score
0
I'm so glad at least one of the jurors (albeit an alternate) spoke out to give us some kind of insite (at least at this point) to, IMO, this outrageous miscarriage of justice.

But that doesnt mean that I understand! I can slightly understand how George could have thrown them for a loop, but I do not get their other conclusions....

They think George has something to hide.
They think Casey was a good mother, and she had no motive to do this to her daughter.
They think it was an accident that the family didnt know how to cope with (so they put her in a trash bag, and threw her out to be ravaged by animals?? OMGosh, how could they possibly come to that conclusion, please someone explain it to me, please!)
 

lisasalinger

Juror13
Joined
May 13, 2011
Messages
1,602
Reaction score
14
There is nothing that will explain away a child being duct taped and thrown into the woods to be chewed on by animals. To have ignored that is IMO ignoring the purpose of having a jury in the first place...to consider ALL of the evidence.

THANK YOU!!! I couldn't agree more
 

stilettos

Former Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
5,832
Reaction score
8
"Alternate juror #14, Russell Huekler, agrees with the jury’s verdict.

“We don’t know how she (Caylee) died,” the alternate juror told Fox News. “It just comes down to probably an accident that the family didn’t know how to cope with…the prosecution failed to show motive.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/05/meet-jurors-casey-anthony-trial/#ixzz1RGi6C4GZ

Just read this. If he's representative of what the sitting jurors thought. . . it's just unreal. Could this case have been won if they were able to bring in the IM's between Casey and Tony? What if Cindy had actually been honest about what kind of mother Casey was?


Houston, we have a problem. IMO it is a HUGE problem that needs serious investigation....he says "We" how does he know as an alternate that did not deliberate what the other jurors think? Did they actually talk about it while prohibited by the Judge? The Prosecution is not required to provide motive in the case...is this not in the charging instructions?
 

missadrienne

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
126
Reaction score
3
"Alternate juror #14, Russell Huekler, agrees with the jury’s verdict.

“We don’t know how she (Caylee) died,” the alternate juror told Fox News. “It just comes down to probably an accident that the family didn’t know how to cope with…the prosecution failed to show motive.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/05/meet-jurors-casey-anthony-trial/#ixzz1RGi6C4GZ

Just read this. If he's representative of what the sitting jurors thought. . . it's just unreal. Could this case have been won if they were able to bring in the IM's between Casey and Tony? What if Cindy had actually been honest about what kind of mother Casey was?

"We" who? Because weren't they supposed to refrain from discussing the trial when they weren't in court? How would this alternate know what the collective thought was if it had not been discussed?
 

missadrienne

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
126
Reaction score
3
Houston, we have a problem. IMO it is a HUGE problem that needs serious investigation....he says "We" how does he know as an alternate that did not deliberate what the other jurors think? Did they actually talk about it while prohibited by the Judge? The Prosecution is not required to provide motive in the case...is this not in the charging instructions?


Exactly what I just posted. I noticed that, too, and now have serious questions. Thanks for the post.
 

manorlady

New Member
Joined
May 22, 2011
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
I think George Anthony screwed it up, and introduced reasonable doubt by his stupid behavior in the courtroom. I don't know whether or not it was intentional, but every time he went up there, he looked and acted like an obnoxious freak. Maybe it was even more obvious to the jurors who were only feet away from him. His stupid affected speech, his slimy answers, his overly aggressive behavior to the defense.
 

Wholehearted

New Member
Joined
May 19, 2011
Messages
721
Reaction score
1
Houston, we have a problem. IMO it is a HUGE problem that needs serious investigation....he says "We" how does he know as an alternate that did not deliberate what the other jurors think? Did they actually talk about it while prohibited by the Judge? The Prosecution is not required to provide motive in the case...is this not in the charging instructions?

BBM. Exactly. I asked on the lawyer's thread whether there would be any consequences if they had been discussing the case amongst themselves. He says "we" at least four times. There could be an innocent explanation; it could just be a manner of speaking. But it sure seems odd.

I'm not sure what is said about motive. I listened to the charging instructions, but was so tired at that point, that a lot of it was lost on me. Maybe the same thing happened to the jury. :banghead:
 

jojomonkey

New Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
1,321
Reaction score
1
These people have no idea what reasonable doubt is. They didn't look at the TOTALITY of the evidence They didn't stop to think that duct tape is never needed in an accidental death. They went with their own feelings that a young mother could never intentionally kill her child for selfish reasons. They ignored the forensics. They ignored the 31 days. They ignored the chloroform searches.

I feel so awful for the prosecutors - imagine how upset they are if we are this upset. They did an amazing job, maybe they were overconfident but so was I - it seemed like an easy win for them.

Something is just wrong here, very wrong. This jury did not do their job.

Motive was proven. She was a liar, Caylee was starting to talk. She couldn't take her lies any further.

If the Anthony's would have been 100% truthful she would have been found guilty. So congratulations - you didn't want to lose a daughter and a grandaughter but guess what, you will anyway. Casey will never speak to any of you again.
 

qtc

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
110
Reaction score
0
do the alternate jurors listen in on the deliberations while the other 12 are discussing? Just in case one of the main jurors is dismissed? Or can a juror even be sent home after they start deliberating?

If they do not listen in, and I have no idea if they do or not, something fishy is going on....
 

justanother

Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2011
Messages
960
Reaction score
23
do the alternate jurors listen in on the deliberations while the other 12 are discussing? Just in case one of the main jurors is dismissed? Or can a juror even be sent home after they start deliberating?

If they do not listen in, and I have no idea if they do or not, something fishy is going on....

I believe they were in a seperate location- back at their hotel?
 

ZsaZsa

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
11,027
Reaction score
15,227
I think George Anthony screwed it up, and introduced reasonable doubt by his stupid behavior in the courtroom. I don't know whether or not it was intentional, but every time he went up there, he looked and acted like an obnoxious freak. Maybe it was even more obvious to the jurors who were only feet away from him. His stupid affected speech, his slimy answers, his overly aggressive behavior to the defense.

Hopefully all the A's can now retire to the same cesspit and we never have to see or hear from them again.
 

Yellow

Active Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
972
Reaction score
126
The alternate juror was speaking on HLN. He didn't believe the body was ever in the car! They did not smell it on the 16th and think George would have called police if there was really a smell of a body !

He also did not believe George was credible, and they believed the duct tape was consistent w the pet cemetery thing,. he also thought the family was dysfunctional.

It seems like they bought all of Baez's arguments

Is anyone else shocked?
 

jojomonkey

New Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Messages
1,321
Reaction score
1
I think George Anthony screwed it up, and introduced reasonable doubt by his stupid behavior in the courtroom. I don't know whether or not it was intentional, but every time he went up there, he looked and acted like an obnoxious freak. Maybe it was even more obvious to the jurors who were only feet away from him. His stupid affected speech, his slimy answers, his overly aggressive behavior to the defense.

Maybe that was part of it. The entire family came off as liars so the jurors didn't know who to believe. Let's face it, they are an unusual family. They don't react to a lot of things like most people would. They are dysfunctional. Cindy does cover for Casey and they are not honest people. I believed George, but after seeing the family dynamic first hand, maybe they didn't believe any of them.

But even still, the mountain of evidence - really jurors? Really?
 
Top