Agree no "balls jury" folded their tent & went home. Votes of 10 -2 & 6-6 are signifcant & they should have stood their ground & not been railroaded to 12-0. This jury did not want to connect dots from the get go & was looking for a confession or a dvd of the crime & even with that they may have bailed out. No balls!!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Anthony Verdict
- Thread starter jerkbait_1075
- Start date
Agree no "balls jury" folded their tent & went home. Votes of 10 -2 & 6-6 are signifcant & they should have stood their ground & not been railroaded to 12-0. This jury did not want to connect dots from the get go & was looking for a confession or a dvd of the crime & even with that they may have bailed out. No balls!!
"And if that doesn't convince you, the remains of the tape over the mouth removes completely accidental death"
Where was the tape from? Who purchased it? Who put it on her mouth? When was it put on her mouth? Was she dead when it was placed on her mouth? Did the tape cause her death?
All unanswered.
Who had last contact with Cayley her Mom. Casey! Cayley is dead & that is the only fact you need to know to convict there is a body. CSI can't give you those details since it took so long to find the body. Duct tape same lot was found in the home. Questions answered.
Who had last contact with Cayley her Mom. Casey! Cayley is dead & that is the only fact you need to know to convict there is a body. CSI can't give you those details since it took so long to find the body. Duct tape same lot was found in the home. Questions answered.
I think she did it but none of that of proof she did it. You better hope you never get charged with something and have the kind of jury you wish she had.
Taking a step back
So...if you think of this little discussion as a deliberation, we can determine and agree that reasonable doubt exists.
My question, as is mooses's question, is why not a hung jury?
What was it that caused everyone on the jury to have reasonable doubt on both murder one and manslaughter? And to do so in only 11 hours?
They saw something we did not see, and that was the full courtroom case, not the Nancy Grace case.
Here's what I bet they decided
1)The child died, but was it an accident, negligence (manslaughter), or pre-meditated (murder 1)? Since the prosecution didn't have a cause of death or a weapon, how would you determine that?
2) Who did it? Was it mom, grandpa, or grandma? One or all of the three of them probably did, but what evidence links the mom to it, rather than grandpa or grandma?
I am stunned that it was not a hung jury, not guilty is a lot of doubt.
So...if you think of this little discussion as a deliberation, we can determine and agree that reasonable doubt exists.
My question, as is mooses's question, is why not a hung jury?
What was it that caused everyone on the jury to have reasonable doubt on both murder one and manslaughter? And to do so in only 11 hours?
They saw something we did not see, and that was the full courtroom case, not the Nancy Grace case.
Here's what I bet they decided
1)The child died, but was it an accident, negligence (manslaughter), or pre-meditated (murder 1)? Since the prosecution didn't have a cause of death or a weapon, how would you determine that?
2) Who did it? Was it mom, grandpa, or grandma? One or all of the three of them probably did, but what evidence links the mom to it, rather than grandpa or grandma?
I am stunned that it was not a hung jury, not guilty is a lot of doubt.
Seems to me if the prosecution could not succeed with their case they should have waited until they could get a confession or more evidence. I too agree the min from this jury should have been a hung jury so FL could have the option to retry. It is done no recourse for FL. It stinks!
How?
I think the jury selection for Casey was excellent for the defense same as OJ. That is half the battle for the defense. As ezra said easy to get off jury duty if you are very honest regarding your views & willing to state them during jury selection. I have done my civic jury duty & never intend to serve again. My number came up again a few years back & I was dismissed didn't like my view of a particular police department.lol No idea why I keep getting called as my wife has not been called in 60 years. Anybody know how or why Wi residents are called for jury duty?
I think she did it but none of that of proof she did it. You better hope you never get charged with something and have the kind of jury you wish she had.
I think the jury selection for Casey was excellent for the defense same as OJ. That is half the battle for the defense. As ezra said easy to get off jury duty if you are very honest regarding your views & willing to state them during jury selection. I have done my civic jury duty & never intend to serve again. My number came up again a few years back & I was dismissed didn't like my view of a particular police department.lol No idea why I keep getting called as my wife has not been called in 60 years. Anybody know how or why Wi residents are called for jury duty?
thunderstruck88
New member
no human jury needed as I said before !!!!
No Human Jury needed !!! she will have to answer to God and so will her whole family RIP CAYLEE!
God will be the only jury this girl will judged by and he will take care of her period!!!!
No Human Jury needed !!! she will have to answer to God and so will her whole family RIP CAYLEE!
anonomoose
New member
"And if that doesn't convince you, the remains of the tape over the mouth removes completely accidental death"
Where was the tape from? Who purchased it? Who put it on her mouth? When was it put on her mouth? Was she dead when it was placed on her mouth? Did the tape cause her death?
All unanswered.
You have been watching too much CSI stuff.
Who cares where the tape was purchased, or who put the tape on her mouth....the roll of tape was in HER household and why would anyone put tape over a mouth of a dead kid?
She lied to her mother about the kid being with someone, and then told others different stories. Why did she do that...because she liked to get her jollies by telling folks lies? It is completely unjustified and supportive of her guilt that she did this crime. No mother who cares about her kids would just walk away and party down as her child was missing....unless she knew that there was NO missing kid.
Now the kid is finally found and even her own mother thought foul play, actually alerting the authorities to missing child.
This is a connect the dots process.
This jury, took a first vote and half thought she was guilty, but within 11 hours, they were convinced that the prosecution did not have enough evidence to convict her....and convinced 6 jury members that there was reasonable doubt.
What we have here is a jury that didn't want to do the job....had had enough of this trial, and did what it had to do to go home. It happens....but anyone who thinks that justice was served, or that another jury would have done the same thing....should go to Vagas....cause there you are guaranteed to win.....
This was not about creating doubt....or reasonable doubt.....nobody made her lie....the defense put up a lousy and crazy defense throwing up anything and everything...but did nothing other than try and cast doubt on the evidences.
Where they got really lucky was with this...THIS....jury! Everything else is insignificant.
Last edited:
You have been watching too much CSI stuff.
Who cares where the tape was purchased, or who put the tape on her mouth....the roll of tape was in HER household and why would anyone put tape over a mouth of a dead kid?
She lied to her mother about the kid being with someone, and then told others different stories. Why did she do that...because she liked to get her jollies by telling folks lies? It is completely unjustified and supportive of her guilt that she did this crime. No mother who cares about her kids would just walk away and party down as her child was missing....unless she knew that there was NO missing kid.
Now the kid is finally found and even her own mother thought foul play, actually alerting the authorities to missing child.
This is a connect the dots process.
This jury, took a first vote and half thought she was guilty, but within 11 hours, they were convinced that the prosecution did not have enough evidence to convict her....and convinced 6 jury members that there was reasonable doubt.
What we have here is a jury that didn't want to do the job....had had enough of this trial, and did what it had to do to go home. It happens....but anyone who thinks that justice was served, or that another jury would have done the same thing....should go to Vagas....cause there you are guaranteed to win.....
This was not about creating doubt....or reasonable doubt.....nobody made her lie....the defense put up a lousy and crazy defense throwing up anything and everything...but did nothing other than try and cast doubt on the evidences.
Where they got really lucky was with this...THIS....jury! Everything else is insignificant.
Yep I see it exactly the same way as you stated above. To me the defense presentation was off the wall & not factual at all.The jury should have done a better job spent more time hearing all sides of juror opinion based on evidence of this case. Seems like they were railroaded into agreement from within. No balls jury.
D
Deleted member 10829
Guest
You have been watching too much CSI stuff.
Who cares where the tape was purchased, or who put the tape on her mouth....the roll of tape was in HER household and why would anyone put tape over a mouth of a dead kid?
She lied to her mother about the kid being with someone, and then told others different stories. Why did she do that...because she liked to get her jollies by telling folks lies? It is completely unjustified and supportive of her guilt that she did this crime. No mother who cares about her kids would just walk away and party down as her child was missing....unless she knew that there was NO missing kid.
Now the kid is finally found and even her own mother thought foul play, actually alerting the authorities to missing child.
This is a connect the dots process.
This jury, took a first vote and half thought she was guilty, but within 11 hours, they were convinced that the prosecution did not have enough evidence to convict her....and convinced 6 jury members that there was reasonable doubt.
What we have here is a jury that didn't want to do the job....had had enough of this trial, and did what it had to do to go home. It happens....but anyone who thinks that justice was served, or that another jury would have done the same thing....should go to Vagas....cause there you are guaranteed to win.....
This was not about creating doubt....or reasonable doubt.....nobody made her lie....the defense put up a lousy and crazy defense throwing up anything and everything...but did nothing other than try and cast doubt on the evidences.
Where they got really lucky was with this...THIS....jury! Everything else is insignificant.
anonomoose,
I like how you think and agree with you! The crazy part about the defense is how they said George abused Casey yet they provided not one shread of evidence.
2 you last 3, as I said before, " You better hope you never get charged with something and have the kind of jury you wish she had."
I have no idea what this opinion of yours has to do with the case facts.Way off track seems you are having an emotional reaction since you posted the same statement 2X & we ingnored once but not 2X. Wishing ill to others that think differently than you will not sway their opinion just makes you look like you are loosing focus & need to get back on track.
anonomoose,
I like how you think and agree with you! The crazy part about the defense is how they said George abused Casey yet they provided not one shread of evidence.
Defense also stopped trial to check Casey's emotional health for a weekend. What the heck of course she was under stress! Crazy stuff & another stunt by defense. The abuse by George if it did happpen also had nothing to do with the murder charges. Jury did not connect the evidence dots & later said we needed a "smoking gun" for evidence. Thinking like this is not part of their instructions & the jury was off doing their own thing. Again more examples of "No balls jury" not willing to step up & do the the right thing.
None of have any of the "case facts" as we were not part of the jury. All we really know is the Nancy Grace case.
The prosecution had to know their evidence was weak and should have gone for a lesser charge. Had they done that, the jury may have come back with a completely different decision. They were asking a jury to kill someone based on the evidence they had which, I think most of us agree, was far from having a clear cut case.
I do think she had something to do with her daughters death, but what I/we think matters not. The burden of proof is the responsibility of the prosecuting attorney who obviously didn't succeed at presenting evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty and should be fired for completely blowing this case.
Dave
The prosecution had to know their evidence was weak and should have gone for a lesser charge. Had they done that, the jury may have come back with a completely different decision. They were asking a jury to kill someone based on the evidence they had which, I think most of us agree, was far from having a clear cut case.
I do think she had something to do with her daughters death, but what I/we think matters not. The burden of proof is the responsibility of the prosecuting attorney who obviously didn't succeed at presenting evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty and should be fired for completely blowing this case.
Dave
anonomoose
New member
None of have any of the "case facts" as we were not part of the jury. All we really know is the Nancy Grace case.
The prosecution had to know their evidence was weak and should have gone for a lesser charge. Had they done that, the jury may have come back with a completely different decision. They were asking a jury to kill someone based on the evidence they had which, I think most of us agree, was far from having a clear cut case.
I do think she had something to do with her daughters death, but what I/we think matters not. The burden of proof is the responsibility of the prosecuting attorney who obviously didn't succeed at presenting evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty and should be fired for completely blowing this case.
Dave
"Anthony has been found not guilty of killing her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee. She was also found not guilty of aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter of a child. But she was convicted on charges of misleading law enforcement."
Do you still think they would have DAVE?
In almost all capital cases put to a jury, most have the ability to automatically go after a lesser charge if they feel that the charges brought against them warrants it. They can't however, go after a higher conviction.
So the jury ruled out pre-meditated, accidental, and even ag child abuse.
While the prosecution put up 400 pieces of evidence, and 90 witnesses in this case, the jury took a whopping 11 hours to acquit.
Not once did the jury ask to have testimony re-read, pictures re-viewed, or even ask a question to the judge.
What we have here is a "dream jury" for the defense and had we all known this at the beginning...we could have saved a bunch of popcorn and tuning in to Nancy Grace.
While a couple of you dwell on the norm which should be important...such as being there to hear the testimony, such resounding facts that she didn't tell the police or that she lied when questioned, by her parents, friends and relatives, and then finally the police....should tell anyone who can walk and chew gum that she did it....the where, when, or how isn't really all that important unless you are trying to fill a two hour TV segment of CSI.....
This is the real world....and no matter how you cut it...this lady is lucky to be walking after all this...and the rest of the nation is upset that 12 jurors could whack this one up so badly, ignore some pretty hard evidence (even if it was circumstantial) and head home after 11 hours on the job. Reminds me of kids with cheat notes up their sleeves finishing a test well ahead of the best kids in the class. Corrupted the system you hold out as sacred.
Moose
I agree with much of what you are saying and I said before that I thought for sure they would nail her for at least manslaughter of a child or aggrevated assualt of a minor.
Dream jury or not, the only thing they can hack up is the evidence presented. They needed hard evidence and didn't have it. They should have waited and built a more solid case. It would be tough for any jury to convict on any charges based on circumstantial, especially for murder one.
It appears obvious to all of us that she was involved somehow but, the bottom line is, she will go free and a poor little girl is dead and we will never know what happened to her.
Dave
I agree with much of what you are saying and I said before that I thought for sure they would nail her for at least manslaughter of a child or aggrevated assualt of a minor.
Dream jury or not, the only thing they can hack up is the evidence presented. They needed hard evidence and didn't have it. They should have waited and built a more solid case. It would be tough for any jury to convict on any charges based on circumstantial, especially for murder one.
It appears obvious to all of us that she was involved somehow but, the bottom line is, she will go free and a poor little girl is dead and we will never know what happened to her.
Dave
I couldn't say it any better:
“A jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer.”
-Robert Frost
snowdancer
New member
Well all I can say is she will NEVER have any kind of a quality life again. Whether she was sentenced to prison, or released back into society, its pretty much over for her. She has created her own prison and probably doesn't even realize it. Her daughter is gone, her parents will probably never be able to look at her again and feel any love or compassion(knowing what happened to their granddaughter), her brother certainly doesn't want anything to do with her, her friends will shun her(really who would want to be seen with her!) She will have to do plastic surgery and change her name, AND that will only work for her as long as the people associated with those procedures can keep their mouths shut!! If there is money to be made, someone will surely talk! A strange set of circumstances for sure. Completely free with ABSOLUTELY NO FUTURE!