Casey Anthony trial...

[Maria D]

The jury was sequestered. They had no contact with the outside world - no family, no newspapers, no fun outings. You can be pretty sure that all the waking hours they spent outside of the courtroom were hours that they spent thinking about this case. I wouldn't be so quick to say that the only time they thought about what they heard in the courtroom was during those final 11 hours.

The state didn't prove that Casey killed her, no matter how much circumstantial evidence points to that fact. And they didn't prove that Casey was the one who tossed her in a swamp, either. Do I believe she's guilty? Absolutely. But could I have found her guilty in a court of law where the alleged crime was not proven by the state? When even you are saying that it's possible it was an accident that the Anthony family (god knows who) covered up..? Probably not.

OK, please help me here. Why do you absolutely believe she is guilty? Are you saying that it's a gut feeling not based on any evidence (or not based enough on evidence)? If it is based on evidence, is it not the right kind of evidence? Does circumstantial evidence not count? If you and I were on this jury together and I felt the same way you do, that I'm absolutely certain that she's guilty (of at least the lesser murder charge) based on the circumstantial evidence presented, and I was the only one hanging up the entire jury, how would you try to convince me to come around to the decision you and the 10 others had made? What would be the reasonable doubt?

I'm not trying to harangue you KatyWI, I am really trying to understand how 12 people (and an alternate) came to this decision. I'm beginning to think I don't understand what the responsibility of a juror is. Because if I felt absolutely certain after being presented all the evidence there is no way I could live with myself if I voted to acquit. I wouldn't look at it like I had the responsibility to acquit if I felt the prosecutors didn't prove it conclusively. I would look at it as, if I'm absolutely certain given what they did prove, then they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt and I must find the defendant guilty. Because If I'm absolutely certain of something, I don't have reasonable doubt.

I do agree with you that they were most likely thinking about the case during the entire time they were sequestered. However, they weren't allowed to talk about it with one another at all during this time. The point of deliberations is to finally discuss. A friend of mine was on a jury that took 2 and half days to acquit a guy of DWI charges.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

The jury was sequestered. They had no contact with the outside world - no family, no newspapers, no fun outings. You can be pretty sure that all the waking hours they spent outside of the courtroom were hours that they spent thinking about this case. I wouldn't be so quick to say that the only time they thought about what they heard in the courtroom was during those final 11 hours.

The state didn't prove that Casey killed her, no matter how much circumstantial evidence points to that fact. And they didn't prove that Casey was the one who tossed her in a swamp, either. Do I believe she's guilty? Absolutely. But could I have found her guilty in a court of law where the alleged crime was not proven by the state? When even you are saying that it's possible it was an accident that the Anthony family (god knows who) covered up..? Probably not.

They did go out on outings, Judge Perry alluded to that all the time, even letting them go early so they could rest before going out. JP was very tolerate of their situation and gave them a lot of breaks where he could. But that's beside the point.

I'm sure the jury invested what they could in this case on an individual level--or at least I would hope that. But I have listened to two jurors now that have come forward to share their thoughts...and I don't feel, again just my opinion, that they focused on the relevant matters. The juror was very concerned about Casey's upbringing--her "dysfunctional" home, very wary of the chloroform levels--claiming it could have been from cleaning products, yet there were no cleaning products in the trunk. The alternate juror felt George was too combative with Baez. These are things that are not evidence, they are, at best, opinion.

I didn't say it could have been a drowning, I said "even if it was"--believe me when I say, I DO NOT believe this was an accident, I think it defies logic to think someone would take an accident and make it look like murder, someone would sit in jail for 3 years for an accident that would ultimately harbor no jail time, someone would lie and lie and lie about the child being alive when they knew the child wasn't. What I meant to relay was, if the Jury thought for even a moment that this was an accident, where is the justice for everything that went down afterwards? I think it's criminal to throw a child, living or dead, in a swamp infested with snakes and spiders. That, IMO, is abuse--even if it's only abuse of a corpse.

When Jeff Ashton said "Baez wants you to leave your common sense in Penalis County"...they apparently listened. Casey was Caylee's mother. She was the ultimate and final care giver, and I'm not talking about who was last seen with Caylee, I'm speaking in broad terms of motherhood. She was the one who was supposed to protect and cherish that child, and put herself aside for the good of the baby at whatever costs. I don't care who threw Caylee in the swamp, at the end of the day, Casey is responsible for that child. No one else.

This board is made up of thousands of independent people from various walks of life, back grounds, income levels and life experiences. No doubt there are those among us from dysfunctional homes, broken families, incest survivors, and the like...and I've yet to see one person post and say "Yeah, you know, if my kid drown in the pool, I'd throw her in a swamp...or let someone else do it...that seems reasonable"...And we never will. Why? Because that's not the way the world works...that's not rational nor is it logical, and I challenge anyone to find doubt in that.

 

[lbbaber]

The jury was sequestered. They had no contact with the outside world - no family, no newspapers, no fun outings. You can be pretty sure that all the waking hours they spent outside of the courtroom were hours that they spent thinking about this case. I wouldn't be so quick to say that the only time they thought about what they heard in the courtroom was during those final 11 hrs.

Have you ever been on a jury?? I have. I was on a double murder trial. The jurors are in no way, shape, or form allowed to discuss ANY part of the trial--their opinions about ANY of the testimony--UNTIL THE CASE IS FINISHED, closing arguments made, and THE JUDGE ALLOWS YOU TO. It is drilled in the jurors OVER AND OVER AGAIN. If you get caught discussing it you can be thrown off the jury. The reason being is that they want you to HEAR EVERYTHING BEFORE discussing....

The trial I was on took 6 weeks and we spent 6 days deliberating--asking for NUMEROUS recalls and POURING over the evidence---and my case was nowhere near as complicated!!

These jurors spent 11 hours deciding this conclusion without reviewing ANYTHING but their own notes."Thinking" about it on their own is not enough. I wish they spent half the time and energy that the PSers did in this thread each night. WHAT A SHAME!!!!

My DH and my father have always said we need professional jurors. I am starting to believe this myself.

 

[KatyWI]

I have been on a jury, thanks. And I very clearly did NOT say they TALKED about it or DISCUSSED it, I said they THOUGHT about it. Are you going to tell me that when you sat on a murder trial as soon as you walked out of the courtroom you didn't think about the case at all?

And it's great that you as a juror and your peers did your due diligence, but as far as I can tell, all 12 of these jurors were convinced the state didn't prove its case. Most lawyers that I know seem to agree. It's a damn shame, but it's the truth.

 

[Lanie]

I LOVE LOVE LOVE your response Maria D. I would like to know, as well, for all of those that say "I think Casey is guilty, but I would still acquit her in I were on a jury". Why? Why, if you think she's guilty? The legal definition of reasonable doubt needs to be readdressed.

 

[FrekeChild]

I've been on a jury before. the magnitude of the responsibility was overwhelming. I was being held responsible for someone else's life. I was not on a death penalty case...I was not even on a life in prison case. But depending on my thoughts, someone was going to go to jail. The trial took a week. The deliberations took a day and a half. And you know what went on in that day and a half? Arguing. And listening over and over to recorded phone calls from the defendant to various different people. Arguing. Poking at the large quantities of drugs sitting in front of us. A LOT of arguing.

Circumstantial evidence is hard to win on (this is also agreed upon by two attorneys I see every day, who would acquit her too, and seemingly by a couple here on PS). Period. The only real witnesses to Caylee's demise are Caylee and her murderer. That may or may not include Casey.

And I would have come to the same conclusion as those twelve jurors. I would have acquitted her too.

There was nothing presented in the case that was absolute proof that she did it. I am not interested in scientific jibber jabber. I imagine the jurors weren't either. Sometimes lawyers will present witnesses that are so incredibly smart and hardly understandable for someone who doesn't have a basic knowledge in what they are experts in. And it usually ends up backfiring. Odds are, the jurors aren't science/medical/etc people and it goes right over their heads, so they discount it. Sure air sampling and bugs and their part on decompensation is fascinating, but...

So here is what I think. I think that she had something to do with Caylee's demise. I don't know what part she had in it, and I don't particularly care, it has no bearing on my day to day life. And in my job I see so many many terrible things, that something like Caylee's story is just a drop of water under the bridge for me. Yeah, that's sad when I think about it too. There was no part of the trial that said, "beyond any doubt, CASEY did this. PERIOD." There were plenty of opportunities for someone besides Casey to have some part in this.

I have read the entire thread, and it really seemed to me that just about everyone already said/felt/proclaimed Casey was guilty from the very beginning. From BEFORE the trial.

The prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey killed Caylee.

Do I think she did SOMETHING? Yes. Maybe it was just being a terrible negligent mother. Maybe it lead to Caylee's demise. Either way, I do not believe that the prosecution proved that Casey committed the crimes she was accused of in this trial.

Did her car stink? Yes. Is she the only person to ever have driven it? Probably not.

Was she the only one who used that computer? No.

Is Caylee the only person that has ever been dumped in a swamp to get rid of her remains? Heck no.

Was Casey the only person who had access to that pool? No.

Did she lie A LOT? Yes. Certainly. And they found her guilty of that.

Tape over her mouth? Casey wouldn't have been the first.

Casey not wanting to have Caylee? She wouldn't be the first young woman to be guilted by her parents to keep a child, and she will not be the last. Does that mean she killed Caylee to get rid of her? No. She had other options. Murdering is most certainly the messiest of all options I can think of. She could have given custody of Caylee to her parents. She could have put her up for adoption. She could have dropped her off at a hospital. She could have dropped her off with Child Protective Services, or whatever it's called in FL.

It it suspicious that she didn't call 911 when Caylee had been missing for 31 days? Yes. Does it prove anything? No. It's suspicious, but it doesn't PROVE that CASEY killed CAYLEE.

Etc.

Other people had the opportunity. Do other people have motives? Sure, why not? It also could have been an accident. Is her situation weird? Yes. But the only person who knows what happened or didn't happen is Casey. And she isn't going to incriminate herself. She can certainly still be charged with other crimes.

As a juror, you have to look at things without prejudice. You have to look at it as it's presented to you. And you can only use the evidence put in front of you by the prosecution and defense. You can ONLY use whats in the courtroom. They beat that into you.

After my own jury experience (which I absolutely adored btw) the prosecution team came in and explained that there was a witness that the defendant scared off. They had to drop several charges against the defendant because that witness bailed. And we were totally in the dark. We had NO IDEA that there even was this other person who didn't show, that there were other charges. Being a juror is terribly difficult, but for me it was very satisfying. I did my civic duty; I learned a hell of a lot; I did what I was asked to do and I did the very best I could do. I imagine that these people did the same.

Speaking as a pregnant woman, I cannot fathom killing my own child. Every single twinge I feel makes me worry that something is not ok. And I can't help but think "What a waste it would be" if something happened to my child...a waste of the first trimester where I was nauseous ALL OF THE TIME. A waste of energy, time, etc etc etc. Speaking as a child of a parent who lost a child, it is incredibly devastating to lose something that is literally part of you, something that you invested money and yourself (emotionally and biologically) into. It is a very disturbed person that could harm their own child. But it happens.

And I would still acquit her.

 

[dragonfly411]

I've been on a jury before. the magnitude of the responsibility was overwhelming. I was being held responsible for someone else's life. I was not on a death penalty case...I was not even on a life in prison case. But depending on my thoughts, someone was going to go to jail. The trial took a week. The deliberations took a day and a half. And you know what went on in that day and a half? Arguing. And listening over and over to recorded phone calls from the defendant to various different people. Arguing. Poking at the large quantities of drugs sitting in front of us. A LOT of arguing.

Circumstantial evidence is hard to win on (this is also agreed upon by two attorneys I see every day and seemingly by a couple here on PS). Period. The only real witnesses to Caylee's demise are Caylee and her murderer. That may or may not include Casey.

And I would have come to the same conclusion as those twelve jurors. I would have acquitted her too.

There was nothing presented in the case that was absolute proof that she did it. I am not interested in scientific jibber jabber. I imagine the jurors weren't either. Sometimes lawyers will present witnesses that are so incredibly smart and hardly understandable for someone who doesn't have a basic knowledge in what they are experts in. And it usually ends up backfiring. Odds are, the jurors aren't science/medical/etc people and it goes right over their heads, so they discount it. Sure air sampling and bugs and their part on decompensation is fascinating, but...

So here is what I think. I think that she had something to do with Caylee's demise. I don't know what part she had in it, and I don't particularly care, it has no bearing on my day to day life. And in my job I see so many many terrible things, that something like Caylee's story is just a drop of water under the bridge for me. Yeah, that's sad when I think about it too. There was no part of the trial that said, "beyond any doubt, CASEY did this. PERIOD." There were plenty of opportunities for someone besides Casey to have some part in this.

I have read the entire thread, and it really seemed to me that just about everyone already said/felt/proclaimed Casey was guilty from the very beginning. From BEFORE the trial.

The prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey killed Caylee.

Do I think she did SOMETHING? Yes. Maybe it was just being a terrible negligent mother. Maybe it lead to Caylee's demise. Either way, I do not believe that the prosecution proved that Casey committed the crimes she was accused of in this trial.

Did her car stink? Yes. Is she the only person to ever have driven it? Probably not.

Was she the only one who used that computer? No.

Is Caylee the only person that has ever been dumped in a swamp to get rid of her remains? Heck no.

Was Casey the only person who had access to that pool? No.

Did she lie A LOT? Yes. Certainly. And they found her guilty of that.



Freke - Based on your post above and your assessment, would you have charged her with child abuse or possibly with child endangerment. Especially considering the lies and lack of 911 call?
Tape over her mouth? Casey wouldn't have been the first.

Casey not wanting to have Caylee? She wouldn't be the first young woman to be guilted by her parents to keep a child, and she will not be the last. Does that mean she killed Caylee to get rid of her? No. She had other options. Murdering is most certainly the messiest of all options I can think of. She could have given custody of Caylee to her parents. She could have put her up for adoption. She could have dropped her off at a hospital.

It it suspicious that she didn't call 911 when Caylee had been missing for 31 days? Yes. Does it prove anything? No. It's suspicious, but it doesn't PROVE that CASEY killed CAYLEE.

Etc.

Other people had the opportunity. Do other people have motives? Sure, why not? It also could have been an accident. Is her situation weird? Yes. But the only person who knows what happened or didn't happen is Casey. And she isn't going to incriminate herself. She can certainly still be charged with other crimes.

As a juror, you have to look at things without prejudice. You have to look at it as it's presented to you. And you can only use the evidence put in front of you by the prosecution and defense. You can ONLY use whats in the courtroom. They beat that into you.

After my own jury experience (which I absolutely adored btw) the prosecution team came in and explained that there was a witness that the defendant scared off. They had to drop several charges against the defendant because that witness bailed. And we were totally in the dark. We had NO IDEA that there even was this other person who didn't show, that there were other charges. Being a juror is terribly difficult, but for me it was very satisfying. I did my civic duty; I learned a hell of a lot; I did what I was asked to do and I did the very best I could do. I imagine that these people did the same.

Speaking as a pregnant woman, I cannot fathom killing my own child. Every single twinge I feel makes me worry that something is not ok. And I can't help but think "What a waste it would be" if something happened to my child...a waste of the first trimester where I was nauseous ALL OF THE TIME. A waste of energy, time, etc etc etc. Speaking as a child of a parent who lost a child, it is incredibly devastating to lose something that is literally part of you, something that you invested money and yourself (emotionally and biologically) into. It is a very disturbed person that could harm their own child. But it happens.

And I would still acquit her.

 

[mary poppins]

Well stated, FrekeChild.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

Do I think she did SOMETHING? Yes. Maybe it was just being a terrible negligent mother. Maybe it lead to Caylee's demise. Either way, I do not believe that the prosecution proved that Casey committed the crimes she was accused of in this trial.

Did her car stink? Yes. It still smelt of decomposition two years after the car was entered into the processing lot. The hair, with the death band, was found in the trunk--shaky scientific ground, perhaps, only because it's new same as DNA was shaky several years ago--but it was still in the car.

Is she the only person to ever have driven it? Probably not. She was the only person with access to the car at the time of the disappearance.

Was she the only one who used that computer? No. She was the only person home during the time of the computer searches, the same searches that were deliberately deleted off the computer.

Is Caylee the only person that has ever been dumped in a swamp to get rid of her remains? Heck no. That's irrelevant in the decision making process of this case. But, the body was discarded in the same, familiar swamp that Casey played in as a child and buried small pets in.

Was Casey the only person who had access to that pool? No. In order for this to be relevant, you'd have to believe Caylee drown--there is no proof of that at all, other than she enjoyed swimming during her short life. She was found in her clothes, not pajamas and not a swimsuit. Tell a child they are going swimming...I bet they don't go put on shorts and tee shirt.

Did she lie A LOT? Yes. Certainly. And they found her guilty of that. As well they should have.

Tape over her mouth? Casey wouldn't have been the first. First, last...makes no difference. Duct tape and a childs face shouldn't ever be used in the same sentence.

 

[Maria D]

snip

There was nothing presented in the case that was absolute proof that she did it.

snip

There was no part of the trial that said, "beyond any doubt, CASEY did this. PERIOD."

snip

"Absolute proof" and "beyond any doubt" are not the standard that jurors are held to.

 

[FrekeChild]

Freke - Based on your post above and your assessment, would you have charged her with child abuse or possibly with child endangerment. Especially considering the lies and lack of 911 call?

Maybe. From what I understand these are the charges she was acquitted of were:

Count One, First Degree Murder
Lesser Included of Count One, Second Degree Murder
Count Two, Aggravated Child Abuse
Count Three, Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child

And really, it seems to me that the only count they really concentrated on was murder in the 1st. I think that if things had been different and they had really concentrated on child abuse, they probably could have got her on that. She certainly seems negligent to me, but again...they seemed to really go after count 1...and forgot about counts 2 and 3, with count 4 being a given.

I tend to think it's not entirely over for her. Obviously the majority of the public feels likes Casey was wrongly acquitted...I'd be surprised if someone doesn't try her again--on lesser charges.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

I tend to think it's not entirely over for her. Obviously the majority of the public feels likes Casey was wrongly acquitted...I'd be surprised if someone doesn't try her again--on lesser charges.

Double jeopardy? Doubtful. She can't be tried using the same evidence again, I believe even if it's for lesser charges.

But, The civil suits are already rolling in...Zenida Gonzalaz has already served her, and Equusearch is gunning for her too. But right now, she's Teflon Tot Mom...it's like bleeding a turnip. She's got nothing to be gotten. Oh, and let us not forget the tax evasion charges to the tune of 70k. She's in a hot mess right now...but if she sells this story, and people pay her for it, that could change.

And then there is my belief. Same with OJ and same with Joran Van Der Sloot...once you think you're bullet proof, you're prone to make bigger mistakes. She's gotten away with essentially everything up until now. She's still a liar, she's still a thief and she's still a felon (the check charges)...a leopard does not change it's spots. She's not a good person. She's harbors evil, and it's boiling...someday it will spill over and she'll get busted.

 

[FrekeChild]

snip

There was nothing presented in the case that was absolute proof that she did it.

snip

There was no part of the trial that said, "beyond any doubt, CASEY did this. PERIOD."

snip

"Absolute proof" and "beyond any doubt" are not the standard that jurors are held to.

The above two quotes that you took from me are my opinion.

Right. There are things that suggest that she COULD be guilty. If everyone was tried on crimes they COULD be guilty of, everyone would be found guilty of SOMETHING! Heck, I have had access to a lot of cars in my time. Maybe one of those cars was one used in a crime. Because I had access to it, I should probably be found guilty of that crime, right?

I'm being facetious, but really. There is only circumstantial evidence here. This case was tried in the court of public opinion, which, according to one attorney I talked to in detail on this particular topic today, the media really only shows the prosecution's argument, never the defense's. If the court of public opinion counted, Casey would be spending a hundred life sentences in prison and given the death penalty a thousand times. Probably more than that. In the court of law, she was acquitted. 12 people agreed. I agree with them. The prosecution lost this one, but really, they had a lot of nothing to work with. Having said that, they seemed to do an excellent job with what they had! But, as I said, circumstantial evidence in murder with no eye witnesses, no DNA, no cause of death? I wouldn't have wanted to be on the prosecution team!

Obviously I'm not alone in thinking this. I agree wholeheartedly with 12 people in Florida...

 

[Laila619]

What I meant to relay was, if the Jury thought for even a moment that this was an accident, where is the justice for everything that went down afterwards? I think it's criminal to throw a child, living or dead, in a swamp infested with snakes and spiders. That, IMO, is abuse--even if it's only abuse of a corpse.

I just want to ditto everything you say, Italia. Exactly. And there is NOTHING circumstantial about THIS PART OF THE CASE at least.

Can someone who knows law please help me understand...isn't not reporting a death a crime? Isn't hindering a police investigation a crime?

 

[Italiahaircolor]

What I meant to relay was, if the Jury thought for even a moment that this was an accident, where is the justice for everything that went down afterwards? I think it's criminal to throw a child, living or dead, in a swamp infested with snakes and spiders. That, IMO, is abuse--even if it's only abuse of a corpse.

I just want to ditto everything you say, Italia. Exactly. And there is NOTHING circumstantial about THIS PART OF THE CASE at least.

Can someone who knows law please help me understand...isn't not reporting a death a crime? Isn't hindering a police investigation a crime?

Jeff Ashton touched on this a bit tonight, and it all goes to the Prosecution swinging for the fences. They may have overcharged the crime in retrospect, and by doing so, a lot of the other lesser charges went by the way side--like, for instance, abuse of a corpse. I guess you'd have to first admit Casey killed her to say that she threw her away, but still, we know SOMEONE put her there, and if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

I don't, however, understand why--at the very least--they didn't include those things in her charges. What could it have hurt? I remember when OJ's verdict was read (and remember, this is recalled with my 13 year old mind at time) but there were A LOT of charges against him...and I felt like with Casey Anthony, not so much.

I mean, I get WHY they tried for the DP--totally, 100% behind that. But, on a case that is circumstantial with evidence that is hard to understand and no proverbial smoking gun, why not just pull charges for everything you can...give the Jury as many chances and options as allowed by law.

 

[mrhand]

After reading the posts of so many people questioning a seated, sequestered jury, I'm glad we have a jury selection process that is designed to keep most of you from ever getting onto a jury in the first place.

What's your problem?

Sorry if I have a problem with people that would shirk their civic duty and suggest they would intentionally hang a jury because they value their emotions over their obligations. It boggles the mind how anyone not related to principles in this case could get so attached and yet they most likely turn their head away from the homeless man panhandling at the traffic light.

 

[Laila619]

Italia, yeah, if I were the prosecution I would have tried for: obstruction of justice, hindering a police investigation, and gross negligence.

I think everyone could get behind those charges.

 

[monarch64]

The jury was sequestered. They had no contact with the outside world - no family, no newspapers, no fun outings. You can be pretty sure that all the waking hours they spent outside of the courtroom were hours that they spent thinking about this case. I wouldn't be so quick to say that the only time they thought about what they heard in the courtroom was during those final 11 hrs.

Have you ever been on a jury?? I have. I was on a double murder trial. The jurors are in no way, shape, or form allowed to discuss ANY part of the trial--their opinions about ANY of the testimony--UNTIL THE CASE IS FINISHED, closing arguments made, and THE JUDGE ALLOWS YOU TO. It is drilled in the jurors OVER AND OVER AGAIN. If you get caught discussing it you can be thrown off the jury. The reason being is that they want you to HEAR EVERYTHING BEFORE discussing....

The trial I was on took 6 weeks and we spent 6 days deliberating--asking for NUMEROUS recalls and POURING over the evidence---and my case was nowhere near as complicated!!

These jurors spent 11 hours deciding this conclusion without reviewing ANYTHING but their own notes."Thinking" about it on their own is not enough. I wish they spent half the time and energy that the PSers did in this thread each night. WHAT A SHAME!!!!

My DH and my father have always said we need professional jurors. I am starting to believe this myself.

Come ON. A jury is constitutionally made up of a "jury of our peers." I get where your DH and father are coming from...but are they serious? Have you even thought through the kind of taxpayer money it would cost to HIRE a jury made up of professionals, let alone the ramifications of doing that? I think you're being flippant but I'm not sure. Please tell me you are? You seem very level-headed from posts I've read of yours...your last statement in the quoted post just caught me off guard, so I'm sorry if I'm coming across as abrasive, I really don't mean to.

 

[JewelFreak]

Professional jurors are, in essence, the same as judges. Holland, where I lived for 5 yrs & DH grew up, does not have juries. People are tried by a 3-judge panel. I wouldn't want to put my life in their hands. In the U.S. you CAN always waive a jury trial & have a bench trial -- in which the judge is the jury. Many corporate cases where the evidence is specialized & complex are done that way.

The standard for conviction is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. I have seen judges in other trials include in jury instructions that "circumstantial evidence is evidence & must be considered along with any direct evidence." Maybe Perry should have done that.

These jurors did not go through all the evidence. In 11 hours they couldn't have examined much of it; there was enough to have required 3 days just roaming through it all, let alone including discussion time.

Murder 1 does not carry an automatic death sentence. If they had found her guilty they could have recommended life in prison & the judge in Florida is prohibited from raising it to death. He can lower a sentence despite jury recommendations, but not raise it.

PC-ness has gone so far, too many people are afraid to judge anyone. It's madness. We're to feel "compassion" for those who do evil. How about justice, for the victim of that evil and for our society as a whole? Yes, boys and girls, even an attractive young woman can do unspeakably horrid things. "It makes me a better person not to judge anyone." It makes you spineless -- even Jesus did it.

Last night a guy said the system worked well. You're guaranteed a jury of your peers: she's a moron and the jurors were morons.

 

[charbie]

What drives me nuts right now is when I heard people say if they ever needed a lawyer to get them out of something, they'd turn to Jose Baez, since he managed to get Casey out of murder. That jacka$$ didnt get her out of a thing! He turned the courtroom into a mockery with his crazy notions. It was that unfortunately, the prosecution didn't present evidence to these 12 jurors that they felt was enough to convict. Do I think the prosecution had enough evidence? Personally, actions speak louder than words and Caseys actions were awfully suspicious. I feel she had something to do with it, premeditated at that. But yeah, this case just shows people that lack of evidence means you can get away with murder, too!

There was a case here in my town not too long ago...the Ryan Widmer case. Look it up...lots of circumstantial evidence, and he even had to go through 3 trials before convicted. A lot more people were convinced of his innocence than Caseys, yet he was convicted. Crazy to hear his story and how he was put in jail, yet Casey gets away with it.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

.

Come ON. A jury is constitutionally made up of a "jury of our peers." I get where your DH and father are coming from...but are they serious? Have you even thought through the kind of taxpayer money it would cost to HIRE a jury made up of professionals, let alone the ramifications of doing that? I think you're being flippant but I'm not sure. Please tell me you are? You seem very level-headed from posts I've read of yours...your last statement in the quoted post just caught me off guard, so I'm sorry if I'm coming across as abrasive, I really don't mean to.[/quote]

Questioning things we find to questionable is also the basis of this country, it's pretty much the reason for this country--period.

I'm all for constitutional rights, and I'm enjoying the freedom of speech one right now. However, as the world advances, the constitution will, in turn, need to redefine itself...as it has for years and years, it's nothing new or novel or crazy. The constitution evolves, even the rights we have as women weren't promised in the first draft. So, please, don't act like this is the end all/be all.

As a matter of fact, the basis behind the character Bones--a forensic scientist--is addressing the Bar on this exact matter in the coming weeks...

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

There's a former prosecutor-turned legal analyst here on Boston who has some really interesting things to say about this. She's not a sensationalist like Nancy Grace and is very well respected for the work that she does and her views on the legal system as it exists today.

The following excerpt is from this blog post http://blogs.wickedlocal.com/front-...uments-and-fantasies-on-both-sides/#more-5876 It's long, but read the whole thing. She poses some very valid questions and arguments...

....

So here’s my attempt at the closing he should have given:

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the state would have you believe that Casey Anthony intentionally killed her child with deliberate premeditation and that she did so in order to be free from the burdens of motherhood, and so that she could go out partying with her friends. But let’s examine whether they’ve proved the three things that matter: motive – opportunity and intent.

Motive. The state claims Casey wanted to kill Caylee so she could live the life of a party girl. But on the last date Caylee was seen alive, Casey spent the night watching movies at home with her boyfriend. She wasn’t out partying. She didn’t go out to a club. She didn’t go out dancing. In fact, there is zero evidence Casey wanted Caylee dead for ANY reason.

Opportunity. Casey didn’t even have custody of Caylee on the day she died. The video from Blockbuster shows Casey and her boyfriend renting movies on the evening of June 16th, and Caylee is nowhere in sight. The state would have you believe Caylee was already in the trunk, but you know that’s not true because Caylee didn’t die on the 16th. When her body was found, it was in a bag with clothing that she was not wearing when she was last seen. Recall that Caylee was described as wearing a pink top and a denim skirt on June 16th. Her remains were found with pink and white shorts (that were too small) and a T-shirt. Whoever had the child kept her overnight, then changed her clothes. While it’s possible Casey changed her outfit on the 16th, does it make sense that the child would need an entirely new outfit in the few short hours between the time she left Cindy and George’s home, and the time when Casey is seen at Blockbuster without the child at 8 pm? Even if she changed the child’s clothes, would she have packed an outfit that the child had long ago outgrown? The bag in which the body was found contained no underwear or pull-up. Would Casey have re-dressed Caylee without underpants?

The far more rational explanation for the change in clothing is that someone other than Casey had custody of Caylee on the night of the 16th; someone who had cared for the child in the past, thus had a few of the child’s old clothes at her home. It may not have been the mysterious “Zani the nanny”, but there’s no doubt she routinely brought the child somewhere in the months before she died. Whoever it was, it was someone Casey was not worried about as she appeared calm on the Blockbuster tape. She told police that when she went to pick up Caylee from the caretaker on the 17th, the child and the babysitter were gone.

At some point on or about the 17th, Casey didn’t have her car. Her friend Christopher Stutz told police Casey visited him while driving a borrowed Jeep. Who had her car? Who had her child? Whatever the answer, the fact that Casey had neither car nor child at various times on the 16th and 17th means there is much doubt about whether Casey had the opportunity to kill Caylee.

Intent. It’s easy to infer intent in a case where a woman charged with murder admits that she failed to report her child missing for one month. But, recall that Lee Anthony testified Casey told him someone took Caylee to “teach her a lesson” and that Casey was warned not to call police. Whatever “lesson” Casey needed, the fact that she didn’t report Caylee missing for a month makes sense in light of Lee’s testimony. The only way Casey could get Caylee back was to stay quiet and NOT talk to cops. That she then went out partying may seem creepy – but remember, she knew the person who had Caylee. She’d been bringing her to some sort of nanny for many months. Casey was comfortable believing she’d dropped Caylee of with a person she could trust to give the child back – because she’d given her back so many times in the past.

Whoever took Caylee was no nanny – but there was a someone to whom Casey regularly brought her child for some purpose. Maybe the purpose was something about which Casey feels great guilt and shame. Remember that Ricardo Morales told police that in the weeks before Caylee died, Casey would deliver Caylee to unknown persons after receiving phone calls in the middle of the night at their apartment. Casey would rouse her sleeping toddler to bring her to an unknown location – then return to Ricardo’s apartment, alone, and go back to sleep. Whatever was going on with the “babysitter” and the middle of the night deliveries, Casey was involved in activities that made her very reluctant to tell cops the truth. You can judge her harshly for this decision – and even hate her for it – but it’s not proof of intent to murder.

Ladies and gentlemen, there are far too many questions about the untold story in this case for you to fill in all the banks in the prosecution’s case with anger toward Casey and sadness for Caylee. As much as you might want to know more about what was going on with the mysterious babysitter and latenight “deliveries” of the child to unknown locations, the fact is, I can’t tell you certain things because this is a trial where the rules of evidence prevent me from giving you a fuller explanation. For example, lots of evidence in this case is under seal, including photographs of Caylee that have been deemed too prejudicial.

I empathize with your frustration – and wish I could reveal what I know about some of the unanswered questions in this case but please know that when you don’t have all the evidence that you need to feel certain about what really happened, you have no choice but to vote “not guilty”. Who knows, after an acquittal, the state might bring new charges that will resolve some of the mysteries in this case.

Until then, know that your discomfort with the leftover questions you have after being here for so long is not only reasonable – it’s reasonable doubt.

If you’re wondering whether there is more to the story – rest assured – I agree with you. And if you don’t want to believe what I’ve said here today on behalf of a woman you might not like, then heed the words of little Caylee.

Recall that Geroge Anthony testified it was CAYLEE who told him, on June 16, 2008, that she was going to “Zani’s”. Little Caylee was not quite three years old, and while she was very verbal and super smart, she was not old enough to be a co-conspirator with her mother in concocting out of whole cloth what some have called the fictitious nanny story. Caylee was telling the truth when she told her grandfather she was going to Zani’s. Whether or not there’s a real person named “Zenaida Gonzales”, Caylee was innocently telling George she was going to see a person she knew, at a place where she’d been before. Casey told cops this was the person who took Caylee away and never gave Caylee back. Lee said it was to teach Casey a lesson.

We may never know what lesson Casey needed – or who it was exactly that believed it was necessary to kill a child to make a point. And I’ll go so far as to say it’s reasonable for you to believe that even if Casey Anthony did not kill her child, she deserves to spend the rest of her life behind bars because she was engaged in nefarious business that exposed her child to dangerous people. But you cannot find Casey Anthony guilty of murder unless you have EVIDENCE that shows she actually killed the child herself. There is no evidence of that in this case because she did not kill her child.

Casey Anthony may well deserve your scorn and disdain for some of the things she did. If she were on trial for being a bad mother, or for pimping her child for sex and ****, I would find her guilty myself. But she is on trial for murder – and in this country, she is entitled to be judged only on the facts that relate to the state’s allegations of murder. The state has failed to prove motive, opportunity and intent to kill beyond all reasonable doubt, leaving you with the only morally appropriate verdict – “not guilty”.

Edited to fix the URL

 

[Italiahaircolor]

Last night a guy said the system worked well. You're guaranteed a jury of your peers: she's a moron and the jurors were morons.

I have to say, I agree. I know it's not popular to take this out on the jury--they simply did their job with the tools handed to them. Okay, fine. And if they had sat in that room, with proof, that they mulled over the evidence and gave it a fair shake of things--I'd feel different, like they really tried. But since I believe they didn't...and I believe they ruled with mental exhaustion...I think it was kind of a joke.

 

[shihtzulover]

This is such a tough case, but I think that as far as the murder charges go, the the jury made the right decision based upon the evidence (or lack thereof). I really hate it, but there was just no direct evidence to convict her, and the prosecution couldn't even prove how little Caylee died, let alone whether or not Casey did it.

Do I think that she was involved? Most likely. Do I think that it was premeditated murder? Quite possibly. Unfortunately though, I don't think that they proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Sure, people can ask "who else would have killed her?" or, "look at how much she partied when her child was missing!", but that's not the way the law works. Sure, she acted very oddly, and it was disgusting to see, but that doesn't necessarily mean that she's a murderer. There was not really any true evidence.

Also, George and Cindy both lied on the stand, so who knows who was really telling the truth, and when? How do we really know that they weren't involved somehow, at least in hiding the body? Apparently, little Caylee was at their house all of the time that summer, and then she didn't come back for over a month. They didn't see that as odd? Why didn't they ask questions long before over a month had passed? I'm sure that they have some sort of excuse, but it just doesn't add up to me, just like Casey's stories don't make any sense.

I'm not saying that they were definitely involved, or that it's even likely (I really have no idea at this point), but it really makes it very confusing - everyone just seemed to lie about everything. Because of all of this, I don't feel convinced 'beyond a reasonable doubt' that Casey murdered Caylee.

I thought that she might have been convicted of manslaughter though, and I'm most surprised that she wasn't found guilty of child abuse. I also believe that the jury probably believes that she was probably involved in some way, but that it just wasn't proven well enough.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

HH that was very interesting...but a couple of things stick in my side...

1. There is no proof that anyone other than Casey had control of her child always, her parents helped her, but there was no one else--no nanny, no babysitter--Casey couldn't have afforded one anyway. "The other person" smacks of the one armed man or when OJ said he'd love to get his hands on whoever did this to NB and RG. Where is any proof to back it up? Where? Does it hide in some late night phone calls? Could have been Cindy, Cindy wanted that baby home every night and did not want her exposed to Casey's partying.

2. Whatever Casey told anyone, about anything, is BS. She could tell Lee whatever she wanted, but it's just another lie. That's what she does. In order to believe her story, I'd have to believe her...I don't, so I can't.

3. The time line. AHHHHH, this part is so confusing. Cindy has said that, after Father's Day, she and Casey had an argument. Cindy had visited a therapist about Casey and finally was going to make Casey be accountable for her actions and her child. Casey took Caylee from the house in a fit of rage that night. George didn't see this, he was at work. Flash forward to the following morning. Cindy leaves for work bright and early per usual, and Casey and Caylee are in the house--Caylee dressed in a jean skirt and pink top according to George without any further proof to back that up. George messes around the house for a while and then leaves for work, Casey and Caylee are still home. That's it. The last time anyone saw Caylee with or without Casey.

4. Who is Zanny. Casey had people in and out of her life, and it's very easy to lie to a 2 year old. Zanny could have been anyone, a friend, a neighbor, an acquaintance. But, at the end of the day, she was not a flesh and blood person. So for Caylee to say "we're going to see Zanny"...that doesn't mean much, because Zanny could have been anyone. However, I think as Caylee was getting older and more intelligent, it would have become an issue. Not because Zanny never existed, but because Casey didn't work!

 

[janinegirly]

What drives me nuts right now is when I heard people say if they ever needed a lawyer to get them out of something, they'd turn to Jose Baez, since he managed to get Casey out of murder. That jacka$$ didnt get her out of a thing! He turned the courtroom into a mockery with his crazy notions. It was that unfortunately, the prosecution didn't present evidence to these 12 jurors that they felt was enough to convict. Do I think the prosecution had enough evidence? Personally, actions speak louder than words and Caseys actions were awfully suspicious. I feel she had something to do with it, premeditated at that. But yeah, this case just shows people that lack of evidence means you can get away with murder, too!

There was a case here in my town not too long ago...the Ryan Widmer case. Look it up...lots of circumstantial evidence, and he even had to go through 3 trials before convicted. A lot more people were convinced of his innocence than Caseys, yet he was convicted. Crazy to hear his story and how he was put in jail, yet Casey gets away with it.

I hear you - this case was built on circumstantial evidence, which is a perfectly legitimate way to obtain a conviction--there was pattern of behavior (lying, cover up, last one seen with the little girl, quiet for 31 days). It takes logic and reason to put it together -this jury seemed confused (ie not the brightest of the bunch) and looking for a smoking gun as if this was an episode of CSI. I mean the defense could have just as easily said "well MAYBE an alien came down and took Caylee. Do you KNOW that this didn't happen...hmm??". That's the equivlaent of what the defense did -throw out outrageous "theories" in an attempt to cloud the facts. There happened to have been quite a bit of evidence supplied btw - hairs in the car, FBI experts on decomposition in the car, bizarre internet searches, the stickers traced to Casey. These are the pieces that need to be put together in logical order - not everything will be black and white precisely because the body was kept somewhere for days decomposing (um, a car maybe??) so that cause of death was beyond identification. Although convictions have been obtained without a body at all.

I can agree with the argument some put forth about the proscecution being too ambitious with charges of first degree murder. I agree on the media circus (in fact I made this very point, that the media and our celebrity obsessed/reality smuch TV culture feeds into the cycle - no surprise that jurors are now shopping around their story), but I do not agree that showing outrage or merely having an opinion in this case somehow means you are ignoring other children's plight or are an idiot as some have insinuated here . It seems that there is misguided passion (ie taking things way too personally) on both sides at times if you ask me.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

I really like Judge Perry!! He's no BS.

 

[Laila619]

I really like Judge Perry!! He's no BS.

Me too. LOVE HIM.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

I really like Judge Perry!! He's no BS.

Me too. LOVE HIM.

Casey was sentenced to 412 days of jail time for her check forgery...so since JP sentenced her to 4 consecutive years, she could be in prison for a while.

 

[Hudson_Hawk]

Italia, that was a fictionalized account of opinion on a blog. It wasn't posted to argue "what we know." If anything to point out that we DON'T know and might never know. The main thing I took away from the blog was her question as to what is in those sealed records. What was SO prejudicial that they couldn't be released? I heard the author in an interview and she, based on her experience as a prosecutor working on cases involving crimes like this, said she suspects that Caylee may have been the victim of child pornography and possibly even prostitution...with her mom being the pimp. Again, just theory and conjecture, but interesting.....