Casey Anthony trial...

[dragonfly411]

I think Caylee sent a message to everyone...

A tree, where Caylee's remains were found, was struck by lightning and split in half.

When was this??

Just a little bit ago, shortly after it was announced that she'd finish her jail term in one week...

http://www.wdbj7.com/news/os-casey-anthony-tree-lightning-20110707,0,4481884.story

And yes, I agree with the article, the angels aren't happy.

If the angels are unhappy, why didn't they just strike Casey Anthony with lightning?

Not to take this into forum illegality, but b/c God gave us free will?

Since God gave angels free will they decided to strike a tree with lightning instead of a human?

LOL I meant that God gave people free will so that's why this crazy woman gets to walk for now. I wonder if Angels still have free will when they get to heaven.....

 

[dragonfly411]

I honestly didn't mean to suck religion into this. I was only bringing it up because it struck me as very poignant that on today--when the case is essentially over--as people stood around remember Caylee and wishing her peace and comfort, this massive storm would pass through and cast lightning at that spot, hitting that tree. That's all. And because I felt injustice was done that day, I saw a message. Maybe i should take up reading tea leaves, but that's just me.

On a side note, another juror, not exactly sure which one, explained that they had a hard time finding Casey negligent in the care of Caylee because they were unsure who was responsible for the care of the child are large. They didn't know, couldn't figure out, if it was Cindy or Casey. That made me sick. CASEY was her mother, ultimately and irrevocably in charge of Caylee...period. Cindy taking an active role in raising the child as the grandmother doesn't remove responsibility for Casey in the slightest and should not stand as proof of ANYTHING. But, it goes directly back to my issue with the verdict at large, the evidence was not considered and things that were speculation or assumption were given far, far to much weight.

ETA:

Did anyone else note that Casey will have spent, as of her release next week, 1,043 days in jail? Caylee was alive for 1,042 days.

How can they question who is responsible? Casey had custody over the child, that leaves her fully responsible. How is there a question to that.

 

[mary poppins]

Casey'sreleasedate. Hasbeenchanged. ToJuly17. Findoutwhy. Afterthismessage!

=========

Commentator, canyoutelluswhy. Totmom. Willbespending. Several. More. Days. Injail?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Yep the date is changed to July 17:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/07/07/florida.casey.anthony.next/index.html

 

[Italiahaircolor]

Casey'sreleasedate. Hasbeenchanged. ToJuly17. Findoutwhy. Afterthismessage!

=========

Commentator, canyoutelluswhy. Totmom. Willbespending. Several. More. Days. Injail?

I kind of feel you're attacking the messenger, and ultimately doing exactly what you're accusing others in the process. Isn't your problem with people attaching to much emotion to this? Sensationalizing this? Well...

If you hate Nancy Grace, that's fine--I can't imagine anyone really cares, but that's not who this thread is about, and that's not what any of this is about. So, when you go out of your way to bring something like this up--something that is relevant--but do it in jest, the message gets lost. And isn't that, really, what you've spoken out against? The fact that people have turned this whole case into a side show?

Casey Anthony is doing time for what she was found guilty of...lying. It's probably the only justice we'll see in this whole thing (and when I say "we"...I mean the people who consider her to be guilty of the bigger charges). I want her to be in jail for as long as possible. I want her to suffer the consequences of ALL her actions. I personally cannot believe that she is getting out in a mere week or so. I figured that since she was in jail for a separate crime of which she pled guilty too, that this, the lying, would be a new batch of time. I now understand that that is not the case. I feel JP was fair, and he was reasonable. I wanted to throw up watching Casey make flirty eyes at Baez. This remains a joke to her.

So, I guess the question is...

What's next?

 

[monarch64]

Casey'sreleasedate. Hasbeenchanged. ToJuly17. Findoutwhy. Afterthismessage!

=========

Commentator, canyoutelluswhy. Totmom. Willbespending. Several. More. Days. Injail?

*chuckles* I haven't watched television for several weeks...so glad!

 

[JewelFreak]

This morning I saw an interview with her ex-fiance, who said that Cindy & Casey, before the trial, were telling people HE killed Caylee. Played a tape of his interview w/police, informing them of that. The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.

One thing I hope is that she does not make tons of money from this, please! So, the state is looking for the costs of their searches, ditto Equisearch, the Gonzales woman, I hope others. I wish judgements against her would result in any money she makes being used up. Saw a couple of lawyers last night say that someone in her family -- aunt or uncle, say -- has standing to sue her civilly for wrongful death, as the Browns did w/OJ. Too much to hope, I guess.

 

[NovemberBride]

While I personally think that Casey probably killed Caylee, and at a minimum was a neglectful parent that put her child in a situation that led to her death, I think that the legal system did function as it is designed in this instance. Casey was tried by a jury of her peers and they decided that the state's burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey killed Caylee was not met. It is a tragedy that this little girl died and we may never know why and I understand the outrage, but I do not think it is beneficial to blame and second guess the jury. The jurors sat in that courtroom every day for weeks, listened to all the evidence and were charged by the judge to weigh the evidence. Watching coverage of the trial on Nancy Grace or similar shows does not make you a juror. Even if you stayed home all day everyday watching the trial on court TV, it is not the same as being a juror sitting in the courtroom, being sequestered and then deliberating with other jurors. To think that any of us were in as good of a position to rule on this case as the jurors is foolish. I am an attorney and in my experience people chosen to serve on a jury, especially one in a case as serious and high profile as this one, take their civic responsibility very seriously. In my opinion, the jury actually made a very tough decision, and one that they knew would make them wildly unpopular. Based on my understanding of the evidence (since I did not actually sit through the trial), it is understandable that the jurors did not find that she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a very high standard to meet and for a very good reason, as lives are at stake.

 

[iheartscience]

Casey'sreleasedate. Hasbeenchanged. ToJuly17. Findoutwhy. Afterthismessage!

=========

Commentator, canyoutelluswhy. Totmom. Willbespending. Several. More. Days. Injail?

Snort! Can't say I've ever watched Nancy Grace but even I know that is spot on!

 

[Italiahaircolor]

This morning I saw an interview with her ex-fiance, who said that Cindy & Casey, before the trial, were telling people HE killed Caylee. Played a tape of his interview w/police, informing them of that. The acorn doesn't fall far from the tree.

One thing I hope is that she does not make tons of money from this, please! So, the state is looking for the costs of their searches, ditto Equisearch, the Gonzales woman, I hope others. I wish judgements against her would result in any money she makes being used up. Saw a couple of lawyers last night say that someone in her family -- aunt or uncle, say -- has standing to sue her civilly for wrongful death, as the Browns did w/OJ. Too much to hope, I guess.

I also watched Jesse Grund (the ex) on Dr. Drew last night. I found him to be very honest, very well spoken, smart as a whip and with no other motive than the truth, I found him above all, believable. He was talking about how Cindy used to just attack Casey over nothing--questioning Jesse about why he would want to be with a high school dropout loser, who couldn't take care of her own kid let alone offer anything to him in a marriage. Jesse said it was very hard to watch, and had he and Casey stayed together, he wanted to get her out of that house ASAP. Yet, that contentious relationship wasn't splayed out for everyone...it was hinted at, but the level of hatred is probably so deep...

I, too, find it disgusting that anyone would accuse Grund of being involved. It pretty much ruined his life, he was a cop--and when all of this happened, he lost his position I do believe. I bet Cindy would have LOVED to hand off responsibility of this to someone else...she didn't like Jesse--and has said as much. I believe Casey, who was jilted by Grund, probably felt much the same way. But, whatever, no one would believe her anyway.

Right now I believe think of 2 confirmed judgements--court costs and penalty ($4,600 via State of FL), Back Taxes ($70,000)...I know Zeniada G. has filed a definition suit (civilly which would equal $$$) which could hold her liable for that, and Tim Miller of ES is considering charges around ($120,000) for the way the Anthony family misused their money--knowing or claiming the baby was dead, still encouraging ES to come look for Caylee. All told, right now, she's in the hole for $75k...and it could only get worse from there. I don't know how much money people would really throw at her for her story--she's not credible--but I have a suspicion it will be spent (legally) before she can cash the check.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

While I personally think that Casey probably killed Caylee, and at a minimum was a neglectful parent that put her child in a situation that led to her death, I think that the legal system did function as it is designed in this instance. Casey was tried by a jury of her peers and they decided that the state's burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey killed Caylee was not met. It is a tragedy that this little girl died and we may never know why and I understand the outrage, but I do not think it is beneficial to blame and second guess the jury. The jurors sat in that courtroom every day for weeks, listened to all the evidence and were charged by the judge to weigh the evidence. Watching coverage of the trial on Nancy Grace or similar shows does not make you a juror. Even if you stayed home all day everyday watching the trial on court TV, it is not the same as being a juror sitting in the courtroom, being sequestered and then deliberating with other jurors. To think that any of us were in as good of a position to rule on this case as the jurors is foolish. I am an attorney and in my experience people chosen to serve on a jury, especially one in a case as serious and high profile as this one, take their civic responsibility very seriously. In my opinion, the jury actually made a very tough decision, and one that they knew would make them wildly unpopular. Based on my understanding of the evidence (since I did not actually sit through the trial), it is understandable that the jurors did not find that she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Beyond a reasonable doubt is a very high standard to meet and for a very good reason, as lives are at stake.

I know that lawyers have a deeper appreciation for what goes on in a court of law than an average, run of the mill person. I will be the first to own that I am NOT legally savvy...anything I have managed to come up with regarding this case is because I researched it--wanting to know how this process worked. And I've also never said I gathered my information from watching a show, like Nancy Grace, or that makes me a juror.

So, you're telling me, as an attorney, that you consider it reasonable for a jury--sequestered for a month, in a highly forensic case to never ask for a single read back, or piece evidence? You consider it reasonable that they are now admitting that the focus of their deliberation was on the dysfunction of the family, and who was ultimately responsible for Caylee? You're saying you consider it reasonable because there was no "cause of death" per say, since the body sat in a swamp for 6 months, that it's excusable since there was no video of someone dumping the body?

See, and as an attorney, I would assume you'd be disgusted. Since when is a circumstantial case that is fairly strong--complete with decomp in a car--not enough to prosecute? Since CSI came on the scene and made us believe it was possible, to expect, that the single eye lash be found in a field of grass? These are the things have changed the legal system. And it's widely suspected that the jurors on this case mistook REASONABLE doubt for ABSOLUTE doubt, in which case, no, the system didn't work because that's not the standard.

I can imagine that this process must have been very, very hard for the men and women on the jury. I imagine that they were tired and burnt out. But now they have this sensational verdict and they are shopping around interviews to the tune for 5 figures. So, I don't know. At the end of the day, it is what is it. They saw things differently, and I don't have to agree with their finding...and I don't.

 

[janinegirly]

I think the system "worked" as it was designed to too - ie there were 12 jurors who were sequestered, presented with the case and allowed to make their decision based on what they heard/saw. Now I don't agree with the decision and I do happen to think there is a reason lawyers like to choose certain jurors over others..ones who are less likely to be able think independently etc. It's not all in the interest of the law all the time, it's in the interest of winning.

Reasonable doubt has been debated quite a bit since this case. Reasonable to some means definitive, ie. I need to see a video or DNA. This is not what it was designed to require. Reasonable can mean deducing a conclusion based on a series of facts, evidence and circumstances, expert testimony,etc. But jurors can get confused and overwhelmed and assume if I don't KNOW then how can I KNOW. Well we will never KNOW everything especially if there's a coverup, perpetual lies (which Casey Anthony was convicted of so surely they think she was lying for a reason) and a bit of luck on the criminal/offender's part (no DNA,etc).

I have lost a lot of faith in trials by jury in recent years. Not just with high profile cases - but with cases friends, co-workers, and family have served on. I've heard how in cases where someone robbed a person in broad daylight and caught red handed was then found not guilty since the jury just couldn't be SURE ("maybe they found those exact items right after the real criminal dropped them,etc"). I have heard how juries were swayed by feelings against law enforcement and when there is one or two naysayers, those too eventually give in in an effort to get out of there and home. These are just day to day cases meanwhile, but still means a criminal is back on the streets with no accountabilty.

So in many ways I'm relieved when you hear of a murderous criminal who kills themself or were taken out like Osama.

 

[JewelFreak]

A standard in law used to be the "reasonable man" theory -- would a reasonable man believe xxx? That appears to have gone down the drain along with society's willingness to judge anyone negatively. To paraphrase what somebody said earlier, PC is killing us socially & economically.

This jury badly needed a grownup. A juror says they could not decide even who was responsible for Caylee, in order to adjudicate negligence. I'm sorry, but for 12 adults not to understand the basic fact that a child's mother is legally responsible for her is beyond flunking the IQ test. At least half of those jurors are young enough to be products of the current school systems that do not teach kids to think, to draw reasonable conclusions from what they read or hear. Truthfully, I shudder to think of the future.

--- Laurie

 

[Italiahaircolor]

A standard in law used to be the "reasonable man" theory -- would a reasonable man believe xxx? That appears to have gone down the drain along with society's willingness to judge anyone negatively. To paraphrase what somebody said earlier, PC is killing us socially & economically.

This jury badly needed a grownup. A juror says they could not decide even who was responsible for Caylee, in order to adjudicate negligence. I'm sorry, but for 12 adults not to understand the basic fact that a child's mother is legally responsible for her is beyond flunking the IQ test. At least half of those jurors are young enough to be products of the current school systems that do not teach kids to think, to draw reasonable conclusions from what they read or hear. Truthfully, I shudder to think of the future.

--- Laurie

Laurie, that's it exactly. Honestly, if the jury had been the sort to pour over evidence and really put in the time, asked the questions when it came to things they didn't understand, did the thinking and reasoning and then concluded she was innocent. Fine. Not what I believe, but at least they gave Caylee the time and energy she deserved.

But for anyone to sit there are say "we didn't know who was responsible for this child, so no one is guilty of killing her" spits in the face of the legal system when it comes to being reasonable. Who was Caylee's primary care giver? WHO THE F*** CARES! What does that have to do with anything? You could reasonably it would be Caylee's mother, Casey, the single PARENT of the little girl.

 

[JewelFreak]

Janinegirly, I'm doing this in another post so it doesn't get lost in the first one.

Do you, or any lawyers or judges here, have thoughts on sequestering juries for these long trials? I can't claim to have a viable alternative, but I do wonder if extended periods of "incarceration" don't lead to quick decisions just to, please, go home. It's understandable.

To work well, a jury needs a cross-section of types of people & walks of life. Folks with responsibilities in the workplace can't (or won't) be lifted clean out of their lives for weeks or months -- those who have life experience sifting the chaff from the wheat & making decisions based thereon. Somebody like that might have helped this jury sort through the bullshit to the nuggets that mattered.

Life in even the swankiest hotel gets old -- & I suppose these jurors were in a Holiday Inn or similar -- no tv, no mags or newspapers, computers, phone calls monitored, even walking through the lobby in case you spot somebody's periodical. The boredom would be crushing.

I'll bet a strong wish to get finished kept these people from taking time to go through the evidence, discuss it, argue over it, ask for things to be read back. They made their decision in a few hours. It just reeks of "let's find her innocent & get out of here." That also avoids the added time of a penalty phase.

In "olden days" before mass communication, jurors went home at night, saw family, friends, neighbors, and still made reasonable findings in trials. I doubt the Founders ever envisaged locking people up & would not have felt it was wise -- as several long sequestered trials have proven. Don't know what the solution is, but I believe we need one.

 

[mrs jam]

A standard in law used to be the "reasonable man" theory -- would a reasonable man believe xxx? That appears to have gone down the drain along with society's willingness to judge anyone negatively. To paraphrase what somebody said earlier, PC is killing us socially & economically.

This jury badly needed a grownup. A juror says they could not decide even who was responsible for Caylee, in order to adjudicate negligence. I'm sorry, but for 12 adults not to understand the basic fact that a child's mother is legally responsible for her is beyond flunking the IQ test. At least half of those jurors are young enough to be products of the current school systems that do not teach kids to think, to draw reasonable conclusions from what they read or hear. Truthfully, I shudder to think of the future.

--- Laurie

I'm shuddering along with you. Frankly, the thought of facing a jury of my "peers" scares the you-know-what out of me. It's definitely an extra incentive to behave myself. It seems that people, as a general rule, have become stupid. I don't even ask someone to explain his/her thought process to me anymore. Ding dong, metacognition is dead. Long live blissful stupidity.

 

[mrs jam]

Does anyone think that Casey will make a mint selling her story? I really can't imagine someone offering her beaucoup dollars since she is a convicted liar, and like Italia wrote, any money she does make will likely go straight to Uncle Sam and to pay her mounting legal fees. My guess is that any money she does make will quickly fly right out of her hands, one way or another. I would imagine she will live the life of a pariah, her only associations being with similar sorts of human trash, like her parents. No decent man will ever have her.

I have not been following the trial. Last night I heard one of the jurors (female) speak, and then in a different segment I heard about the chloroform, duct tape, and plastic bags. I asked my husband how he thought she died, and he said it was pretty obvious to him. "Someone" chloroformed her to knock her out, put duct tape around her mouth to keep her from shouting out when she regained consciousness, and put her in trash bags to suffocate her. Murder 101. It chilled me to the bone. Is that what most of you who have followed the case think the reasonable cause of death is?

 

[Laila619]

A standard in law used to be the "reasonable man" theory -- would a reasonable man believe xxx? That appears to have gone down the drain along with society's willingness to judge anyone negatively. To paraphrase what somebody said earlier, PC is killing us socially & economically.

This jury badly needed a grownup. A juror says they could not decide even who was responsible for Caylee, in order to adjudicate negligence. I'm sorry, but for 12 adults not to understand the basic fact that a child's mother is legally responsible for her is beyond flunking the IQ test. At least half of those jurors are young enough to be products of the current school systems that do not teach kids to think, to draw reasonable conclusions from what they read or hear. Truthfully, I shudder to think of the future.

--- Laurie

This post is, sadly, IT in a nutshell.

And now that we're hearing the rationale behind why the jurors voted the way they did, well, let's just say these aren't people who are intelligent enough to not need to take notes. I think the scientific evidence was WAY over their heads and that's why they didn't even bother.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I still say that I wouldn't have had to review all those notes (although I would have absolutely taken notes). I had already determined from hearing the evidence that she was responsible for Caylee's death. The exact cause of death is irrelevant to me. The child is dead and we have the body to prove it. I can see the debate over 1st degree and lesser murder charges, but whatever happened, Casey was responsible for her death and needed to have a conviction of ONE of the murder charges or manslaughter if the group had to compromise.

I do think the problem is that the average person is just apparently not smart enough to understand reasonable doubt. My guess is that the average pricescope member is far above average, and that is why we see so much more sense among this group than among that jury. JewelFreak, I am not so sure that this can be taught in school. There is just some basic innate reasoning needed and some people just don't have it.

 

[Maria D]

snip

My guess is that the average pricescope member is far above average, and that is why we see so much more sense among this group than among that jury. JewelFreak, I am not so sure that this can be taught in school. There is just some basic innate reasoning needed and some people just don't have it.

We also like a good argument! What effect would it have if jurors began deliberating in online fora rather than face-to-face? I have taken online classes where I felt the discussions were deeper than for traditional classes. Just a thought.

As a secondary school teacher, I've thought a lot about how the lack of critical thinking skills/perseverance played into this and other current events. Maybe you can't teach innate reasoning, but this kind of thing makes me more determined than ever to be a better teacher. One of my standard shticks when students want to give up because the problem is getting too complicated (usually followed by "when are we going to ever uuuuuuuuuuuussseeeee this") is to say, "pretend the lives of the astronauts depend on your accurate solution to this problem! If you don't solve this correctly the astronauts will DIE!" This little performance doesn't have any of them believing they'll ever really use the math (and they probably won't) but it serves to wake them up and usually, to try a little harder -- stick it through.

 

[Loves Vintage]

Does anyone think that Casey will make a mint selling her story? I really can't imagine someone offering her beaucoup dollars since she is a convicted liar, and like Italia wrote, any money she does make will likely go straight to Uncle Sam and to pay her mounting legal fees. My guess is that any money she does make will quickly fly right out of her hands, one way or another. I would imagine she will live the life of a pariah, her only associations being with similar sorts of human trash, like her parents. No decent man will ever have her.

I have not been following the trial. Last night I heard one of the jurors (female) speak, and then in a different segment I heard about the chloroform, duct tape, and plastic bags. I asked my husband how he thought she died, and he said it was pretty obvious to him. "Someone" chloroformed her to knock her out, put duct tape around her mouth to keep her from shouting out when she regained consciousness, and put her in trash bags to suffocate her. Murder 101. It chilled me to the bone. Is that what most of you who have followed the case think the reasonable cause of death is?

Yes, she will make money. Sadly, she will be paid $$$$$ for interviews, not because what she has to say is worth ANYTHING, but simply because people will tune-in (because they are emotionally invested in the case, because it's hard to turn your head from a train wreck, because of some vague, yet hopeless notion that the truth might be told, etc.), which means networks will compete for her, which means the top paying network will win, which means that that the offers will be high.

Early in this thread, I said I would not watch the trial. I really, really try to avoid the media, if for no other reason than to protect myself. I am highly sensitive, and I know how easily I am shaken when presented with the knowledge that horrible people do horrible things, and so I do my best to avoid it. I also have a general sense that I should not watch this stuff because it somehow contributes toward the attention received by criminals. But, EVEN I got drawn in over the weekend and watched parts of the closing arguments, and then suffered disappointment at the verdict. Uggh. I am able, however, to turn the tv off because I see that it's a bunch of nonsense (in that what is being said could be boiled down to about 3 minutes of programming, but it fills the airwaves for hours on end.) I will not watch a Casey Anthony interview on tv. Given that everything is replayed all over the internet these days, I do think I would find it hard to avoid clicking on a link to a portion of an interview, if for no other reason than as I said earlier, it is hard to turn your head from a train wreck.

FWIW (and I don't think it's worth more than anyone else's opinion), here's one attorney vote that the jury got it all wrong. One plus one still equals two. It's not that hard to see what happened here!! It still boggles my mind to hear people say that they think she did it, but they would have found her not guilty. (Maria questioned this, though the responses failed to address the troubling inconsistency.) And, certainly, the scientific mumbo-jumbo or jibber-jabber as I think it's been mockingly referred to here, isn't even really necessary to draw the conclusion. I haven't seen much of what the jurors have had to say. I know one juror said they felt terrible and were crying at the decision, but they felt they couldn't find CA guilty without knowing the cause of the baby's death. I do think this comes down to what Maria mentioned early on -- the jurors misunderstood the standard that they were to apply. They thought they needed absolute proof (what is now beibg called the "CSI Effect"). At least one poster here admitted to thinking absolute proof was needed.

I do not like that some of the public has expressed anger against the jurors. Yes, they were wrong, but I do think they thought they were doing the right thing.

As far as the jurors shopping around for interviews. I believe the judge said, before deliberations began, that there were "schedulers" in town for the jurors, which is why, if I recall correctly, he said that the alternate jurors would remain sequestered. So, I can't really blame the jurors if they do talk. I don't think they are actively going out looking for paid interviews, but I think the media machine is what it is, and there are people tracking them down and offering them money. I'd personally be VERY reluctant to do so because of the anger expressed by the public over the verdict, but that's just me. Maybe some jurors will want to explain for just that reason?

 

[Lanie]

Did you guys see the guy with a poster that said "Casey, will you marry me?" and he had a ring? He was waiting outside the courthouse the day she was sentenced, and he said he'd return when she gets out.

There was also an interview with Cheney Mason, and Jean Casarez was asking him what would happen to Casey wants she got out. Blah blah blah, but then she asked him if he would let her stay with him. He stuttered a little and said "Sure. For a short while". Like 5 minutes. And Casey is going to LOVE the attention, even if it's negative, when she gets out. I can see the cell phones being brought out while she shops at the grocery store, or goes to a bar. People are going to try to "befriend" her, hoping she'll leak the truth to them so they can be the ones to let the truth out, like that undercover journalist who was "buddies" with JvdS.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for those people on this thread that think she's guilty, but said they would acquit her, to chime in with their rationale. And then whole child **** theory has me thinking there's something to it. The way she bawled when Lee was on the stand, and the way he was so emotional...it smacks of some huge secret. Maybe Lee knew and she blackmailed him?

 

[lbbaber]

As far as the jurors shopping around for interviews. I believe the judge said, before deliberations began, that there were "schedulers" in town for the jurors, which is why, if I recall correctly, he said that the alternate jurors would remain sequestered. So, I can't really blame the jurors if they do talk. I don't think they are actively going out looking for paid interviews, but I think the media machine is what it is, and there are people tracking them down and offering them money . I'd personally be VERY reluctant to do so because of the anger expressed by the public over the verdict, but that's just me. Maybe some jurors will want to explain for just that reason?

Actually, some of them hired publicists and sent out letters to various media outlets demanding high money...claiming that there are already numerous offers and if the outlet wants an interview they would have to beat/match said offer. TMZ got one of these letters and published the entire letter on their site. The publicist even mentions that selling a juror's interview is frowned upon (I cant remember the exact words they used off the top of my head) and implied keeping it quiet. Its on their site.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

Did you guys see the guy with a poster that said "Casey, will you marry me?" and he had a ring? He was waiting outside the courthouse the day she was sentenced, and he said he'd return when she gets out.

Those guys with the rings and the posters? Not surprising. There are sicko's out there who get off on that sort of things. It just makes it all that much more unfortunate.

There was also an interview with Cheney Mason, and Jean Casarez was asking him what would happen to Casey wants she got out. Blah blah blah, but then she asked him if he would let her stay with him. He stuttered a little and said "Sure. For a short while". Like 5 minutes. And Casey is going to LOVE the attention, even if it's negative, when she gets out. I can see the cell phones being brought out while she shops at the grocery store, or goes to a bar. People are going to try to "befriend" her, hoping she'll leak the truth to them so they can be the ones to let the truth out, like that undercover journalist who was "buddies" with JvdS.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for those people on this thread that think she's guilty, but said they would acquit her, to chime in with their rationale. And then whole child **** theory has me thinking there's something to it. The way she bawled when Lee was on the stand, and the way he was so emotional...it smacks of some huge secret. Maybe Lee knew and she blackmailed him?

It just never ends, right?!

Cheney Mason...ahh, were to begin. He's shown himself to be very narrow minded, and even crass. During his interview, I loved how he said that people who didn't agree with the sentence--I believe he called us "jackals" --should learn to become better citizens. I LOL'd. Um, I would say using my right of freedom of speech or freedom of the press doesn't makes me a bad person--I'm not trying to censor any one, and I'm well entitled to my own opinions.

As far as the sex abuse goes...i don't even want to touch that with a 10ft pole.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

As far as the jurors shopping around for interviews. I believe the judge said, before deliberations began, that there were "schedulers" in town for the jurors, which is why, if I recall correctly, he said that the alternate jurors would remain sequestered. So, I can't really blame the jurors if they do talk. I don't think they are actively going out looking for paid interviews, but I think the media machine is what it is, and there are people tracking them down and offering them money . I'd personally be VERY reluctant to do so because of the anger expressed by the public over the verdict, but that's just me. Maybe some jurors will want to explain for just that reason?

Actually, some of them hired publicists and sent out letters to various media outlets demanding high money...claiming that there are already numerous offers and if the outlet wants an interview they would have to beat/match said offer. TMZ got one of these letters and published the entire letter on their site. The publicist even mentions that selling a juror's interview is frowned upon (I cant remember the exact words they used off the top of my head) and implied keeping it quiet. Its on their site.

LBB Is right, the jurors have been shopping their story around--which is where I got the 5 figure deal information.

Jose Baez? What's the ratty POS up to these days, you may be wondering....well, let me tell you...he's hired a publicist. Oh, yes, you heard that correctly. A publicist, you know, to handle all the books, movies, television, broadcasting. BUT FEAR NOT! There are people out there in this world who still use their brain around Baez, the agency DROPPED him not even 6 hours later. Guess they changed their mind.

 

[AmeliaG]

I did not follow the trial for many of the reasons Love Vintage mentioned.

From reading this thread and talking to people who did follow it, I get the impression that an aquittals on the murder charges were not so shocking but the aquittals on the manslaughter and child abuse charges were. From what I've read, that shocks me too. I'm wondering why the hell there wasn't a child neglect or abandonment charge in there somewhere. Based on the jury members' statements, that's the one thing that the prosecution seems to have convinced them of.

Based on my own jury experience, I probably wouldn't have been eligible for this trial. I served on a 3 day murder trial where the evidence was overwhelming - eyewitnesses, murder weapon tracked to the defendant, and witnesses to intent. At the deliberation, we were wondering what we were even doing here. No reasonable doubt? Try no doubt at all. We didn't even pay attention to the lower charges. The judge told us our trial was typical of the majority of murder trials in our area. The majority never even make it to trial. The average is 3 days with some lasting only a day with about the same level of evidence as the trial I was on. That was an eye-opener.

So yeah, I probably would have been wondering at the beginning of a trial like this what I was going to base the murder verdict on but because of that, I'd hope I would have paid close attention to those lower charges. So the lack of attention to the lower charges stuns me - especially the child abuse charge.

 

[Italiahaircolor]

From reading this thread and talking to people who did follow it, I get the impression that an aquittals on the murder charges were not so shocking but the aquittals on the manslaughter and child abuse charges were. From what I've read, that shocks me too. I'm wondering why the hell there wasn't a child neglect or abandonment charge in there somewhere. Based on the jury members' statements, that's the one thing that the prosecution seems to have convinced them of.

One of the jurors said that they couldn't find Casey guilty of child neglect or abuse because they didn't know exactly WHO was responsible for the care of Caylee. How stupid is that?

 

[lyra]

I'm in Canada, and hadn't heard of Casey Anthony until I started watching the trial in May. I totally understood the forensics, but then I'm a big nerd. Whether I liked or disliked Casey didn't matter. If I were on the jury I would have voted to convict on the manslaughter charge, and I would have held my ground. I don't think they proved that she murdered Caylee with the duct tape. I felt she had put that on post-mortem to keep fluids in. I did believe that she might have used chloroform and accidentally killed Caylee with an overdose. I believed that the chloroform in the trunk was not from cleaning products. Chloroform is easy to make at home from cheap household products that I have in my own home right now. Heck, I've accidentally created chlorine gas enough times to know what that's like too (ammonia + bleach).

I was not shocked at the verdict. I watched the OJ trial live. Now, I was totally stunned beyond belief at the verdict in that case. I was actually expecting the same thing to happen here. People expect either too much, or somehow think of forensic evidence as some sort of hocus pocus stuff (fantasy as the defense drilled into them). I'm clinical and analytical. I would doubt the defense would EVER have let someone like me on the jury though. They say that's how trials are won and lost--in choosing the jury. Defense got lucky this time.

Casey will change her name, relocate and you might never see her again. That's what Karla Holmolka did. She got away with videotaped murder and no one in Canada or anywhere knows where she is today. They think the Carribean with her new husband and at least one child. She did not write a book or anything. She was determined to slip away and she did. She was highly intelligent and she always got her way. Don't know what will happen with Casey ultimately, but she got away with something, and that's the end of my investment in thinking about her life. I think her parents enabled her too.

 

[Laila619]

From reading this thread and talking to people who did follow it, I get the impression that an aquittals on the murder charges were not so shocking but the aquittals on the manslaughter and child abuse charges were. From what I've read, that shocks me too. I'm wondering why the hell there wasn't a child neglect or abandonment charge in there somewhere. Based on the jury members' statements, that's the one thing that the prosecution seems to have convinced them of.

One of the jurors said that they couldn't find Casey guilty of child neglect or abuse because they didn't know exactly WHO was responsible for the care of Caylee. How stupid is that?

It boggles the mind.

 

[AmeliaG]

From reading this thread and talking to people who did follow it, I get the impression that an aquittals on the murder charges were not so shocking but the aquittals on the manslaughter and child abuse charges were. From what I've read, that shocks me too. I'm wondering why the hell there wasn't a child neglect or abandonment charge in there somewhere. Based on the jury members' statements, that's the one thing that the prosecution seems to have convinced them of.

One of the jurors said that they couldn't find Casey guilty of child neglect or abuse because they didn't know exactly WHO was responsible for the care of Caylee. How stupid is that?

Well I don't know then. Casey wasn't charged with child neglect so something got lost in translation there.

Rikki Klieman told CNN that she wasn't surprised at the verdict because the jury didn't have time to sift through all the charges in an 11 hour deliberation. She implied they didn't have time to go through the lesser charges.

I understand lesser charges can be confusing but damn it, they're on the docket.

Probably nothing can be done now but it is disheartening.