Casey Anthony NOT GUILTY & Sentencing Thread 6

[walden]

I agree. Bringing up the first degree murder as the only option (and dealth penalty) really shows that this jury did not understand what they were supposed to do and what their options were

To be honest how can you expect 12 people who are not legal people to totally understand all the charges, etc? Maybe they do need someone to come in as they begin deliberations and explain each charge to them and answer any questions

That would be the judge. He is available to answer questions and explain the law and the charges at any time -- but they never asked any.

 

[Bella the Ball 360]

See, I hate that idea. Yes, this jury does seem to have not done their job. But revealing their names serves no purpose. Except no-one will ever want to serve on a jury again. And that will totally be the end of our system of justice.

I agree! I still like the judge.

 

[Halloweenqueen]

This is one of the greatest examples of why we need PAID PROFESSIONAL JURORS who have an understanding of the law.

 

[joviroxx]

Looks like the Casey signing with William Morris isn't true but still possible that Baez signed a book deal.

 

[Mosoh]

Exactly and they could have if they werent clear on what they were reading.

Too dumb to know any better?

 

[JessicaR]

Too dumb to know any better?

I have thought about that but there were 12 of them.

 

[Bella the Ball 360]

This is one of the greatest examples of why we need PAID PROFESSIONAL JURORS who have an understanding of the law.

But then don't you run the risk of them being bought? I do think there should be some sort of test of comprehension. if they did not get it then why didn't they ask questions. That is truly what upsets me.

 

[mill4023]

I have a question. How does one say " I think she's guilty but the prosecution didn't prove their case? Huh? Then why do you think she's guilty? Something convinced you, didn't it?.... Stupid!

What they mean is that they think she is guilty, but based on the evidence, they can't be sure. In other words, they have "reasonable doubt".

Maybe they are 80% sure that she is guilty. Should they convict her in that case?
How about 90%?

It seems that there are lot of people posting here who would convict someone just because they "think" they are guilty. That is truly scary.

 

[U2_rocks!]

Reading comprehension?

I understand what you mean, and you are correct - the problem is that I find reading comprehension abilities are widely varied. Just look at the DISBoards!

I finally read the verdict form the other day (here on the DIS, after I asked whether the jury was allowed to step down the charges if they didn't like murder 1) and it was pretty clear that there were choices. I have a hard time imagining that any juror could read that form and not realize that, or at the very least ask a question! If juror #3 is to be believed, she didn't seem to have a clue!

However, this does not gel with the other information floating around e.g. I read that at one point the jury was split on manslaughter - that's a lesser charge, and for that to happen the jury must have known it was possible. Also, on TV last night I heard a juror say (was it #3?) that they couldn't find her guilty of any part of Caylee's death because they didn't know how she had died. There seem to be lots of conflicting statements, and while I am not looking at the jury as favorably now as I did 2 days ago, I still don't feel like I have an accurate enough picture to completely condemn them either.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

go to the FIRST POST

It seems that there are lot of people posting here who would convict someone just because they "think" they are guilty. That is truly scary.

Then you haven't read all the posts.

 

[DianeV]

I think that maybe they 'thought' they knew everything and didnt need to ask any questions. I cant believe there is ANY jury that knows everything and doesnt need clarification or any questions answered.

Its apparent that they didnt know everything by what they are now saying but unfortunately its too late for Caylee

I still say they wanted to be out quickly too

 

[Dr.Girlfriend]

Live hearing going on now, media wants Perry to release the names of the jurors. He said that he gave the jurors media packets if they want to talk, but maybe they could offer a trip to WDW in order to loosen a few tounges.

I guess he wasn't pleased with that one lady, eh?

 

[MusiqChic99]

What they mean is that they think she is guilty, but based on the evidence, they can't be sure. In other words, they have "reasonable doubt".

Maybe they are 80% sure that she is guilty. Should they convict her in that case?
How about 90%?

It seems that there are lot of people posting here who would convict someone just because they "think" they are guilty. That is truly scary.

I think a lot of us wonder what evidence they needed to convict her.

Most of us know there wasn't a smoking gun but there were a lot of pieces that if you put together, fit quite well.

Correction...I should say myself. I dont want to speak for everyone here.

 

[Bella the Ball 360]

In looking at all this that has happened and , I think that one evil person has wrought so much damage. I agree the jurors names should not be released. If you are watching Judge Perry he is so plain and simple when he speaks that it makes me think that all they needed to do was ask him questions and he could put it at their level.

 

[brunette8706]

So Casey will be getting OUT OF JAIL - Wednesday, July 13th! Nice.

 

[dandave]

My thoughts exactly! I actually wrote a response on this question to him earlier today and then self-edited for undue sarcasm.

My memory of the testimony is that during cross and recross of those witnesses it was established clearly that the day they all drove to dinner in Casey's car was in the first week of June. Before Caylee died.

If anyone wants to argue otherwise perhaps they could go to the FIRST POST, follow the link to WESH and put the link to the Raw Video in their post here to prove the point.

*He* really wasn't interested in the answers/opinions. *She* was simply asking to be asking. I would never let anonymous posters on a Disney message board sway my opinions on anything. I was simply entertaining myself. This is a "Just for Fun" board.

 

[Conservative Hippie]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anth...uilty-verdict-lesser-charge/story?id=14017505

Casey Anthony juror Jennifer Ford believes that prosecutors could have won a guilty verdict if they had brought a lesser charge than first degree murder, which carried the possibility of the death penalty, for the death of 2-year-old Caylee Anthony.

"If they charged her with other things, we probably could have gotten a guilty verdict, absolutely," Ford said today on "Good Morning America." "But not for death, not for first-degree murder. That's a very substantial charge."

I'm really confused. Did they even read the other two options they had that weren't for the DP? I'm assuming they did since they had to mark it as not guilty.

Reading comprehension?

Wait....wait......so she is admitting that they had no idea what they are doing, admitting that they clearly did not read the form (since if they did, they would have known that "death" was not on the form, and that there were "other things" besides first-degree murder. Admitting that they did not follow the judge's instructions. Did not follow the law. And nothing will happen to them and Casey is still out on the town next Wednesday. In fact they will profit from it!!

Why doesn't an interviewer ask that question - she was charged with other things, why are you saying "if?"

I am sick to my stomach that she will be walking around Orlando on Wednesday, the day before my son's first birthday. My husband usually goes to Orange County jail for his Bible study either Wednesdays or Thursdays, so he will make sure NOT to go next Wednesday. There will be a riot.

 

[DianeV]

Wow discussing a murder of a little girl is 'just for fun' for you? then maybe this isnt the right board for you

I still cannot understand how if there was no proof to them that Casey killed Caylee how is there any proof that it was an accident and that George covered it up which is what is starting to come out as something many on the jury think???

 

[joviroxx]

What they mean is that they think she is guilty, but based on the evidence, they can't be sure. In other words, they have "reasonable doubt".

Maybe they are 80% sure that she is guilty. Should they convict her in that case?
How about 90%?

It seems that there are lot of people posting here who would convict someone just because they "think" they are guilty. That is truly scary.

No , there is difference between I feel she is guilty and I think she is guilty. Im not one to say something without believing it. If I tell you I think she is guilty its because Im convinced of it beyond a reasonable doubt. There was something that led me to that opinion and I didn't come to it willy nilly.

I don't form opinions based on nothing. If I wasn't convinced I would say, She may be guilty but Im not sure. THAT I can understand. If you say you think she is guilty, but think the Prosecution did not prove their case, why do you think that? I can't believe it was just out of the air. There was some evidence that led you to your personal belief. Whether the prosecution presented it or you saw it elsewhere, do you form opinions without any kind of fact?

Its not about 80% or 90%. Its about no other reasonable explanation. And NO other explanation given by the defense is reasonable to me. If I follow the legal jury instructions, there is no REASONABLE doubt. Drowning? no evidence.. Abuse? No evidence.. George involved? Evidence to the contrary and on and on....

Im tired and I don't make sense LOL! This board have given me too many reasons to avoid working!

 

[snapppyd]

I seriously doubt she will be walking around Orlando. Her lawyers will probably arrange to have her taken to an undisclosed location for her own safety, and the safety of the public. Baez stated he fears for her safety. It's not like you will run into her at the 7-11.