Casey Anthony NOT GUILTY & Sentencing Thread 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
the dr today said maybe next week but who knows - there's like a dozen dr's that do rounds so it really depends on who you get on what day.

one the other day thought maybe by the weekend she'd be stepped down to level 2 which means just days before she comes home - today it's sometime next week for level 2.

i'm starting to think Mare will see her grand daughter before Nikki comes home :scared1::rolleyes1

Oh Kurby, hang in there. Just think about how special that homecoming will be! Start planning, Im sure it will be soon!
 
I apologize if this has already been posted, these threads move pretty fast. This is an interview given by juror #2 anonymously to the St Pete Times. If only those jurors - like this one - held on to what they believed.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/article1179177.ece

Juror No. 2 remembers when he sat down with his fellow jurors on Monday. Finally, they could talk about the trial that had consumed six weeks of their lives. Finally, those in the jury room could ask themselves the question the rest of the world wanted answered:

Was Casey Anthony guilty of first-degree murder?

"Everybody agreed if we were going fully on feelings and emotions," the juror said, "she was done."

But the 12 jurors from Pinellas County knew that feelings and emotions alone were not enough to decide the fate of the young Orlando mother accused of killing her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee Marie Anthony.

"We just wanted to go on the evidence that was presented to us," he said.

But there just wasn't enough evidence to convict the mother of murder, Juror No. 2 said in an exclusive interview Wednesday with the St. Petersburg Times.

"I just swear to God …," he said, his voice falling silent, overcome by tears. "I wish we had more evidence to put her away. I truly do …

"But it wasn't there."

The Times is not naming the juror because he said he wants to keep his family safe from the scrutiny of the media and the public. He came forward, in part, to explain to the world how the jury made its decision.

Another juror echoed his thoughts in an interview with ABC News. According to news reports, another juror is offering to tell his story for a fee. For now, all their names remain sealed by the order of a judge.

The jury's decision Tuesday to find Casey Anthony not guilty of the murder of her child shocked a nation that has quickly become obsessed with the case.

Juror No. 2 said it was not an easy decision to make. But in the end, he said, it was the only decision they could make given the evidence presented to them.

Many are outraged that Casey Anthony may go free at her sentencing today. So is Juror No. 2.

She is "not a good person in my opinion," he said, his voice again overcome by emotion.

• • •

Interest in the Casey Anthony case had become all-consuming in Central Florida. So in May, Chief Judge Belvin Perry Jr. came to Pinellas hoping to select an impartial jury from here.

Juror No. 2 turned 46 during the trial. He is married, a father of two: a 9-year-old boy and a 4-year-old girl. He works in information technology. He was one of two black jurors on the panel.

It took six weeks before the case finally went to the jury. They were sent back into the jury room at 12:10 p.m. Monday — the Fourth of July.

After finding Casey Anthony guilty of four counts of lying to law enforcement ("A gimme," said Juror No. 2) they discussed the most serious charge: first-degree murder. There are only two sentences: life in prison without parole or death by lethal injection.

The state's theory is that Casey Anthony suffocated her daughter with duct tape, then dumped her body in a swamp near the home they shared with the girl's grandparents. She didn't want to be a mother anymore, the state said, and she partied with friends and got a tattoo while her child was unaccounted for.

But the only forensic evidence was possible signs of human decomposition in the mother's trunk, and the child's decomposed remains found six months later.

The first vote was 10-2 against first-degree murder.

"We didn't know how she died, we didn't know when she died," said Juror No. 2, who was one of the 10. "Technically, we didn't even know where she died.

"You couldn't say who did it. To me, that's why it was aggravated manslaughter of a child."

• • •

That was the next charge the jury could have found 25-year-old Casey Anthony guilty of. It carries a sentence of up to 15 years in prison. Juror No. 2 believed the mother was guilty of "culpable negligence" as required of that charge. He wasn't alone.

The vote on Tuesday was 6-6 for manslaughter. The two sides hardened. They started talking over one another. The jury foreman calmed them all down.

Here the defense's theory was key: They told the jury that Caylee accidentally drowned and the family tried to cover it up. But the defense also accused George Anthony of sexually abusing his daughter Casey — a charge he denied. The defense said the abuse trained Casey Anthony to lie and live in denial.

The jury didn't believe anything George Anthony said on the stand, according to Juror No. 2.


But more importantly to the jurors who opposed the manslaughter charge, no one could say who was Caylee's caretaker — the mother or the grandparents — when the child actually died.

If it was murder, who did it? If she died accidentally, then who was the child's caretaker?

But Juror No. 2 didn't buy that.

"The six that voted guilty said it didn't matter at what point in time she came home and found out her daughter was missing," he said. "She had to report it in some way, shape or form, and that's where the negligence came in."

But some jurors, he said, had decided not to convict Casey Anthony of any charge in the girl's death. By lunch Tuesday, the guilty side started to lose votes.

Juror No. 2 was the last holdout. Deliberations lasted for 11 hours over two days. They filed into court at 2:15 p.m. Tuesday to hand over their verdict.

"We truly don't know what happened," he said. "Somebody knows, but we don't know."
 
Let me ask you...
If we took all of George's allegations out....

keeping in mind that some of the line of questioning was only allowed because Baez was trying to PROVE he abused Casey and the Judge determined that once defense rested it was NOT proven...

keeping in mind that River Cruz was only allowed to impeach him on the affair questioning that was only allowed because of the allegations in opening...

If Baez would not have been permitted to proffer and provide actual evidence to the allegations and in not having any proof been prohibited from addressing it in any way....

that takes George's "shifty ways" out of the equation...

So without ANY reference to George in ANY way....

Could the Jury have achieved a different verdict? I think they might have.

We will never know...

But they doubted George from day 1...because of Jose...and allegations that were never ever proven in trial.

The very proof that people expect from the state for Casey, they do not require of George. Why is that?:confused3

George was not on trial. Baez was going by what Casey told him. If George wants to sue for slander, he can have his day in court. Baez defended his client. If Casey told him she had been molested and he thought it may have had bearing on the case, then he would have been opening himself up for malpractice if he had not used it.

In my case, George had nothing at all to do with me thinking that the prosecution did not prove their case. Nothing Baez accused George of figured in my reasoning at all. Mine was based on the defense experts refuting the state's experts. I went into the case expecting to see the prosecution win a slam dunk and I was very surprised after hearing both sides too realize that the defense had a stronger case.

Prosecutors mess up (plenty have had their opinion on that), Defense lawyers makes mistakes and Judges make mistakes. Juries can as well.

People are human, they make mistakes. I'm not saying the jury in this case made a mistake.

That's a good sentiment and I have felt that way in some cases. One is always a source of embarrassment for me (Westerfield )

If it comes to light that they disregarded the laws and guidelines while reaching that verdict will you still feel the same way?

I will have to see if that happens but it appears they acted properly.
 

she's slowly gaining wait again (she lost almost 1 full pound of that fluid but it's all out now) she's at 6lbs 8oz now.

they put her in some clothes yesterday so we brought some onesie's down but the smallest ones we have are 10lbs. she's swimming in them

You were expecting a big baby!! You'll need a few small items, not too much though, she'll grow quick!!

the dr today said maybe next week but who knows - there's like a dozen dr's that do rounds so it really depends on who you get on what day.

one the other day thought maybe by the weekend she'd be stepped down to level 2 which means just days before she comes home - today it's sometime next week for level 2.

i'm starting to think Mare will see her grand daughter before Nikki comes home :scared1::rolleyes1

Awe don't say that, she'll be home so soon... :grouphug:
 
But lying about having an affair does shed some doubt on his credibility, which can extend to any of his other testimony.
If it were not for the attempt to get the "accident that snowballed" into testimony as proof of drowning I don't think it would have even been introduced.

That Judge Perry instructed the jury the statement was not proof of anything but his creditiblity - how does it tie into an accident?
This is exactly what the jury is supposed to do. They are the "trier of fact." They judge credibility based on what they heard in the courtroom. They don't really need solid proof. And since credibility is a subjective thing, it is absolutely possible for one person to come to a different conclusion than someone else.

That's a fair and safe answer. I think it unfairly applies here and it shows the jury's bias based on the OS being no proof was provided.
 
This is exactly what the jury is supposed to do. They are the "trier of fact." They judge credibility based on what they heard in the courtroom. They don't really need solid proof. And since credibility is a subjective thing, it is absolutely possible for one person to come to a different conclusion than someone else.

Very interesting you say that...
 
the dr today said maybe next week but who knows - there's like a dozen dr's that do rounds so it really depends on who you get on what day.

one the other day thought maybe by the weekend she'd be stepped down to level 2 which means just days before she comes home - today it's sometime next week for level 2.

i'm starting to think Mare will see her grand daughter before Nikki comes home :scared1::rolleyes1

:hug:
 
the dr today said maybe next week but who knows - there's like a dozen dr's that do rounds so it really depends on who you get on what day.

one the other day thought maybe by the weekend she'd be stepped down to level 2 which means just days before she comes home - today it's sometime next week for level 2.

i'm starting to think Mare will see her grand daughter before Nikki comes home :scared1::rolleyes1

:hug:

Hang in there!
 
You were expecting a big baby!! You'll need a few small items, not too much though, she'll grow quick!!



Awe don't say that, she'll be home so soon... :grouphug:



not so much that we were expecting a big baby cuase it wasn't until just before she was born that we found out how much she weighed (6lbs 4oz) just a few days before she was born - but Cassie was 8lbs 13oz when she was born so she wasn't too far off the smallest clothes.

and except for her coming home outfit (which wont fit her so we may go out and buy a premee outfit) they are all Cassie's baby clothes


*****MARE - when you spoil your granddaughter TELL YOUR DAUGHTER TO KEEP THE CLOTHES - just in case :)


we'll figure it all out but it's funny and cute to see her tiny little body in these clothes we thought were small
 
She is "not a good person in my opinion," he said, his voice again overcome by emotion.

• • •


"We didn't know how she died, we didn't know when she died," said Juror No. 2, who was one of the 10. "Technically, we didn't even know where she died

"You couldn't say who did it. To me, that's why it was aggravated manslaughter of a child."


• • •

That was the next charge the jury could have found 25-year-old Casey Anthony guilty of. It carries a sentence of up to 15 years in prison. Juror No. 2 believed the mother was guilty of "culpable negligence" as required of that charge. He wasn't alone.

The vote on Tuesday was 6-6 for manslaughter. The two sides hardened. They started talking over one another. The jury foreman calmed them all down.

Here the defense's theory was key: They told the jury that Caylee accidentally drowned and the family tried to cover it up. But the defense also accused George Anthony of sexually abusing his daughter Casey — a charge he denied. The defense said the abuse trained Casey Anthony to lie and live in denial.

The jury didn't believe anything George Anthony said on the stand, according to Juror No. 2.


But more importantly to the jurors who opposed the manslaughter charge, no one could say who was Caylee's caretaker — the mother or the grandparents — when the child actually died.

If it was murder, who did it? If she died accidentally, then who was the child's caretaker?

But Juror No. 2 didn't buy that.

"The six that voted guilty said it didn't matter at what point in time she came home and found out her daughter was missing," he said. "She had to report it in some way, shape or form, and that's where the negligence came in."


Juror No. 2 was the last holdout. Deliberations lasted for 11 hours over two days. They filed into court at 2:15 p.m. Tuesday to hand over their verdict.

"We truly don't know what happened," he said. "Somebody knows, but we don't know."

Ok bolded in red sounds like a talking point, juror #3 said almost the identical thing

In blue. OS not evidence, again they failed to follow instructions.

In green - never happened

In orange - so?

Its as if they were at a different trail than was televised
 
Why? Did you read the jury instruction?

Yes, I did. I was merely quoting YOUR interpretation, and IMHO that is where one of the problems arise.

Granted, defense does not have to "prove" anthing; but that does not release the jurors from using logic, common sense and (MOST IMPORTANT) questioning guidelines of which they are unsure.
 
It isn't American Idol...but by the jurors who have spoken so far as to how they reached their verdict, it is clear by their very own words that they did not follow insructions or law in some aspect of their decision.

Based on your response, you did the same thing. This simply was the guilt phase and NOT the penalty phase. The door was WIDE open with sentencing possibilities and they slammed it shut because they could only focus on one.

I did what same thing? I have made no assumptions, I merely pointed out that the jury did know the statute that constitutes aggravated child abuse because it was read to them as part of the jury instruction. The person I was quoting said the jury had not read that statute.
 
Thank y'all for the discussion--I am getting closer to being at peace with what the verdict is. I know it doesn't affect my life in the slightest that she is found "not guilty", but "we the people" were granted rights to public courts. That is why we saw it on tv. We have that right to see our legal and judicial process in action. To me, it is much important than football or Twilight or The Bachelor...

It is our government in action and that is pretty cool. We don't always like what occurs, but what does occur in courtrooms all over the country does indeed affect us someway. No, it won't bring Caylee back--but what it does affect us. Recall all that case law that Judge Perry cited...individual cases may not matter to the general public, but they are used in cases from here on out.

So before folks get all sanctimonious and say that folks shouldn't be upset or it doesn't affect anyone...

One day it could be you in that court room...you could be George, or Cindy, or Lee, or Roy Cronk, Joe Citizen who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and permanently tied to a trial of the century as a result...

There was a time, where all those people never imagined that it would be them...


It affects all of us.
 
I did what same thing? I have made no assumptions, I merely pointed out that the jury did know the statute that constitutes aggravated child abuse because it was read to them as part of the jury instruction. The person I was quoting said the jury had not read that statute.

Not about to go back through the thread and find your OP to which I responded..

but I believe you mentioned something along the lines about sentencing...and it was pointed out that sentencing was not to be a factor in determining guilt. So if folks were worried about sentencing, they were ignoring instructions.

(going on my memory though...not in the mood to go hunt for the post..)
 
Thank y'all for the discussion--I am getting closer to being at peace with what the verdict is. I know it doesn't affect my life in the slightest that she is found "not guilty", but "we the people" were granted rights to public courts. That is why we saw it on tv. We have that right to see our legal and judicial process in action. To me, it is much important than football or Twilight or The Bachelor...

It is our government in action and that is pretty cool. We don't always like what occurs, but what does occur in courtrooms all over the country does indeed affect us someway. No, it won't bring Caylee back--but what it does affect us. Recall all that case law that Judge Perry cited...individual cases may not matter to the general public, but they are used in cases from here on out.

So before folks get all sanctimonious and say that folks shouldn't be upset or it doesn't affect anyone...

One day it could be you in that court room...you could be George, or Cindy, or Lee, or Roy Cronk, Joe Citizen who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and permanently tied to a trial of the century as a result...

There was a time, where all those people never imagined that it would be them...


It affects all of us.

Well said!
 
George was not on trial. Baez was going by what Casey told him. If George wants to sue for slander, he can have his day in court. Baez defended his client. If Casey told him she had been molested and he thought it may have had bearing on the case, then he would have been opening himself up for malpractice if he had not used it.

But Baez put him on trial.

Actually nope. George cannot sue for slander. Lawyers can pretty much say whatever during opening statements and have immunity. Its supposed to be good faith. A simple claim of client privilege and Baez is golden. Its been discussed repeatedly by attorneys. I think its unethical to claim something even, disparage another human without having any evidence to say so. He didn't have evidence, the Judge told him he couldn't bring it up during closing.

Baez played the system and worked on the jurors emotions. The jurors are instructed NOT to use openings as evidence, but as per juror statements, you can see they did.

In my case, George had nothing at all to do with me thinking that the prosecution did not prove their case. Nothing Baez accused George of figured in my reasoning at all. Mine was based on the defense experts refuting the state's experts. I went into the case expecting to see the prosecution win a slam dunk and I was very surprised after hearing both sides too realize that the defense had a stronger case.
Really, because they said so, its stronger? What evidence did they produce to show a stronger case? Unless you mean their case was able to poke holes ? Im confused by this, really I am.. What expert testimony refuted was enough to make their case stronger than the ENTIRE prosecution?

.[/QUOTE]
 
Our justice system is slightly different then you guys in the states and admittedly i know very little about it.

seems like most of my knowledge about law is of american law.

ours is based on the British system. we do have juries here too and some cases are done with just a judge.

we dont' have court tv or base tons of tv shows on our system.

i do think both systems are what we have and we should be thankful we don't live in singapore.
 
One of the biggest problem I see from what the jurors have stated is that GA was guilty, due to the fact that he was uncooperative with the defense. Did it not once cross their minds that the defense just accused GA of covering up an accident, and more importantly molesting his daughter? Yes, I agree GA was a little defiant with the defense and not the prosecution, but do you blame him? I guess they didn't see it that way.
 
Really, because they said so, its stronger? What evidence did they produce to show a stronger case? Unless you mean their case was able to poke holes ? Im confused by this, really I am.. What expert testimony refuted was enough to make their case stronger than the ENTIRE prosecution?

.
[/QUOTE]

I feel like some of us watched a totally different trial. I didn't see that the defense had any type of case. I saw them make some serious accusations and because they didn't have the burden of proof, they didn't need to and didn't bother backing it up. They were counting on the jury hanging on those opening statements and they were right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.















Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top