I Know Longer Believe

[mickeyboat]

See, that's the part I don't get. She basically admitted, in open court, to Manslaughter by Culpable Negligence (or, rather, her defense team did). Heck, moms who have walked away from their kids in the bathtub and had their kids drown have been convicted of that charge (with relatively light sentences).....

I'm not sure how you get past that admission as a juror...especially when they made it such an integral part of the defense....with the option of manslaughter on the verdict sheet, and don't take it.

But unless the jury talks, we'll never really know.

She didn't testify. She didn't admit to anything. No other witnesses or evidence admitted in court pointed to Caylee drowning. It was simply a theory that was presented during opening statements (not evidence). There was some other information presented by the defense that a juror could point which might somehow explained why she died. But the prosecution did not prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. Nor would they wanted to because it would have contradicted what they were trying to convict her of.

 

[joviroxx]

What charge would that have been? Failure to report? Child neglect? She was convicted of lying to the police.

maybe you can take a look at the jury instructions...

http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/04/jury-instructions-in-the-casey-anthony-trial/

At the very least, Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child

 

[NikitaZee]

See, that's the part I don't get. She basically admitted, in open court, to Manslaughter by Culpable Negligence (or, rather, her defense team did). Heck, moms who have walked away from their kids in the bathtub and had their kids drown have been convicted of that charge (with relatively light sentences).....

I'm not sure how you get past that admission as a juror...especially when they made it such an integral part of the defense....with the option of manslaughter on the verdict sheet, and don't take it.

But unless the jury talks, we'll never really know.

That is a charge that would interest me - manslaughter by culpable negligence. I have never heard if that. I wonder why that wasn't included in the charges. Maybe it is not a charge in the state of Florida?

 

[NEVERENOUGHWDW]

I live in Florida...just listening to the radio and it's being reported that one of the jurrors has hired a publicist and is offering to do a couple of interviews...as long as they are paid. The offers right now are in the 5 figure range.

Thoughts?

Disgusting but not shocked.

 

[joviroxx]

She didn't testify. She didn't admit to anything. No other witnesses or evidence admitted in court pointed to Caylee drowning.

Her lawyer did, same thing. Unless you are saying her attorneys are lying in court.

There was no proof George had anything to do with it either but they seem to believe that!

 

[Mosoh]

What charge would that have been? Failure to report? Child neglect? She was convicted of lying to the police.

Me? Murder 1 but any of the others would do

This is where common sense and reasonable doubt not no doubt enter the thinking process.

A habitual liar, a thief, a girl who drops her car off due to a dead stink (Amy testified to this) doesn't report her missing child instead creates many lies to avoid the questions from friends and avoids her family etc etc etc who sat in jail for 3 years because she knew her daughter drowned but never bothered to confess to LE or deliver the body.

There was zero testimony to a drowning or abuse (in case you want to go there)

But you give her the benefit of doubt? Nope. No one belongs on the jury if they don't have the stones to make the hard decisions

 

[joviroxx]

That is a charge that would interest me - manslaughter by culpable negligence. I have never heard if that. I wonder why that wasn't included in the charges. Maybe it is not a charge in the state of Florida?

It was.. I posted the jury instruction above. Its also on the verdict form under Count 3
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/04/verdict.forms.pdf#

 

[brea]

They offered the jury the option of finding for lesser charges (as you can see on the verdict ballot) on the murder rap:

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/04/verdict.forms.pdf#

Ditto on the aggrevated child abuse (down to simple child abuse)

So while they didn't formally charge with the lessers...they were options for the jury.

I see that but the main two charges come down to a simple question. Did the prosecution prove that she killed her daughter? If no then they have to find not guilty on them. If they found her guilty of murder then they would have the option of finding guilty on the lesser counts which likely would have removed the death penalty from the table. (I think I'm right about this but would have to do more research on it)

I'll be interested to hear about the Child Abuse Charge as I would think there should have been grounds to find guilty on the lesser charge there.

 

[rgf207]

She admitted it. Her baby died in her care and she failed to report it. A lesser charge was proven at the least.

She didn't testify. she didn't admit anything

 

[joviroxx]

She didn't testify. she didn't admit anything

Again, her lawyers did. Were they lying?

 

[pilferk]

She didn't testify. She didn't admit to anything. No other witnesses or evidence admitted in court pointed to Caylee drowning. It was simply a theory that was presented during opening statements (not evidence). There was some other information that a juror could point as to what coul dhave possibly happened.

Read my entire first sentence. I qualified that SHE didn't say it....not really. But her representation did.

Theory or not, it was a large basis for her defense. No, they submitted no evidence BUT:

If you take it into account (without evidence) as part of "reasonable doubt" then...don't you then take it into account when considering charges? If the best "theory" the defense can muster admits negligence and culpability...then as a juror, wouldn't you consider that?

 

[Mosoh]

She didn't testify. she didn't admit anything

She did through her council.

But you have a point - there was zero evidence of an accident or anyone else being with Caylee after she left home with her on the 16th before the good times for the next 31 days

 

[ols386]

Good for him/her. They went through what can only be stated as a trying situation to judge that case. If she makes a little off of it, and it does not affect the case or proceedings in any way, then more power to them.

It's wrong to make a profit from a situation where a child has died.

This is just my opinion, of course.

 

[rigs32]

Her lawyer did, same thing. Unless you are saying her attorneys are lying in court.

No it is not. What lawyers say is NOT evidence. The judge instructed the jury that anything the lawyers say during opening and closing arguments ARE NOT EVIDENCE and cannot be considered as such. Only testimony and admitted exhibits are evidence.

Casey did not testify. She admitted nothing in open court. The job of a defense attorney, as frustrating as it is, is to put doubt in the jury's mind, to muddy the waters. That's what Baez was trying to do.

And for all the people upset with the prosecutors, please tell me how they were supposed to do more with the evidence they had. They do not control the police investigation. They cannot create forensic evidence that does not exist.

 

[pilferk]

That is a charge that would interest me - manslaughter by culpable negligence. I have never heard if that. I wonder why that wasn't included in the charges. Maybe it is not a charge in the state of Florida?

It was included.

In Florida, it all rolls up to the same charge...you don't need to distinguish. Manslaughter by Culpable Negligence is PART of the definition of Manslaughter.

This is where I think the prosecution made a blunder: They didn't really help define the charges for the jurors and provide them with other options (in arguments...though they were on the verdict sheets).

 

[brea]

It's wrong to make a profit from a situation where a child has died.

This is just my opinion, of course.

Write a letter to the stations covering it, selling advertising off the backs of it, and I'll sign it before you send it and then get right behind you on the juror issue as well.

I feel terrible that girl died but I would not call this profiting at the expense of the little girl.

 

[pilferk]

I see that but the main two charges come down to a simple question. Did the prosecution prove that she killed her daughter? If no then they have to find not guilty on them. If they found her guilty of murder then they would have the option of finding guilty on the lesser counts which likely would have removed the death penalty from the table. (I think I'm right about this but would have to do more research on it)

I'll be interested to hear about the Child Abuse Charge as I would think there should have been grounds to find guilty on the lesser charge there.

Not in Florida.

The options presented allow the jury to find for lesser charges if they think the defendant is not guilty of the charge specified in the indictment. Those charges provided AFTER the charge specified on the indictment (murder 2, 3, manslaughter and simple child abuse) were options for the jury INSTEAD of Murder 1 and Aggrevated Child Abuse.

 

[NikitaZee]

It was.. I posted the jury instruction above. Its also on the verdict form under Count 3
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/04/verdict.forms.pdf#

Thanks for the link. I must admit - I am almost of the mind to agree with you as far as the aggravated manslaughter. But when it talks about culpability, it specifies that she had to have done something, or followed a course of conduct, that she knew would result in the death of Caylee. That's what I get hung up on - intent. Especially given the absence of cause death or even circumstances surrounding death.

 

[joviroxx]

No it is not. What lawyers say is NOT evidence. Tt.

OK, well, the jury believed it and without a shred of evidence....Alternate juror stated the belief. And yes I know, the defense does not have that burden.

 

[brea]

Not in Florida.

The options presented allow the jury to find for lesser charges if they think the defendant is not guilty of the charge specified in the indictment. Those charges provided AFTER the charge specified on the indictment (murder 2, 3, manslaughter and simple child abuse) were options for the jury INSTEAD of Murder 1 and Aggrevated Child Abuse.

I'm not disagreeing with you as I just don't know enough to do so. I just find it odd that I'm hearing about this on the Disney boards is all. Is there something more mainstream that talks to this possibility?