I love all the threads on this subject. Full of emotion!
Thing is, after reading al lot of these and posting a lot, maybe we didn’t give Casey enough credit? Maybe she’s not as much of a partier and not as dumb as we think?
Maybe she was smart enough to wait a few days before a rainstorm (she knows how to Google!), keeps the body in the car for a couple days (giving us the smell) buries it in a spot familiar to her knowing it’s going to fill up with water, giving a chance to speed up or conceal the decomposition of Caylee. She knows that even if she’s caught, the prosecution will have less to work with.
1 - Yes, both the defense and prosecution, the ME report and even Nancy “I know what happened” Grace knows the body decomposed in underground moisture.
Frylock, you seem like a rational guy. You and your friend go in the woods together. He dies of a heart attack, a jealous husband shows up, he trips and hits his head on a rock, etc. Do you pretend it didn’t happen? Would you sit in jail for 2+ years before saying something?
And let’s say that you are in shock. Do you wait a month without telling anyone?
All I am saying is what is REASONABLE. Not what CAN happen in all sorts of hypos. That is the standard.
At least one of the jurors has spoken and it seems they are not exactly happy with their own decision, but felt compelled to find that way. And the impression that they were so compelled could have arisen from many sources including courtroom instructions so yes it’s damn hard to claim one knows how they got there.
One person had a heart attack and died, the other person said, “Fuck this, I can’t be bothered,” and walked out of the woods.
I’m getting absolutely sick and tired of you and the others that are acting like the jurors must be morons because they didn’t convict. They didn’t convict because it was not proved that Casey Anthony murdered her daughter. Murder itself wasn’t proved, and even if, by the grace of reasonable doubt to the prosecution’s side (on which side reasonable doubt does not belong), one accepts that Caylee was murdered, they didn’t convict because it wasn’t proved that Casey did it.
Jesus H. Christ, people! No wonder Nancy Grace has such a following; there’s millions of other nitwits out there who think the same way she does.
Are you confusing the concept of a reasonable explanation with the concept of a reasonable action?
You’re right–I am a rational guy. So are you. And neither of us is in a panic-inducing situation. Hence we are able to think logically about reasonable actions in terms of their consequences.
However I know from sad personal experience (don’t you?) that lot’s of people are not rational, or even reasonable. It is reasonable to expect that people don’t act rationally a lot of times. And because of this, it is reasonable to think that, as in your example, a guy might have very stupidly not told anyone of the death of his friend*, and might very irrationally have continued with the lie for quite a while afterwards for fear of being caught in the original lie.
Similar thoughts apply to the Anthony case.
Don’t ask yourself “would a reasonable person act like that?” Ask, rather, “Do people really do things like that?”
The prosecutor in the case made a big deal (according to news reports) of the idea that “people don’t cover up an accident by making it look like a murder.” It’s true that a rational person in a reasonable situation would probably not do that. But would an irrational person in an unreasonable situation do it? You bet. It doesn’t even take that much irratonality. To cover up the accident, which would be your fault, you make it look like a murder, which would be someone else’s fault. A very plausible, reasonable explanation of the facts predicated on the notion that the people involved are not rational and are undertaking actions that are not reasonable.
It’s sort of fascinating how you are annoyed that jtgain (et al) think the jurors are morons because they reached a different conclusion on the case then jtgain, but don’t blink an eyelash as you casually dismiss millions of people as nitwits because they reached a different conclusion on the case than you.
One possible solution might be to recognize that it’s possible for two rational non-morons to reach entirely different conclusions based on the same set of evidence, and then discuss those conclusions without anyone having to turn the whole thing into a tiresome exercise in “I’m smart and people who disagree with me are dumb.”
I would trust the jury members who spent every minute at the trial, heard all the evidence, and spent all their concentration on a death penalty case ,than a person who pretends to be an expert because of what they read on the internet or saw on TV.
…wait. What? Considering the jury’s decision to have been incorrect is damaging the justice system in this country? That’s… I don’t agree with that statement. If I disagree with the results of some given popular vote (say, Prop 8 in California), and state publicly that, in my opinion, the voters acted incorrectly, am I damaging the political system in this country?
I also don’t know what it has to do with my point, which is that it’s possible for you to think the jury was right, and for jtgain to think the jury was wrong, and neither of you nor any of the jury members necessarily have to be “nitwits” or “morons.” This is a complex case and the discussion could be so much more interesting if everyone could acknowledge that.
The people who think the jury made a “bad decision” that DID actually watch the WHOLE trial, (which is doubtful in most cases) and who think they “know better” than the jury, just don’t realize a few crucial things.
-The jury was carefully selected pretrial to minimize prejudice.
-The jury was sequestered during the trial to eliminate prejudice from the media and mob mentality outside the courtroom.
-The jury was isolated from prejudicial information that took place inside the courtroom.
So those few that actually did watch the whole thing might think that they “know more” and that more is always better. Except they’re wrong, and probably wouldn’t want the mob and media influencing their fair trial if they were ever accused of a crime. (Particularly a trial with a mob and media outside that just “knew” you were guilty.) And if they served on a jury, they probably wouldn’t appreciate the mob calling into question their intelligence for making an impartial decision based on the facts and instructions they were given.
I too have commented about being annoyed with people referring to the jurors as morons. I am not annoyed by their having a different opinion than me, or with disagreeing with the verdict. What is annoying is their insistence that jurors must be morons, rather than people who weren’t as convinced by the evidence as they were. But no, only they have the intelligence and insight to figure out exactly what happened in the case, and they have this ability without having been in the courtroom a single day during the trial. They have a beef with the verdict or the jurors? Fine. But show a little humility and at least acknowledge that it is even slightly possible that the jurors aren’t morons, but thoughtful civic-minded people who did their best to come to a verdict based on the evidence presented to them.
The jurors have to be morons, because our justice system specifically selects for morons. People who actually have the expertise to make the decision are filtered out because they might be prejudiced.
If the jurors had even deliberated, you might have some evidence that they were intelligently discussing the case. But not only did they not deliberate, but we have a person who admits they thought she was guilty but felt he couldn’t convict her, thus indicating a lack of knowledge of at least jury nullification, if not an understanding of what reasonable doubt is.
While it is conceivable that a defense team wouldn’t want a jury to come to a decision, for the prosecution to select jurors who are incapable of making one makes no sense. As for the deliberations, is there some report out I haven’t read where the jury explains themselves? Because if there isn’t, you have no idea what went on during those ten hours that the jury was out.
ETA: I think you are talking about the alternate juror, correct? It is of course possible to believe in a person’s guilt but also that the prosecution didn’t prove their case.
I’d agree with the earlier poster who indicated that they were disappointed when Nancy Grace’s head did not asplode on live television after this verdict.
To that end, many factors color the perception of anyone… anyone… who was not a part of that 12 person team. As Voltaire and others upthread have perfectly illustrated, to say that the jury was flat-out wrong is, well…
Insulting.
Do you realize what this jury was going through for the duration of the trial? The sequestering, the weeks that they had no access to internet or television, or even discussions with their families. The only thing they knew during this time was details of the case, and perhaps the occasional bad Dukes of Hazzard rerun. Do you even fathom the consequences of this situation? It’s fucked up, and by God I can guarantee you that these jurors were not simply sitting in their hotel rooms, not giving one thought to the trial at hand.
All this time you and I were sitting back in our Lay-Z-Boys, beer in hand with feet up, cherry-picking details of the trial from Nancy Grace, CNN, Fox, and perhaps even Yahoo!, ensuring that they adhere to our pre-conceived conclusions derived FROM THE SAME SOURCES, and come to a decision, without deliberation, mind you, as to whether or not the woman is guilty.
It really is that easy isn’t it? For you obviously have access to evidence and scenarios that were clearly not available to the jurors, who have sacrificed their time, lives, and may well be facing future consequences (for example, PTSD).
No, it isn’t. It’s called expressing an opposing opinion. If the precious snowflakes don’t like being second-guessed, tough shit. I saw the same evidence the jury did and I would not have voted as they did. I don’t give a shit if this offends their sensibilities.
Who the hell said they didn’t give a thought to the trial at hand? And how does the fact that they were forced to watch Dukes of Hazzard reruns bolster their credibility as triers of fact?
Personally, I didn’t watch or read any of those sources you listed. You know why? I watched the trial videos daily, and it constantly pissed me off when I would read or hear some media story that completely distorted or grossly oversimplified the testimony of the day.
PTSD? For serving on a jury? Jesus wept. I got your perspective right here, pal.
Even with the opinions and knowledge I may have had in this case as a juror would still lead me to not guilty on murder and manslaughter.
Casey, George, Cindy, Lee and the Kronkman do not give any answers to who is guilty of what and why, not to mention cause of death. But the circumstantial evidence leading to an acquittal or a conviction in this case could never ever be conclusive.
If Caylee was actually missing, Casey wouldn’t have had to lie. The defense purported that Casey lied to cover up an accidental drowing. So, while Casey was delaying the investigation, Caylee was in no danger at all.
