UPDATED:::CATA Group- New thread!

[Nancy]

There is a facebook petition called Create Caylee's Law that you can sign to make it a felony to not report the death or disappearance of a child within 24 hours. It's one thing we can do to make changes int he law so that this never happens again. Some ask what we are doing to change things, well this is our chance.

Nancy

 

[Malika]

I have a couple of (genuine) questions.
What would you do if you were a juror on a case and you honestly believed and sensed the defendant was guilty of the charge but that the prosecution had not proven this beyond reasonable doubt?
I don't know what I would do but I wonder whether, in the interests of some greater sense of integrity than following the law, I might not vote guilty. Would that be ethical or unethical?

 

[klmno]

I will look into that, Nancy.

Did you hear what this one juror said? The problem was the jury, unfortunately. I waited a long time to say that because I do believe in our judicial system, but this shows it's faults, I guess. I think the judge did a more than adequate job of presenting instructions to the jury verbally and in writing. They showed up dressed up , like they were ready to get out of there on Monday, then again yesterday. Someone speculated that they would barely have enough time to even read thru the instructions and verdict sheets on Monday. The problem was the jury. Maybe they got burnt out and just wanted out of there. Maybe it's that people in Fl just aren't thinking the way mainstream America does, I don't know. Maybe people in Fl don't trust their state systems due to all the incompetence in their own DSS.

 

[klmno]

What would you do if you were a juror on a case and you honestly believed and sensed the defendant was guilty of the charge but that the prosecution had not proven this beyond reasonable doubt?

That's a fair question and I felt that way in the OJ case, which you might not be as aware of as this one. I would have voted not guilty. I viewed that case as unfortunately, letting OJ be the guilty man that walks free in order to preserve our system that tries to ensure innocent people are not convicted. Then, as time passed, I looked back on it and decided that there is no way OJ is innocent- OJ killed his ex-wife and the other man. So where exactly do we draw the line between a prosecution team not doing a perfect job or having evidence "we'd like to see" and them not proving guilt? Ultimately, in my own mind, if I can see no other explanation and whatever evidence there is, as long as it's valid evidence it doesn't have to be a video, supports that and the defense has nothing at all credible to contradict it, I would and could find the person guilty. If I wasn't sure how much violence or intent was involved, that would be when deliberations are necessary to determine the chrage I'd find the person guilty of. But not being sure of that doesn't warrant a "not guilty on anything" because I don't want to take the time to go thru those deliberations and make those choices, because if I do that, someone could get a punishment that I think is too harsh.

In our system, if 1st degree murder had been found, the jury can and does make a recommendation for punishment so it doesn't have to be the death penalty. And, the lesser charges available wouldn't have had the death penalty as an option. I understand why you have these questions, but no one on a jury in this country should make it to the point of the jury in this case deliberating and not understanding that this is not a question of either "guilty and death penalty" or "innocent/not guilty". That just isn't the case. And there's no excuse for that jury not understanding that.

 

[Nancy]

Malika, you take an oath as a juror to follow the law and judge's instructions. It would be very unethical to do otherwise. I believe that's what this jury did, I just find it incredibly difficult to believe they disregarded all that evidence. Beyond a reasonable doubt means "reasonable" not beyond "every possible" doubt.

Personally I don't believe the jury could have gone over the evidence in that short a time to determine she was not guilty unless they madeup their minds before they began deliberations.

I'm beginning to think the death penalty played a huge part in this. Perhaps if we get rid of the death penalty juries would be more willing to use reason and common sense. Putting the death penalty on the table changes the whole complexion of the case.

Nancy

 

[Shari]

I totally agree, Nancy...if we want to have a death penalty, so be it....but let the jury decide after the trial what the person is guilty of, and what their punishment should be. Not before it starts.

 

[klmno]

It just really comes across to me that the jury was burnt out, had doubts about George and Cindy hiding something, knows Casey must have done something wrong, but ultimately decided that since they are not in agreement on "what" crime was committed or "what exactly" did Casey do wrong, they decided to just end it and go home instead of deliberating. They said that when they were first released for jury duty, some left their own notebooks in the courtroom and they supposed a deputy would take them to the jury room. That tells me they didn't care about what previous notes they'd taken, however you want to interpret that. They never asked for any evidence to be reviewed. They were just done. So maybe some of them are more dysfunctional and/or in denail than Cindy and George or they were overwhelmed with burn-out and cunfusion or whatever. But with everything in me, I think the problem is with the jury chosen. Shoot, it could have even been a foreman stating that if they can't agree on an amount of guilt for Casey, then they have to let her go. End of story. No deliberation. It's very telling to me that the stories say the jury was dressed like they were going to reach a verdict on Monday and Tuesday both when they weren't supposed to even talk to each other about the ncase before it went into deliberations.

People are syaing the family is so whacked (my terms) that they deserve whatever they get. Well, again, what are you going to do if she shows up at your house and saying she's going to have your grandbaby? This isn't juvenile court. This wasn't a case about punishing parents.

 

[klmno]

So what time does she gets sentenced (hmm) tomorrow? Is it 9;00 or 10;00 am est?

 

[Nancy]

9:00

 

[donna723]

It just seems to me that the jury took the easy way out and I'm disappointed in them. That just went all too quickly to go over weeks of evidence and testimony. Apparently they never asked any questions, never asked to see any of the evidence. They have been away from home all that time, it was a holiday weekend, they all wanted to go home, they didn't bother with the notes they had taken, one guy had a cruise booked for a few days later. And I didn't listen to the whole thing but when they were talking to one of the alternates, it sounds like they were going on some very insignificant things. He mentioned what Lee said about burying pets! To me, that whole thing was just silly! And that Casey's bar-hopping, partying, drinking buddies thought she was a great mother! Well, what do they know! They don't exactly sound like a group of parenting experts to me!

 

[klmno]

I'm glad I don't live in Florida. I thought the state I live in was disgusting but after all the dss issues and then an election issue and now this.... I'm glad I don't live there. Do they have state income tax there? If they don't, how's all this getting paid for? It darn well better not be federal tax dollars.

 

[klmno]

Did I just hear that George is triying to go see Casey?

 

[klmno]

Maybe people in Fl just think differently than mainstream America. Grasping at straws....I'm trying to add it up someway.

Oh, and Cheney Mason flipping a bird is real professional.

 

[Nancy]

Oh, and Cheney Mason flipping a bird is real professional.

If Ashton or Burdick had done that Mason would be asking the bar to disbar them. I hope he never gets another case. Too bad Judge Perry can't put him in jail for six days.

Nancy

 

[TerryJ2]

and not understanding that this is not a question of either "guilty and death penalty" or "innocent/not guilty". That just isn't the case. And there's no excuse for that jury not understanding that.

One of the jurors, a nursing student, pretty much said that's what made the decision. Ugh.

 

[TerryJ2]

This is a good lead sentence from CBC: Casey Anthony could walk free Thursday after she's sentenced for misdemeanour convictions in Florida, but the 25-year-old acquitted of killing her toddler daughter Caylee will likely forever be on trial in the court of public and legal opinion.

 

[Nancy]

Please go sign the petition for Caylee's Law. Maybe some good can come of this. I would be willing to walk door to door to get signatures for this bill. They have representatives who have pledged to introduce the bill. So perhaps I haven't found anyone on a milk carton but I am willing to do whatever it takes to help get this law passed. That should count for something.

Nancy

 

[Mattsmom277]

I interpreted the female juror (the nurse) as saying that she did not believe that by finding not guilty on the charges meant she was saying Casey was innocent. I interpreted her statements as that the jury did not see prosecution prove a case of murder because there was no evidence to point to what caused Caylee's death, therefore the jury could not assign guilt on any of the range of homicide options on the table strictly due to no evidence of a homicide and therefore they had to go with not guilty. Sounded to me she was saying the evidence was not there to the standard required to give a finding of guilt on murder but that did not mean they believed her innocent, simply that by letter of standard of law for conviction, the burden of proof was unmet. Maybe I should listen to her short interview again because maybe I misinterpreted it.

 

[klmno]

I get what you're saying MM. When you're 15 years older, you might see things differently. Still being within the law... just interpreting things differently.

I think you are seeing things the way I did when I wathced the OJ case intently and then he was found not guilty- I would have said exactly what you are saying. However, today, not only do I view things differently but I honestly think this case was a LOT different....and presented in court a lot differently.

 

[Nomad]

Nancy...I would be very interested in hearing about any reforms that come around as the result of this disturbing case and trial.
Good for you for getting involved.
Mattsmom....I didn't hear the nurse...but heard the alternate/teacher and that about sums up his opinion too. And if he is correct about the letter of the law, I suppose it is understandable to a certain extent. in my humble opinion, enough evidence was provided for felony child abuse...but that is just in my humble opinion.
Donna....I also wonder if they took the easy way out. And one thing that REALLY stands out is that the alternate kept on saying something about an accident. WTH? Was this proven????? I DO NOT THINK SO. How could he assume this and then be ok with saying that the case against CA (particularly felony child abuse) was not proven?
I thought the idea about an accident was just a theory and nothing more? There was evidence re: chloroform, duct tape, mom not reporting her missing child and an actual corpse.
Terry...If she walks free tomorrow...I think it could very well be a "situation." The folks in ORlando are not happy campers. It is tense.

So very tragic. I hope there is some happy ending. New laws could be a start. I do NOT see this woman changing though....but my guess is she'll meet with fate and it wont be pleasant.