I was shocked, too. I find myself wondering what the jury is thinking now that they are able to go home and read all the media coverage that they weren't allowed to before.
Last year, I served 3 weeks of jury duty for a white-collar crime trial; the first thing I did when the trial finished was Google the defendants and some of the witnesses and names that popped up. I wanted to believe that we had returned the right verdict, and came out convinced that we did. I wonder if some of these jury members will worry that they were wrong, once they read things they weren't allowed to hear in court.
Last edited by sumire; 07-05-2011 at 09:46 PM.
Reason: wording: clarify
Everyone I know feels the same way...outraged...upset...in disbelief. She should have at least gotten child neglect, abuse, anything. We have our porch light on. I hope down the line she gets what's coming to her. Karma's a b*&%$
I was on a jury not long ago, while it wasn't a murder case it was a 3 Strikes case. Our jury deliberated longer than the Anthony jury did and we did find him guilty. It was his lies that convinced us he was guilty.
I am shocked and I wont be buying any books, watching any movies or doing anything that allows Casey or the grandparents to profit from Caylee's death....
I was afraid this was going to happen, because of the convoluted lies that came from Casey and her parents. The stories changed so many times, it was very hard to believe it was an accident.
And yet, I did wonder from the start whether they would have enough evidence for first degree murder. Because of her previously history of sedating the child, there is reasonable doubt (in my mind) that she intended to kill her child with premeditation - but I can't understand why they didn't come back with 2nd degree murder, manslaughter due to negligence or any of the abuse charges.
Maybe the jurors will regret their decision after the fact, or maybe they knew something we did not. Regardless, I find this so disturbing on so many levels.
Crimes aren't always straightforward to prosecute. Look at the incredibly low conviction rate for sex crimes, for instance. I'm also wondering whether a conviction would have been more likely in a country which doesn't have the death penalty. Anyway, I hadn't heard of it before but it sounds a very unpleasant case.
I don't really feel shocked. Sad for that poor child, still... but not shocked.
In the end, I wasn't on the jury so they might have gotten to see something or have something impressed upon them that left open reasonable doubt. Quite frankly, there was a LOT of odd behavior and plenty of weird circumstantial evidence, but that alone does not prove guilt.
The jury, also, does not read media coverage for good reason. Having only newspapers and other media to go off of, I cannot say that my opinion is unbiased. Things emphasized or shown might not be the way they were presented as part of the case in the courtroom. (As is so often done, media is often about the biggest headline.)
Trial by media is getting appalling these days. Look at what happened to Christopher Jefferies. The poor man wasn't even charged by police, but the media decided that he was the killer and made his life horrendous.
I was really concerned that the prosecution was over-trying the case based on the evidence they were giving. I was expecting a big reveal of some evidence the public had yet to see that would nail down premeditation. I was hoping they were going to prove cause of death. I think negligent homocide or a lesser charge might have worked better since they could place the child with her before and after death. I just don't know why they pulled out the big guns without the ammo to back it up.
You never know which way a jury will go. One stated they didn't believe in the death penalty and one said they didn't feel comfortable judging someone b/c of their religious beliefs. The prosecution should have booted them immediately. Why even keep them on the jury?
But now I am sure she'll go on to collect the child's life insurance and probably write a book or sell a made for tv movie.
I believe this jury has watched too many episodes of CSI.Rarely are murder cases solved so easily.We have come to expect DNA evidence or a witness to the crime. Before we learned about DNA defendants were convicted on circumstantial evidence . There is nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence. The question should be, is it more reasonable to believe in the guilt of the person or not.
shocked 
and 
angry 
......
I wasn't and I 
Prayers for the jurors and their families as they go forward in life...
