They are no privy to all of the media lawyers endlessly droning on and on about every bit of evidence, all the while dropping their journalist obligation to the truth and injecting their own personal prejudices into what you hear. No they mus decide the case based only upon what they are permitted to hear in the courtroom. They come to the best conclusion they can based on the testimony they hear in that courtroom and you attack them and ask that they be stoned.
Do you really think that all 12 plus the alternate have a bias or are just stupid?
The plain and simple fact of this case is the prosecution blew it big time. They had a weak case to begin with, presented what evidence in a haphazard manner to the point that the theory of their case was constantly shifting throughout the trial and ending up in the embarrassing position of being caught laughing at the opposing side during closing arguments and finally nearly begging for a verdict on the final close.
The jury can only deal with what is presented to them and as the saying goes garbage in - garbage out.
The prosecutor alone is to nlame for this travesty.
Sorry you don't want to hear it, but STUPID, close-minded jury on the O.J. level. They just wanted to get the hell out of there. One of them had a plane to catch, or didn't you hear?
You are 100% right on. It is shameful what is being done to this jury. The prosecution alone is responsible for this epic failure.
I disagree with you a bit.......the case was doomed because the physical evidence at the scene was so degraded as to be useless. No DNA....but even had they found DNA from Casey on Caylee they would have said since she’s the mother it should be there.
The second point is the confusion on reasonable doubt.....which should read beyond a reasonable doubt, meaning one can have a reasonable doubt and convict.
The most disturbing part is that they blame George. There was zero evidence that George had anything to do with this.
I have to conclude that the jury failed us. Big time.
I guess it’s time for me to say my piece.
Because I’ve been following this case right along and it’s kind of tough looking back, knowing how it unfolded, then to see it end like this.
First, I agree, reluctantly, with everything in your post. We’ve had endless hours of analysis by various pundits/lawyers/self-important drek. The jury was provided only what the law allowed.
Further, I kept getting continually shocked by the prosecution of this case. beginning with the shocker that they went after first degree murder.
This caused Cindy A to lie on the stand I think, because while I too have a granddaughter around Caylee’s age, and I’d be furious, beyond mad, knowing my daughter killed her, I’d sure wouldn’t want to get on that stand and testify against my own child, to an end of having to witness HER put to death.
It seemed like a bad strategy right from the start.
I don’t think Casey intended to kill little Caylee. Casey is not too bright, one of the dimmer bulbs in the lamp you might say. But if she plotted to kill Caylee surely she’d have come up with some kind of plan to dispose of the body besides driving around with the body in her car until it stunk so bad she had to abandon it. Surely she’s have a shovel handy to bury the body. Surely it wouldn’t have come down to just throwing the child’s body in the woods. Seems to me Casey, a dimbulb bear in mind, wanted to bury the child like her family had buried their pets.
Of course this is what I think happened to Caylee. I think Casey wanted a night on the town so she administered chlorphorm to the tot, covered her mouth so she couldn’t shout out, and left her in the trunk, to awaken when Mommy’s party was over or it was time to go to Grandma’s.
This is my speculation, just bear this in mind. I don’t know much more than anyone else but based on having witnessed the events as they unraveled and the testimony, this is how I think it happened.
Casey was so overwhelmed by what happened that she just, ladida, drove around town with the body in the car, not knowing what the hell to do with it. She tried to borrow a shovel from a neighbor to bury the child in her own yard but that was too much work.
Casey was in over her head which doesn’t have to be all that deep to begin with.
Events and life interfered so she just lied to her parents and lied to the cops and lied and lied and she lies quite well for such a dimbulb.
thus I think the prosecution did the big mistake by leaving the death penalty in the deal. However unlikely that may have been, it did kind of present a big challenge for the prosecution to prove that dim Casey premeditated the child’s death with no thought of disposing of the body, with no DNA, with no traces of poison in the car’s trunk. The prosecution had this great big charge out there and what they had to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt was not all that reasonable.
I never once bought into any kind of premeditation on Casey’s part but I did so believe, as above, she tried to come up with a way to shut the child up for the night.
Also the prosecution left Casey’s parents with the possibility of testifying against their own daughter that might eventually have them watching their child die.
I know a lot of you will huff and puff and we’re all big bad freepers after all, and claim you’d turn on your child in a minute had she killed a beloved grandchild but seriously, maybe Cindy thought Casey accidentally killed Caylee and it put a bigger burden on her to lie. Given the same set of circumstances, I’d never want to witness my daughter’s death by state needle, especially based on my testimony. The notion gives me the willies.
So right there you had the prosecution fighting its own witnesses for God’s sake.
The prosecution should have sought an appropriate punishment for a mother who did a rather silly thing by trying to chlorofom her child for a night’s rest. There was way more evidence that fit this template. And assuming that my scenario is right, ever important, Casey shouldn’t really spend the rest of life in jail, much less get the death needle.
The prosecution just threw everything at the wall and by me those jurors weren’t buying it. And hey, I listened, compelled, to the defense’s summation and they did one damn good job, like it or not.
They planted reasonable doubt all over the place as I see it. Had there just been an accidental manslaughter type of thing on the table the whole character of this case would be different.
It;s like the prosecution was appalled by Casey’s slutty lackadaisical behavior with the death of her child that they felt like she deserved the needle just for that.
the punishment should fit the crime and the prosecution wanted her punished for a crime far more heinous than dimbulb Casey actually committed.
But hey, that’s just my take on it. You may disagree but don’t be a nut about it.
The plain and simple fact of this case is the prosecution blew it big time. They had a weak case to begin with, presented what evidence in a haphazard manner to the point that the theory of their case was constantly shifting throughout the trial and ending up in the embarrassing position of being caught laughing at the opposing side during closing arguments and finally nearly begging for a verdict on the final close.
The jury can only deal with what is presented to them and as the saying goes garbage in - garbage out.
The prosecutor alone is to blame for this travesty.
If you're arguing that the criminal defense attorneys did a better job in selecting a stupid jury that would buy their case, then I'm not disagreeing with you there. Fact is, even with that, no reasonable person can listen to the evidence in this case and *not* conclude that Casey was 100% guilty. There was no more evidence presented to the jury in the Scott Peterson murder of his wife Laci, and the jury got that one right. Or, do you believe there was stronger evidence against Scott than against Casey? Basically, all they had on him was a bunch of lies and a bunch of circumstantial evidence...the same as for Casey, no more, no less.
“The plain and simple fact of this case is the prosecution blew it big time. They had a weak case to begin with, presented what evidence in a haphazard manner to the point that the theory of their case was constantly shifting throughout the trial and ending up in the embarrassing position of being caught laughing at the opposing side during closing arguments and finally nearly begging for a verdict on the final close.”
-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—<>-—
Not exactly what Levin said about this, but close.
I respect his take on this case more than any other view I have heard.
Neither. They were just a remarkedly uncurious lot. They don't watch the news.; they don't read the newspaper. I'll bet that most of them could tell you about the latest movie star, or whatever piques the interest of the average Joe Blow. I don't live in FL, and I can tell you that I know a lot about this case. You couldn't miss the news coverage any place in this country if you read a newspaper, or watched even 10 minutes of news per day. The jury selection system chose this group by requiring them to know nothing.
Unfortunately, these are the same people who vote for Obama. It's discouraging.