<p>I guess what I am saying is that I can somewhat understand or at least accept that the jury was unable to find Casey guilty of the charges (particularly her being charged initially with capital murder) beyond a reasonable doubt, but it just seems unfathomable if many of them thought George did it.</p>
<p>The girl at the checkout counter who can’t figure out how much change to give you.</p>
<p>The kid who dropped out of high school and smokes pot every morning before work.</p>
<p>The guy who drove the car on the wrong side of the road.</p>
<p>The coworker who never seems to quite understand the conversation at the staff meeting.</p>
<p>The neighbor who visits a lot of conspiracy websites and thinks that 9/11 was an inside job.</p>
<p>The relative who thinks that Fox News is real news.</p>
<p>They may all end up on a jury some day.</p>
<p>They thought that George could not be excluded as a suspect, and he was one of the last two people known to have been seen with Caylee while she was alive. George was the only witness who was able to establish that Caylee left with the child, and they didn’t find his testimony to be credible – i.e., he gave them the impression that he was hiding something.</p>
<p>That’s reasonable doubt. </p>
<p>I find it rather frustrating that a CC’er would be criticize the verdict on the basis that there was no proof against George. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove their case, and that means it was the prosecution’s job to provide evidence eliminating Caylee’s other caretakers as suspects. </p>
<p>I think the jury probably saw a hostile man who clearly had a problem controlling his temper, and in the context of being a caretaker for a toddler, that brings up some theories as to how the child might have died that are probably more plausible than the chloroform theory. </p>
<p>In a sense, the prosecution’s case rested largely on George’s testimony. George made himself suspect in the jury’s eyes by his courtroom demeanor.</p>
<p>I’m not criticizing the verdict and made that clear in my post. I was only talking about the jury’s thoughts about George and thinking he possibly murdered the child. Yes, I know the burden of proof is on the prosecution and not the defense! I was still finding it odd that so many jurors went so far as to think George was responsible for the death. I wasn’t questioning the verdict about Casey’s charges. But they didn’t just find Casey not guilty, but apparently many thought George is guilty of something. I just found it odd that so many thought George did it (again, not talking of their findings about Casey’s guilt or non-guilt). I know the defense didn’t have to prove anything. I was just saying that I saw very little evidence that pointed to George and it seems not nearly enough to come to some conclusion that George did it. At least with Casey, there was some evidence and some basis to believe she did it, even if not enough to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. I just didn’t hear any evidence of George’s involvement (even though the defense didn’t have that burden). That’s why I don’t see how the jury seems to have concluded (based on the forman’s interview) that George may have murdered the child. Again, I am not talking of their verdict about Casey.</p>
<p>By the way, let’s not forget that the opening statement by Baez accused George of sexual abuse of Casey and with nothing to back that up, that wasn’t allowed in closing arguments. And then poor George has to get up in front of the world to testify after egregious stuff has been lobbed at him by the opening statement with apparently no basis to back it up. I can’t imagine how he kept his composure under the circumstances. I’d be upset too if something so egregious that was unfounded (according to the judge even there was no evidence to back up the claim of sexual abuse) was said about me to the world and I couldn’t do anything about it but say,“no, that never happened.”</p>
<p>I make no excuses for my posts. I agree with sooziet. If you look at any of the jailhouse videos of the phone calls, as the jury had access to, George’s demeanor with Casey has been nothing but caring, loving and in turn she as well. She even says to him that he is the best dad and grandfather.</p>
<p>It does seem to me that with these being really important issues to decide we could come up with a better way to do it. Perhaps we could use the method they do on Dancing With the Stars. We could have the judges (the 12 jurors) vote and then let the public vote. That way if the jurors are “stupid,” all of the smart general public members can correct the errors of their ways.</p>
<p>I think we can all agree that letting the general public vote on things always gets the “right” result, correct?</p>
<p>Then we could do away with appeals in death cases, just execute the person on the spot when the final voting talley is announced and the person is deemed guilty. Acquittal results in the contestant (the defendant) getting an all expenses paid trip to Disney Land.</p>
<p>To keep it interesting, we could have a “credible, not credible” vote on each witness as we go along. Perhaps we should lobby our reps in congress for a federal crime of “not credible.” That way someone would be at risk of going to jail all the time, not just the contestant (I mean defendant) at the end of the show (I mean trial).</p>
<p>This could be a really neat way to do this. Much more fun and democratic.</p>
<p>I respect the jury system and respect the verdict in Casey Anthony’s case. </p>
<p>That doesn’t mean I don’t think Casey had something to do with the death of her child and from what I have heard, many of the jurors also believe that. Not to mention that the outrage by many is due to the fact that many after hearing the trial also believe Casey had something to do with it, even if a jury could not find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden to find proof was heavy and I understand why the jury went that way, but that doesn’t mean that they, nor lots and lots of people don’t think Casey was involved in some wrongdoing in her child’s death.</p>
<p>Aside from Casey’s acquittal, however, I don’t see how the jurors believe that George was responsible for Caylee’s death (as the jury foreman has indicated). That itself is not the verdict and didn’t have to be proven in court, but it is what it appears the majority of jurors believe according to the interview. No evidence came up to point to George’s guilt (I KNOW that was not the job of the defense, but just saying). So, how they arrive at this assumption with no basis presented to back it up, but yet somehow with the evidence there is about Casey, which there is a bunch of but apparently not enough, results in not guilty. But again, I respect that the jury was unable to find her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in court. I don’t understand the assumption that the jury has that George did it without a shred of evidence pointing in that direction. And it does seem odd that a majority thought George was involved whereby I don’t see even a majority in this group here thinking George was involved. It is just an observation, not that the system of a jury should be changed. I think it wouldn’t hurt for complicated or more serious cases, however, that jurors have at least a high school education, or maybe higher. I think the work of the jury is important and requires a level of education to understand and to be able to handle the deliberation process that someone with no education may be less capable of doing. I say that generally speaking, and not with regard to the Anthony jury.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You overestimate the value of formal education and you confuse education with intelligence. This is a large mistake and a common fallacy.</p>
<p>It’s an artificial measurement of intelligence and success as demonstrated by the following self made billionaires that didn’t go to college or are college dropouts. Bill Gates, Sir Richard Branson, Dean Kamen, Paul Allen, Ralph Lauren, Steve Jobs, Larry Ellison, Michael Dell and Kirk Kerkorian to just name a few.</p>
<p>Not saying intelligent people don’t going to college but that going to college doesn’t make one intelligent.</p>
<p>The point being that you can’t exclude anyone from a jury because how exactly are you or anyone qualified to judge their intelligence or critical thing skills. Even considering the so-called feeling that George may or may not have done it, how could you know what was discussed or covered in deliberations? How could you know what debate led them to that conclusion? What evidence was considered?</p>
<p>Their assumptions aren’t exactly any more unfounded than many of the assumptions here.</p>
<p>*They thought George did it just on conjecture and speculation, no proof or evidence whatsoever, yet they couldn’t even connect a dot to Casey. It doesn’t make any sense. Just lazy and not willing to do the work asked of them. *</p>
<p>Exactly!!!</p>
<p>When the Foreman was saying what went on in during deliberations, they kept talking about “suspicious” George…not once did he EVER say they talked about suspicious/dishonest CASEY. What the heck?!?</p>
<p>I think one of the problems was who they chose as the foreman. His personality is one of “take charge,” so they probably trusted him to be a good leader…but he was dumb. I had to laugh when he said that his job requires him to be able to “read people”…lol he’s PE teacher. LOLOLOL</p>
<p>*I’m in favor of a minimum IQ to participate on a jury. *</p>
<p>I second that. I think if you did a cum-total of the IQ from this bunch it would total about 6 normal people.</p>
<p>They thought that George could not be excluded as a suspect,</p>
<p>But that shows a total lack of critical thinking skills and deduction.</p>
<p>If George had “done it,” then Casey wouldn’t have made up the nanny story, she wouldn’t have claimed that the baby drowned, she wouldn’t have claimed that she spent 31 days “looking for her,” and she would have just said, “I don’t know what happened to Caylee. I left her with my dad and then …poof…she was gone.”</p>
<p>*I make no excuses for my posts. I agree with sooziet. If you look at any of the jailhouse videos of the phone calls, as the jury had access to, George’s demeanor with Casey has been nothing but caring, loving and in turn she as well. She even says to him that he is the best dad and grandfather. *</p>
<p>Yes!!!</p>
<p>And a reasonable-thinking jury would have seen that George talking to Casey in the jailhouse is more of the real George…and the George answering questions to a Baez after Baez had accused him of the most horrendous things is a normal reaction for ANYONE. jeez. morons!</p>
<p>And I do criticize the verdict…and I have the right to do so…I criticized the OJ verdict…and I criticize the verdict of the pharmacist who just got life for killing a robber in his store. Ugh! Hopefully, the governor will get rid of that sentence.</p>
<p>if baez was putting forth that accusation in good faith…it wasnt baez that accused him…it was casey… i dont think george had anything to do with it…but saying casey was loving in the videos…she would say anything that suits her at the time…</p>
<p>
Yes, I agree. And maybe I have been watching the ID channel too much, but most jury deliberations in long trials will take several days to weeks. Post juror interviews reveal they spend considerable time reviewing ALL the evidence presented at trial. Casey Anthony was da** lucky to get this set of lazy jurors.</p>
<p>I get tickled that it is a lack of intelligence for someone to analyze something differently than someone else.</p>
<p>George admitted to attempting to commit suicide. If Casey had tried suicide, I imagine that would have been viewed as driven by her consciousness of guilt for involvement in Caylees death. Ablow notes (correctly IMO) that grandparents do not normally attempt suicide over the death of a grandchild. So, why doesnt the attempted suicide by George provide some circumstantial evidence that it was not Casey who was responsible for Caylees death.</p>
<p>Who is the only person to testify that the last time Caylee was seen alive she was leaving with Casey? Oh, it was George. Even George admits that Caylee was at his home while he was there within the time frame of her death. Arent the phone calls Casey made to her parents house and cell phones equally capable of being evidence that Casey had left Caylee with George and was trying to get in touch with her parents to find out where she was so she could come and get her? Or, it could be that she was checking to make sure the parents werent home to be able to search their house and yard for Caylee.</p>
<p>Georges duct tape was found on the body. The cadaver dog went on alert in Georges back yard. Caylees body was wrapped the way dead pets were wrapped by Caseys parents. Caylees body was found in the vicinity of Georges house. The next door neighbor shovel evidence is equally capable of being Casey needing a shovel in her search of Georges back yard to find Caylees body if she could smell the decomposition in the back yard.</p>
<p>The jurors are not required to believe either sides theory. They only have to assess the evidence. The evidence could support that George was involved.</p>
<p>^^^^ OK forget the calls to Casey from George asking about Caylee ….Why did Casey ignore all of the calls from Cindy asking to talk/see Caylee. Why not just say George has/had Caylee. Why tell Cindy, her friends and the authorities Caylee is with Zanny the nanny if she had left Caylee with George. Also Casey and Caylee where seen on CSVT leaving a store after the time Baez(Casey) says Caylee was with George.</p>
<p>George admitted to attempting to commit suicide. If Casey had tried suicide, I imagine that would have been viewed as driven by her consciousness of guilt for involvement in Caylee’s death.</p>
<p>If Casey or George had attempted suicide without leaving a note, then you’d be right…they both could look guilty.</p>
<p>But George’s note clearly indicated that he didn’t know what happened to Caylee. If he was guilty and going to commit suicide, he would have “cleared Casey and taken the blame” in his note so that Casey would have been released from jail.</p>
<p>It wasn’t the mere attempt at suicide that mattered, it was the contents of the note. He didnt’ know what happened to Caylee…and that was clear. </p>
<p>*George’s duct tape was found on the body. The cadaver dog went on alert in George’s back yard. *</p>
<p>Uhhhh…the FAMILY’s duct tape was found on the body. The dog alerted in the FAMILY’s back yard. You sound like a defense atty and you’re twisting the facts. </p>
<p>When a spouse buys a household item (duct tape) it’s put in a place for the FAMILY to use. And, the home was not GEORGE’s home. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>With your logic, if the H kills his wife with a kitchen knife, you’d argue that the woman committed suicide with HER knife.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are tests that assess critical thinking skills and IQ.</p>
<p>While the juries assumptions may not be any more “unfounded” than those posting here, there was certainly more responsibility attached to the jury’s assumptions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And wrapped the way that Casey and Lee were taught to wrap a dead pet and wrapped in the way that, I’m guessing, most people, in this situation would wrap a dead body. Especially (sorry to be graphic) if it had been decomposing for a while.</p>
<p>I think calmom was correct Baez knew when he presented his opening arguments accusing George of sexual abuse; the jury would zero in on Georges demeanor more than what he was saying. George makes/made the perfect patsy - if you dont want to believe the cute little white girl killed (accidently or otherwise) her child.</p>
<p>^^^
You are probably right about that.</p>
<p>I have not read this entire thread, just popped in from time to time. I have no clear opinion as to who exactly did what but I do think that Casey knew what had happened to her daughter whether or not she was fully responsible.</p>
<p>Part of the frustration of many of the posters as I have read the past day or so as has been the explanation of the behavior of Casey & George and how we on the outside “read/explains” that behavior.</p>
<p>I come from a very normal family - very stable. My cousin on the other hand was raised in a very volatile, incestuous, unhealthy family. She has survived the craziness (after much suffering). She and I were talking about the trial and she made the point that whether there was any molestation or not, the Anthony family is dysfunctional! and so their responses to each other will not make any sense to the "normal’ person. It is all sad and strange. Unfortunately, I doubt we will ever know what really happened to Caylee.</p>