Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Did The Casey Anthony Jurors Violate Their Oath?

Expand Messages
  • Lawrence
    Did The Casey Anthony Jurors Violate Their Oath? by Lawrence N. Rogak On 06 July 2011, the jury in the Casey Anthony trial found her to be not guilty of
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 6 3:19 PM
    • 0 Attachment

      Did The Casey Anthony Jurors Violate Their Oath?

      by Lawrence N. Rogak

       

      On 06 July 2011, the jury in the Casey Anthony trial found her to be "not guilty" of either murder or manslaughter.  It seems that the majority of the public disagrees with the verdict.  I am one of them, but for a different reason.   In my view, the jurors violated the oath they took to follow the rules that the judge gave them in arriving at their verdict.

       

      From what little we have heard from the jury -- and this is mostly from one of the alternate jurors -- the prosecution did not prove its case, primarily because it did not prove the cause of death. The alternate juror also said in an interview that the jury believed this was a dysfunctional family that did not know how to react to a "horrible accident" -- Caylee's drowning.

       

      The main trouble with that reasoning is that it was not based on the evidence; and the judge clearly instructed the jury that they could only consider the actual evidence, and that the opening and closing arguments of the prosecutor and the defense attorney were not evidence (which they are not).

       

      Consider the main items which were in evidence: that for 31 days while Caylee was "missing," Casey was engaged in hard partying; that she told a long series of complex lies about Caylee's whereabouts (including the nanny kidnapping story); that Caylee's hair with scientific proof of decomposition was found in Casey's car trunk; that three pieces of duct tape were found on Caylee's mouth and nose; that traces of chloroform were found in Casey's car trunk; that Google searches for chloroform, neck-breaking and spleen rupture were found on Casey's computer; that Cindy Anthony tried to cover up for Casey's Google searches by lying about doing the searches herself; that only Casey had access to her car until it was retrieved from the impound lot; and that Casey had her body adorned with a tattoo that said "beautiful life" (in Italian) while Caylee was "missing."

       

      The jurors felt that George Anthony was "hiding something," although they couldn't say exactly what. But, hiding what? Casey's lawyer claimed that Casey was sexually molested by George, but not one piece of testimony or evidence was introduced on this point, so the jury could not legally consider it. However, even if she had been molested, what effect would that have on the question of killing Caylee?

       

      The defense did not claim that Casey was incapable of knowing right from wrong due to being molested, so the molestation claim was a "red herring" -- a distraction.

       

      The jury supposedly believed that the family was "dysfunctional" and so they "didn't know how to react" to Caylee's accident drowning.  If that's the case, then the jury violated the instructions given by the judge.  Why?  First of all, there was no testimony or evidence about drowning.  If the child drowned, when did it happen?  Who found her body?  What was done with her body when it was found?  Which members of the family knew about this?  There was no testimony, no evidence.  And most importantly, there was no expert testimony by a psychologist who had evaluated the family and gave an opinion that George, Cindy and/or Casey has a psychological disorder that rendered them incapable of knowing that they should report Caylee's death to the police. Therefore, the jury was not legally permitted to consider the drowning story, and so "drowning" could not legally form the basis for reasonable doubt.

       

      Just how "dysfunctional" was this family, really? George is a retired cop. Cindy is a nurse with a health care company. They are married, live in a house and have two children. Nobody in the family has been adjudged insane or incompetent. On the surface they "function" about as well as any other family. Does the mere presence of neurotic family dynamics make them dysfunctional? Does the fact that the mother is an enabler of a spoiled-rotten daughter, and the father is afraid to confront his daughter about her irresponsible behavior make them so dysfunctional that one could not expect them to call the police when a grandchild is found dead in the pool?

       

      No. You would expect a family to call 911 when a child is found dead in a pool unless they are so mentally ill that they are out of touch with reality.  And if that were the case, then they would not have engaged in a coverup.

       

      Nor could the jury legally consider the possibility that George Anthony played any role in killing Caylee. Why? Because there was no testimony and no evidence about that. Only Jose Baez accused George Anthony -- and that isn't evidence.

       

      "Reasonable doubt" cannot be based on speculation. It has to be based on a reasonable belief that the evidence -- the testimony and exhibits presented to the jury -- could lead to a conclusion other than the defendant's guilt. Even if the jurors felt that something was missing from the prosecution's case, whatever was "missing" should have provided an alternative explanation for Caylee's death that would point to Casey's innocence. The inability of the medical examiner to give a scientific cause of death should not be grounds for reasonable doubt; many murderers are convicted where the body is never even found.

       

      There was a dead child here whose body was disposed of in a swamp. There was no evidence that anyone other than Casey Anthony was with that child at any time between the last time Caylee was seen alive and when her body was found. Therefore it was not reasonable to believe that anyone besides Casey could have been responsible for disposing of Caylee in the swamp. With Casey the only person whom the evidence could connect with the disposal of the body, the only remaining question was the cause of death.

       

      Was it reasonable for the jury to conclude that Caylee drowned? No, because (a) there was no testimony or evidence of drowning, and (b) there was no evidence or testimony that Casey or any other family member reacted to such a "drowning" by putting Caylee's body into a laundry bag and disposing of her in the swamp.

       

      By reasoning that Caylee accidentally drowned in the pool and that the family was so "dysfunctional" that they lacked the sense to call 911, and instead felt that the appropriate action was to throw Caylee's body into a swamp and then lie to police about it while pretending to search, the jury ignored the evidence and testimony in front of them and instead accepted Jose Baez's unsupported, unverified, uncorroborated speeches as the truth.

       

      The jury violated the rules they were given. They chose to ignore the actual evidence and instead found "reasonable doubt" in the form of defense counsel's opening and closing arguments. In doing so, they violated their oaths as jurors and committed a terrible injustice.

    • Eve
      I am in complete and utter total agreement with you Mr. Rogak. I for one am appauled at the jury verdict. While I am a woman and yes cannot deny that emotion
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 8 6:18 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        I am in complete and utter total agreement with you Mr. Rogak. I for one am appauled at the jury verdict. While I am a woman and yes cannot deny that emotion plays a big factor in my feelings, I have been saying all along that the drowning in the pool and parents covering it up argument is completely bogus especially since the first time I can recall hearing about this defense of drowning in the pool was at the time of trial. Correct me if Im wrong but for the longest time the story was that the Nanny kidnapped her??? Only upon proving that there was no nanny did the defense decide they would have to come up with a different story-none of which was proven by any of the evidence whatsoever. No evidence of drowning whatsoever. Another thing that stands out to me, the whole world saw how Casey's parents were originally quick to rush to her defense and go so far as to perjure themselves on the stand, hence I refuse to believe that if her story about the drowning was true as well as, the cover-up (which I dont believe) that they would not have come to her defense and disclosed it at some point especially when there daughter was facing the death penalty!!!! Im sure if that were the truth at some point they could have worked out some deal especially because I read they originally offered Casey immunity to cooperate.
        I also cannot get passed the fact that chloroform was found in her trunk as well as Caylee's hair-why oh why would anyone have traces of chloroform in their trunk. Another quick point, I read the statement of Lee Anthony and many others shortly after the child went missing, Lee Anthony says when he went to the Boyfriends house to pick up his sister's stuff after she said Caylee went missing and the cops were called there was not one shred of baby stuff and the mother also said she never brought any of Caylee's things. Not to mention that she borrowed a shovel from the neighbor a few days before and abandoned her car-which I fully believe is what she did.
        In my mind this was pre-meditated murder but even if not, it was felonious murder. The jury harped on the reasonable doubt issue which of course was Jose Baez only argument in closing-you could tell because he of course repeated it numerous times but offered up nothing but an unproven, speculative alternative argument. No one ever testified they saw Caylee drowned in the pool etc., no medical document ever classified her death as a drowning etc. I believe in the Constitution of course and the Fifth Amendment but I really wish that somehow someway she would have been forced to take the stand because I believe the prosecution would have tore her to shreds then but thats not an option in this case. I wish the jury had had you to explain reasonable doubt to them before hand maybe then Justice would have been served.
      • Heather Rauch
        Agreed. Well put From: TheRogakReport@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TheRogakReport@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Eve Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 9:19 AM To:
        Message 3 of 3 , Jul 8 12:29 PM
        • 0 Attachment

          Agreed. Well put

           

          From: TheRogakReport@yahoogroups.com [mailto:TheRogakReport@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Eve
          Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 9:19 AM
          To: TheRogakReport@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: The Rogak Report: The Most Useful Publication In The Insurance Claims Industry Re: Did The Casey Anthony Jurors Violate Their Oath?

           

           

          I am in complete and utter total agreement with you Mr. Rogak. I for one am appauled at the jury verdict. While I am a woman and yes cannot deny that emotion plays a big factor in my feelings, I have been saying all along that the drowning in the pool and parents covering it up argument is completely bogus especially since the first time I can recall hearing about this defense of drowning in the pool was at the time of trial. Correct me if Im wrong but for the longest time the story was that the Nanny kidnapped her??? Only upon proving that there was no nanny did the defense decide they would have to come up with a different story-none of which was proven by any of the evidence whatsoever. No evidence of drowning whatsoever. Another thing that stands out to me, the whole world saw how Casey's parents were originally quick to rush to her defense and go so far as to perjure themselves on the stand, hence I refuse to believe that if her story about the drowning was true as well as, the cover-up (which I dont believe) that they would not have come to her defense and disclosed it at some point especially when there daughter was facing the death penalty!!!! Im sure if that were the truth at some point they could have worked out some deal especially because I read they originally offered Casey immunity to cooperate.
          I also cannot get passed the fact that chloroform was found in her trunk as well as Caylee's hair-why oh why would anyone have traces of chloroform in their trunk. Another quick point, I read the statement of Lee Anthony and many others shortly after the child went missing, Lee Anthony says when he went to the Boyfriends house to pick up his sister's stuff after she said Caylee went missing and the cops were called there was not one shred of baby stuff and the mother also said she never brought any of Caylee's things. Not to mention that she borrowed a shovel from the neighbor a few days before and abandoned her car-which I fully believe is what she did.
          In my mind this was pre-meditated murder but even if not, it was felonious murder. The jury harped on the reasonable doubt issue which of course was Jose Baez only argument in closing-you could tell because he of course repeated it numerous times but offered up nothing but an unproven, speculative alternative argument. No one ever testified they saw Caylee drowned in the pool etc., no medical document ever classified her death as a drowning etc. I believe in the Constitution of course and the Fifth Amendment but I really wish that somehow someway she would have been forced to take the stand because I believe the prosecution would have tore her to shreds then but thats not an option in this case. I wish the jury had had you to explain reasonable doubt to them before hand maybe then Justice would have been served.

        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.