Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

1 Bump

Why so much anger with the jurors?

I get people are upset about CA getting away with murdering her kid but the jury people are not the ones who killed that little girl.I do think they failed to take the time to examine all of the facts/evidence at their disposel and IF I had been part of the jury I would have insisted on it before making any decision.Afterall..this was a very serious charge.I just do not understand those who are calling the jury people murderers as if they commited the crime.I do not understand threats being made against the jurors.This is the way our system works and unfortunately sometimes guilty people go free and a few innocent get locked up..VERY FEW imo.We have the best system imo..and I certainly would want a chance for reasonable doubt to come into if I was acused of something that I really did not do! Imagine how many MORE innocent people would be imprisioned.
So yeah I do believe this jury failed in a way but the hate towards them and threats is totally uncalled for.Thoughts?

Answer Question
 
tnmomofive

Asked by tnmomofive at 5:07 PM on Jul. 8, 2011 in Politics & Current Events

Level 32 (56,190 Credits)
Answers (22)
  • I think the jury did what they thought was right with the evidence presented to them.
    scout_mom

    Answer by scout_mom at 5:09 PM on Jul. 8, 2011

  • man that's really overreacting. They didn't kill the girl, they just thought she was innocent and I think they were a little bit bribed to. But that's what I think.
    vannahbaby213

    Answer by vannahbaby213 at 5:11 PM on Jul. 8, 2011

  • I disagree with you that the jury didn't take its time and examine all of the evidence. I don't believe the evidence was strong enough to convict.
    katiemomNY

    Answer by katiemomNY at 5:13 PM on Jul. 8, 2011

  • I'll bet they didn't think she was innocent,but they couldn't prove it based on the evidence presented
    butterflyblue19

    Answer by butterflyblue19 at 5:13 PM on Jul. 8, 2011

  • i think the problem was in the charges. they should've charged her with what could've been proven, neglect for one (her failing to report her daughter missing for a month). and if they stayed with the chloroform angle, definitely aggravated child abuse that led to 2nd degree manslaughter. i don't blame the state for her getting off either though. the jury had to work with what they were given, and unfortunately it was charges that didn't have enough evidence to convict.
    tnm786

    Answer by tnm786 at 5:15 PM on Jul. 8, 2011

  • The state over charged her. In order for me to issues the DP, the cause of death would have to be presented. In this case, cause was neither proven nor introduced.


     I do not understand the NG on aggravated child abuse. Neglect is a form of abuse and CA obviously neglected to report that child missing for 31 days!

    Sisteract

    Answer by Sisteract at 5:20 PM on Jul. 8, 2011

  • Scott Peterson was convicted on less circumstantial evidence (death penalty).

    This jury said they feel awful because they don't think she is innocent. Yet they didn't have any testimony read back to them and they only deliberated for 10 h and 40 m. They did NOT do a proper job. I do think that the premeditation was sketchy, at best. But she should've been found guilty of the other counts.
    tangleballlover

    Answer by tangleballlover at 5:23 PM on Jul. 8, 2011

  • Mainly because it's their duty to look at all the facts and apply justice where it is needed and they failed. Now that she has been aquited she will never pay unless it happens again. Which if it does it woudn't if the jurrors did their job
    hot-mama86

    Answer by hot-mama86 at 5:35 PM on Jul. 8, 2011

  • The jury did not heed the instructions of the judge. He told them opening statements and closing statements were not facts. Only the evidence and testimony they heard were considered when making a decision. They decided she was not guilty because they believed the opening statement of an accident. The jurors really screwed up this time that is why a couple have come out to try and sugar coat it. It doesnt matter really. In the end karmas a bigger bitch then anyone I know and Casey will get hers and if that one juror only in fact vote not guilty to go on his or her cruise theyll get theirs too.
    gemgem

    Answer by gemgem at 5:40 PM on Jul. 8, 2011

  • I believe that she will pay..granted not to the extent that she should have to..imo she should be done just as she did her daughter.I do think that she will have a rough time..to say the least..living any kind of 'normal' life.Where will she live that nobody knows of her? Who would hire her to work for them? In so many ways I think she will have a terrible time ..which she deserves.Karma will get her wait and see.
    tnmomofive

    Comment by tnmomofive (original poster) at 5:41 PM on Jul. 8, 2011

Join CafeMom now to contribute your answer and become part of our community. It's free and takes just a minute.