When the jury announced that they had reached a verdict, the bobble heads were ecstatic – normally when a jury comes to a fairly quick verdict it is not good for the defense – of course there are exceptions.
So, the prosecution was highly regarded for their closing statements Jeff for two closings in two days and Linda for her closing. They had a night to prepare and everyone was giving them kudos for the strategy.
Does anyone, other than me, want to speculate as to why the jury went the way they did? I mean, do you have any gut feelings why the jury did not buy into the prosecution’s case.
I would really appreciate all responsible feedback – any profanity will either be edited or if beyond the pale the post will be deleted.
Your opinion would be greatly appreciated.
Now for my reasons:
1. The prosecution team acted like they were judge and jury and they were overly harsh to some of the defense witnesses.
2. Jeff Ashton was, for the most part, very condescending – he acted like people had no choice but to believe everything he said or implied.
3. The laughing incident, in my opinion, was a major turning point where the jury shifted allegience from Ashton to Baez – Jeff blew it acting like a cocky arrogant white clean cut affleunt attorney embarrassing a more blue collar less experienced, average Hispanic attorney. There, I said it.
4. The Sheriff Dept committed a major goof up by not listening and responding to Kronks calls – if they did they would have found Caylee months earlier and DNA and evidence might have been recovered and used possibly to convict Casey and/or George or maybe even Lee or one or two fo Casey’s friends.
5. Kronk should hang his head low – he was obsessed with getting a reward or money from the media. I also feel he moved the skull and the bag to hide Caylee elsewhere until he would return her with the skull in the bag and then start the search all over again.
Your turn – anyone, everyone?