Dean Eckstadt, Casey Anthony Juror: 'We Are Upset That People Think We're Incompetent'

Patch.com:

Dean Eckstadt, a Palm Harbor, Fla. resident who served as an alternate juror in the Casey Anthony trial has spoken out about the case, saying: "We are upset that people think we're incompetent."

Read the whole story: Patch.com

Comments

[smitthy]

04:38 PM on 08/06/2011

Some of these jurors actually stated they think Casey "was a good mother" based on some friends' testimony and some photos & a video of Casey w/ Caylee. These friends (most knew Casey less than 2 months) also were lied to. These same jurors also saw/heard the jailhouse videos and tapes. What planet did these jurors come from?

Then there are verdict defenders trying to shame public opinion/outrage which is obnoxious. These same defenders go on to shame people for not "respecting the verdict", blame the prosecution, and when asked about their personal opinion of Casey's innocence say things like "Suffice it to say, I wouldn't let Casey within a mile of any child I care about". Great.

Something alot of Casey defenders have in common is wanting to "stick it" to Nancy Grace. Nancy Grace backlash, media and public opinion backlash I think played a factor in the outcome. Nancy Grace was not on trial. That is a separate issue.

[DADDYFRANKS]

07:49 AM on 07/29/2011

CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence is as compelling as fact and is allowed in trial and you can convict on it. That's why you heard it. It wasn't for entertainment. If you have no common sence then you should never have served on the jury. Life is not just about book learning... life is about THINKING. Yes you were expected to put the dots together. We can't change anything but as you look back and think about it. Have you ever put a puzzle together and find several pieces are missing yet you can still know what the picture is? Did you fail to look at the whole puzzle before saying "I can't make out what this is". YOU HELD NO ONE ACCOUNTABLE NOT EVEN THAT CHILD WAS IN MOTHERS CARE. YOU DID NOT HAVE TO KNOW THE CAUSE OF DEATH and THERE WAS ONLY ONE CHARGE THAT CARRIED THE DEATH PENALTY. WAS THE MOTHER NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT CHILD IN ANY WAY. FORGET THE DEATH, THE LIES, FAMILY LIFE. RESPONSIBLITY. I WOULD NEVER WANT ANY OF YOU TO BABYSIT FOR ME. That is why CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence is allowed in a trial. I wish no harm to you other than for every day you wake, someone stops you and ask "WHY?". WHY?

[DADDYFRANKS]

07:49 AM on 07/29/2011

Are you so naive and lack worldly experance that you can not see. There is no man more blind than one who WILL not see. A cause of death was NEVER needed as the COURT WOULD NEVER ALLOWED THE CASE TO GO TO TRIAL. CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence is as compelling as fact and is allowed in trial and you can convict on it.

[DADDYFRANKS]

07:48 AM on 07/29/2011

DEAR JURORS: Lets see. A child is left in the care of her MOTHER. Child dies. MOTHER fails to report child missing MUCH LESS THE DEATH OF THE CHILD. MOTHER lies to everyone to mislead everyone into thinking child is ok. Grandparents find car that was last seen driven by the MOTHER. It stank like death confirmed by grandparents and others. Grandparents report child missing 31 days after last seeing child WITH MOTHER. MOTHER of child still lies as to whereabouts even claiming to have talked to her that day. MOTHER STILL REFUSES TO REPORT CHILD MISSING. MOTHER NEVER DID EVEN TO THIS DAY. Child is found dead and yet MOTHER will not tell anyone as to why or how child died or even WHY SHE NO LONGER HAD CHILD IN HER CARE. IN NO WAY DID YOU HOLD THE MOTHER ACCOUNTABLE. You made the satement that all was "speculation". It's called CIRCUMSTANTIAL.

[smitthy]

04:49 PM on 08/06/2011

These jurors somehow believed the defense's suggestion that ALL of these Proven lies meant... nothing. Why bother even wondering about polygraph technology and why do courts bother with an oath about the truth? "Ladies and gentlemen, my client is a liar, so don't hold that against her" Jury: "She lies all the time"

[DADDYFRANKS]

07:37 AM on 07/29/2011

HOW TO CHOOSE A JURY FOR THE DEFENCE: YOU GO TO ST. PETERSBURG AND CALL ALL THE PEOPLE TOGETHER. GIVE EACH A SIMPLE PUZZLE TO PUT TOGETHER YET REMOVE ONE PIECE FROM THE PUZZLE. LET THEM PUT TOGETHER THE PUZZLE AND ALL THAT CAN NOT TELL YOU WHAT THE PICTURE IS WITH THAT ONE PIECE MISSING ARE YOUR JURY.

[Rhonda A BartallDye]

05:49 AM on 07/19/2011

Your upset that 95 % of the American people find you an incompetent Jury? Please! Most Jurors take notes and look at the evidence! You did none of this!!! Read the trial again!...1. Smelled like a dead body in trunk, a smell you never forget once you smelled it....8 people smelled the trunk! 2 Coffin flys IN the trunk. 3 Stain in trunk. 4 Dogs hit on trunk 2 different dogs 2 different times!! 5. Didn't report her daughter missing for 31 days, in fact didn't report her daughter missing at all. Cindy did!
6. Led the Detectives on a wild goose chase lying about a Nanny and lied where she last saw her daughter! 7 Said she was looking for her daughter for 31 days when in fact she NEVER told her friends Caylee was even missing and was partying and sleeping with her boyfriend and renting movies and cooking while her daughter was decomposing in a swamp. 8. Never cried or showed any emotion for her daughter! 9 Looked up cloroform and neck breaking 84 times!!10, Brorowed a shovel from a neighbor!! I could go on and on...and you question we the people why we think you the Jury were incompetent??? Please do me a favor and read the whole trial OVER again and then ask that question!! You were an inept Jury!! And we are mad!!! Justice was NOT served in public opinion!!! What have you done????? Rhonda

[big polar bear]

06:14 PM on 07/17/2011

U R

[jbarelli]

08:09 PM on 07/15/2011

A lot of folks here ready to convict the jury.

Had even one of them been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, it would have resulted in a hung jury and a mistrial, so apparently a lot of folks here that weren't in the courtroom and didn't hear the evidence are willing to assume that twelve of our fellow citizens cared so little about justice that they just decided that they had better things to do than actually look at the evidence.

If only the jurors had just bothered to watch Nancy Grace and look at the "Justice for Caylee" blogs the way they were supposed to, then we'd have a conviction!

But no, they had to actually listen in the courtroom and follow the judge's instructions. How dare they!

Seriously, assuming that Ms. Anthony actually is guilty of something beyond what she was convicted of, (and, of course, seriously annoying Nancy Grace) then the folks people should be upset at are the prosecutors.

Remember "Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"? That doesn't mean "innocent unless Nancy Grace wants higher ratings".

[axollot]

08:36 AM on 07/16/2011

Not only did I watch the raw court video - due to FL laws I went over all of the discovery. It took me months - not weeks, not hours. I looked for any sign that she was innocent, that she was maybe involved in something beyond her control but it was more simple than that - she not only did it, she acted alone.

The evidence is available for you too you can go over it and you can gain an understanding of exactly what happened. It's sadly clear. The photos have been sealed now but they were not at one point. Again Florida has strong public record laws - it's called Sunshine Law. It's there to protect a defendant, all State evidence is public. (unless sealed by a judge until such time as it can be released. Usually the second the State hands it over to the defense unless a special decree to keep it sealed further even after the defense has it is handed down - in some cases i.e. Somer Thompson from my county, it has been)

[Sandy R Killgo]

06:00 PM on 07/27/2011

go www.law.com reasonable doubt in casey anthony trial? You may learn something.

[Joseph Joyal]

11:22 AM on 07/15/2011

The American public like to use the press for their information no matter how wrong it is, They want to forget the Trial by jury and just let the news tell us who's guilty even though all of the evidence and facts are NOT printed.
This is the reason our forefather put the trial by jury in the constitution so people do not get a trial by media.

[denicci1977]

10:57 AM on 07/15/2011

Cause you are incompetent when you ignore important facts and allow a criminal to walk. On top of the outrageous statements each of them contradict each other with. Floridian voters , political and in a jury can never seem to get it right, wow.

[Joseph Joyal]

11:23 AM on 07/15/2011

You don't know the facts because YOU were NOT in the jury

[Freebrd]

10:38 AM on 07/15/2011

Stupid is as stupid does.

[Sandy R Killgo]

11:16 AM on 07/14/2011

I don't know if anyone else was paying attention to the statement that River Cruz said that George had said to her "It was an accident that snowballed out of control" BUT I DID. Actually George and River were talking about Casey and River said to George "how could you raise a daughter that would murder her own child" George replied he believed it was an accident that snowballed out of control. When you take the whole statement-you realize that George was referring to casey being the one involved not himself as River and he were talking about casey at the time. Instead Baez tried to only quote the part about him saying it was an accident, etc. which makes it appear as if he knew and was involved. When you take things out of context you don't get to the truth but when you consider the whole statement you realize he was talking about casey and it makes sense that a father might not want to think his daughter would do something so horrible.A logical person could reasonably conclude that George had nothing to do with what happened to caylee.
On a night in Nov. she was telling George that she could not imagine that he could raise ..someone who would kill their own child. . RC states she could see his eyes full of tears & she did not push the issue.
.What was really said was "I really believe it was an accident & it went wrong

[Sandy R Killgo]

10:56 AM on 07/14/2011

It came out in todays paper that Baez had a jury consultant, Amy Singer who was surveying blogs and after she found that alot of people were suspicious of George she went to Baez, who decided to play that card thinking he could manipulate the jurors -which he did- into buying the lie that George was the guilty one. She also told him that people were more sympathetic to Cindy so he did not go after her. Also the detectives spoke out about finding the letter casey had written saying that George and Lee had molested her, so they tried to interview casey about that and Baez refused to let casey talk. Instead Baez tried to say that the investigators never tried to investigate anyone else. It is obvious that Baez was lying about everything in his opening statement. The jurors were not smart enough to see through his unethical tactics and decided George was the bad one. How would any logical person think it worse to lie about an affair than to lie about where your daughter was for 31 days while out partying, shopping , stealing etc. And how would any logical person conclude casey not guilty after revewing the jailhouse videos/ Those alone were proof of who was the culprit in this. I learned that the judicial system is not about truth and justice--its about who can convince sheep to believe fallacious lies that have not been proven which is why the system needs change.

[Dier me]

06:01 AM on 07/14/2011

I'm sorry, but if I'm ever on trial for anything, I would hope that the jury bases their decision on the facts, not their "gut" feelings. You may think you "know" what happened, but you don't. The prosecution couldn't prove their case. I'd rather a guilty person go free due to lack of evidence than an innocent person be convicted based on a hunch.

[donia1970]

04:37 PM on 07/15/2011

...the problem here is that there are many people who were "put away" with far less evidence....The fact that this woman PRETENDED for 31 days that her child was okay is enough for me... All of the cover-up lies - from the nanny, to the rich boyfriend, to the job at Disney World to partying hours after the child's disappearance leads right back to her knowing what, when, and how this happened....

[The Lone Stranger]

12:26 AM on 07/14/2011

I'd just like to point something out.

I think the jury got it wrong.

I also think that they are not entirely to blame.

We live in a culture with very weak crtical thinking skills and the jury was offered zero training or preparation going into this job. To expect anyone to perform at a level of other than incompetent under these circumstances is actually unrealistic.

Instead of presenting six weeks of testimony and then at the very end giving the jury its instructions regarding the review of the evidence, it would make far more sense to offer instruction up front before things get started. It just is unrealisitic to be expecting people to withhold there judgment until the very end and then form an opinion on the basis of the instructions. They obviously were making up their mind as they went along and on the basis of very weak critical thinking skills.

I think the answer should be to test the jurors, make it a high paying job that people want, and then spend a week testing them to find the best people for the jury.

[The Lone Stranger]

01:51 PM on 07/14/2011

I find you all caps delivery rather tedious, but what you say certainly makes sense. I do not think it invalidates what I am saying however.

As I see it, the jury was given a framework by the defense for poretending that no crime had taken place and then the jury put all of the subsequent information into this framework because the crime itself is poretty horrifying and it is easier and more pleasant to pretend it never happened...hey it was only an accident...

as you indicate, a serious consideration of the testimony would have never taken place in a mere ten hours.

What I am suggesting is that there needs to be better training of the jury up front before they start hearing testimony so that they have a reliable basis for first of all assimilating the evidence and then ultimately reaching a decision. Lacking this, they are very easily lead astray by the absurd claims of the defense.

[DSJC]

10:10 AM on 07/15/2011

I agree that I think the jury definitely got it wrong. I agree that a new system of going over jury instructions be given at the onset of the trial. I agree that jurors should be tested other than being asked a series of questions by the Judge, and I agree that members of a jury should be paid an amount worthy of the job they are being assigned. I think the jury failed to deliberate a reasonable amount of time. I felt the jury was tired, confused, emotional, and wanted to go home. Due to this, a woman who is extremely sick and evil and capable of committing serious crimes is walking free. If the jury had taken time and fully understood their choices, Casey Anthony should have been charged with either Manslaughter or Aggravated Child Abuse. A loving, caring, and responsible Mother would have reported her missing child IMMEDIATELY; she lied and mislead law enforcement, friends and family who were trying to find Caylee; she showed no remorse, worry or grief during the 31 days but instead was out partying. A true loving, caring, RESPONSIBLE Mother would have acted differently. Plain COMMON SENSE wasn't used. I am extremely disappointed with the Jury. It makes me sick to think about the thousands of children who will now possibly be in line for similar fates using Casey Anthony as a role model. Innocent children will suffer as a result of this verdict! That could have been avoided.