Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[JBean]

I think also jurors need to be shown some of the new studies coming out about eyewitness testimony and it's unreliability. At least when it comes to recognizing strangers. I don't think it applies when the person sees someone they know killing someone, obviously that's pretty clear, but it usually is a problem when they are asked to pick a stranger out of a lineup who they saw near the crime or committing a crime. It's just fascinating and scary the way the human mind and memory works, I think we have so much still to learn about it...

I read about a drill where a group of people are assembled in one place for one reason or another. Then they stage a crime in the middle of the assembly. After the crime is over they ask each person to write down what they saw.IOW- they do not know in advance they are going to witness something.
The differences in what each person saw is amazing. Eyewitness testimony can be sketchy, as the mind is a funny thing and visual memory is not necessarily reliable. people have been falsely convicted on eyewitness testimony simply because the witness was mistaken.
Additionally, circumstantial-forensic evidence is often used to exonerate people that have been convicted on eyewitness testimony.

here is a 60 minutes I watched not too long ago about this very thing.

>>But there is one type of evidence that's even more persuasive: DNA. There have been 235 people exonerated by DNA in this country, and as 60 Minutes and correspondent Lesley Stahl first reported in March, now a stunning pattern has emerged: more than three quarters of them were sent to prison at least in part because an eyewitness pointed a finger - an eyewitness we now know was wrong.<<

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/03/06/60minutes/main4848039.shtml

 

[Solange82200]

All murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murder. Murder is a logical conclusion in this case of course,imo.

You are right, you mean like a drunk driver killing someone is a homicide, but not a murder? I think Dr. G pointing to the duct tape as proof of a homicide means she is ruling it a murder, but maybe she wasnt (or couldnt be) specific enough.

 

[Solange82200]

I think that is the special I watched too JBean, is it the one about the rape victim who is now friends with the guy that was falsely convicted of her rape? And they tour the country talking about it? That is a great story, everyone should watch if they get the chance..

 

[SATA]

I think the judge should have allowed the jailhouse tape of Casey reacting to the discovery of Caylee´s remains. I think Judge Perry made a mistake in that instance. MAYBE that would have swayed some of the jury members.

 

[Solange82200]

I think the judge should have allowed the jailhouse tape of Casey reacting to the discovery of Caylee´s remains. I think Judge Perry made a mistake in that instance. MAYBE that would have swayed some of the jury members.

I don't know, they completely disregarded the jailhouse convos, which in my opinion were more damning. Using some of the same 'logic" ive seen them use, they would just say that was her way of being upset. And I don't think it means much that the remains hadn't been identified yet, I think even if you aren't the person who killed Caylee and put the body there, the fact that it is a small child right near the home makes it pretty obvious it was caylee. I thought the part where she mentioned football was pretty cold, but so was everything else she did the day caylee died and 31 days after, and the jury seemed to think there was nothing wrong there..

I still wish the State Attorney had taken the risk and presented her prior felonies. I think the fact that Jose said she was kind and considerate was an outright lie, and the jury should have seen that this "caring mother and friend" robbed her best friends, family, and Caylee's piggy bank blind any way she could, and to buy things that aren't really necessary, like a new cell phone, sunglasses, bras, beer, etc. I can see why they thought it was too risky to chance the fact that she could appeal on it, since they considered it an open and shut case, but knowing what we know now, I wonder if it would have made a difference...

 

[Thinker Belle]

DNA is still only circumstantial evidence, not direct.
Direct evidence is an eyewitness or a video or something like that of the perpetrator actually committing the crime. Even at that, eye witness accounts are highly unreliable. Courts rely on circumstantial evidence such as fingerprints, dna, and behavior every single day.

as always jmho.

Thank you! You're right, I did not mean to write direct, was thinking more along the lines of TANGIBLE evidence

 

[kelian36]

Obviously I have no proof, only a gut feeling, that the jurors -like JBEAN said- had no grasp of what the different types of evidence were.

These jurors said No COD, no TOD, no DNA--not guilty.
I think these was not so smart jurors-which is exactly why the defense wanted them.
So so sad for Caylee.

 

[JBean]

You are right, you mean like a drunk driver killing someone is a homicide, but not a murder? I think Dr. G pointing to the duct tape as proof of a homicide means she is ruling it a murder, but maybe she wasnt (or couldnt be) specific enough.

Even when we give the condemned a lethal injection it is homicide. If you hit someone over the head to knock them out it would be homicide if they die as a result. If you attack me and I kill you in self defense it is a homicide but not a murder.I am not sure that the ME can "rule" something a murder, at least as an expert in court where the jury can take it as Gospel. (I am talking in general terms and in no way applying this to potential scenarios as to what happened to Caylee)

The reason I am being responding with such specificity about terms like direct evidence,murder, homicide etc.,is not to be a pill! For one thing, I am doing it to clarify in general, but also to point out that even we here as a group of people that follow a lot of trials are not entirely clear on what certain things mean and what weight they are to be given. The jury had to not only wade through all this but they had to apply it to the letter of the law.
It is not as easy as we think,imo and personally I totally understand why the jury was so conflicted and unsure. While I am certain in my own mind that KC is certainly guilty of one of those charges, I do see why others may not be as sure, especially when their opinion is the only one that counts.

ETA: I should add that here in CA, drunk drivers can and are charged with murder!

 

[Sustained]

I didn't agree with HHJP on a few things, so I guess its understandable that many think HHJP is wrong his ruling that the defense could argue the drowning theory.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

Drowning ? Casey didn't pick up the phone to call 911 for the so-called "drowning" of her daughter, but yet called 911 twice when she was out on bail to report people harassing her parents outisde her home ?

 

[cluciano63]

I don't think the jurors have to be considered crooked or "runaway" to have come to the verdict they did, unless I am crooked also. I don't think it is fair to say that. We have only heard from a few jurors and my own reasons are not the same as those we have heard from, but I STILL have no idea what happened to Caylee, except that she is dead. And I think the jail tapes were just as incriminating to the rest of the family at times, as they were to Casey.

 

[Caligram]

The DT told the jury to not rule by emotion, yet told an emotional fabricated "story" in their opening statement. That outrageous perverted statement was deliberately and emphatically emotionally charged. JB accused GA of committing lewd acts against ICA, and got away with it. That opening statement made GA look guilty and ICA look like the victim. This type of legalized lying to misalead a jury in opening statements should be a crime carrying such harsh penalties that no defense attorney would dare use such tactics. The DT used misleading accusations against a non-defendant, thus muddying up the real facts - and they got away with it. The jury clung to mind-altering X-rated lies from the DT, which were easier to believe than ICA swamp-mommy killed her child.

 

[manatee]

I don't think the jurors have to be considered crooked or "runaway" to have come to the verdict they did, unless I am crooked also. I don't think it is fair to say that. We have only heard from a few jurors and my own reasons are not the same as those we have heard from, but I STILL have no idea what happened to Caylee, except that she is dead. And I think the jail tapes were just as incriminating to the rest of the family at times, as they were to Casey.

dead and found in double plastic bags in a dump site without a proper burial. mother lied about the daughters whereabouts and circumstances of her disappearance. mother on audio tape asking her mother to give her one more day to take her to Caylee and the nanny. etc..etc..etc..:seeya:

 

[KarmicLaw]

I think it was a combination of the State and the fact that the jury got it wrong. The State should not have attempted to provide only one motive, only one theory, and only one strategy. This case had so many obstacles that other child murder cases did not have...such as Cindy and George Anthony. I don't think Lee had an impact one way or the other. Yet, the State did not play it's own devil's advocate and gauge the energy shifts or identify where a juror's own confirmation bias might be triggered by a certain witness or testimony.

I hope we hear from other jurors, but honestly, at this point in time...I doubt that any of them would be candid. This also tends to confirm that many of them were too easily swayed by the opinions of the other jurors. If I were a juror on such a trial, I would come out in full frontal defense, line item by line item, supporting my verdict decision. So far, all we have heard is ignorance and complete inability to articulate a well reasoned explantion to support the verdict. I know that nearly everyone on this site would be open-minded in the face of a clearly defined reasonable doubt based on the evidence. I know I would. Unfortunately, we may never get to hear that and I think that will haunt us the most....

 

[sacrablue]

After looking back I will have to admit the State's attorney's got a lesson in manners. Speak up, say good morning like you mean it and look the jury straight in the eyes like they are your family. The state gets a C+ and the prosecution an A IMO.

 

[okiedokietoo]

I think it was a combination of the State and the fact that the jury got it wrong. The State should not have attempted to provide only one motive, only one theory, and only one strategy. This case had so many obstacles that other child murder cases did not have...such as Cindy and George Anthony. I don't think Lee had an impact one way or the other. Yet, the State did not play it's own devil's advocate and gauge the energy shifts or identify where a juror's own confirmation bias might be triggered by a certain witness or testimony.

I hope we hear from other jurors, but honestly, at this point in time...I doubt that any of them would be candid. This also tends to confirm that many of them were too easily swayed by the opinions of the other jurors. If I were a juror on such a trial, I would come out in full frontal defense, line item by line item, supporting my verdict decision. So far, all we have heard is ignorance and complete inability to articulate a well reasoned explantion to support the verdict. I know that nearly everyone on this site would be open-minded in the face of a clearly defined reasonable doubt based on the evidence. I know I would. Unfortunately, we may never get to hear that and I think that will haunt us the most....

bbm - The State can't play that game -

 

[KarmicLaw]

bbm - The State can't play that game -

Excuse me? This is not a game.

Please explain what part of my post you are referring to so that I can clarify.

 

[azwriter]

After looking back I will have to admit the State's attorney's got a lesson in manners. Speak up, say good morning like you mean it and look the jury straight in the eyes like they are your family. The state gets a C+ and the prosecution an A IMO.

Just to clear this up - the prosecution and the State are the same side. I think you mean you're giving an A to the defense, the team of attorneys who represented Casey.
Easy to get it all confused.

 

[KarmicLaw]

Let me clarify.

Maybe a sports analogy will suffice. The prosecution should place their most experienced and talented team on a capital case of this magnitude and exposure. That team should be prepared to shift strategy and deftly rebut any unexpected testimony and court ruling. It is the very core of their job responsibilities.

Let's take football. Opposing teams watch film of the other side in order to analyze their plays and strategy so that they can defend against them. That is what I mean by playing "devil's advocate". The best way to learn how to be a great defense attorney is learning how the prosecution operates. It is knowing the opponent and in a court room, gauging the possible effect that your opponent is having on the jury.

The DT spent a great deal of time in closing explaining "reasonable doubt". It might have come off as a grade school attempt to spoon feed the jury, but the jury needed it!! They aren't professional jurors. The State could have argued as to the absurdity of the DT theory with actual evidence and spent time explaining circumstantial evidence. Instead, they almost insulted the jury by telling them that they feared they would leave common sense at the door. They didn't demonstrate what would be common sense and what wouldn't...and clearly this jury needed that. They underestimated the DT and their case and made mistaken assumptions about the jury because they forgot to look at the case from the juror's perspective. And I absolutely believe that it is the prosecutor's job to outperform the defense in a criminal case. That is not accomplished by sticking to a pre-determined script.

 

[okiedokietoo]

Excuse me? This is not a game.

Please explain what part of my post you are referring to so that I can clarify.

bbm (the part I put in bold print)

 

[KarmicLaw]

bbm (the part I put in bold print)

I hope I clarified it for you.

If you are unclear as to what I mean when I speak of confirmation bias, I would be more than happy to elaborate.