Did the jury get it wrong, or...

[okiedokietoo]

Okiedokietoo,

First you indicated that the "Prosecution doesn't play that game" and then you admit that it is a game. I am not in any way being dismissive of the gravity and serious nature of the events in the court room. However, my initial point was that it is the prosecutions duty to leave no stone unturned in obtaining a Guilty verdict.


Let me address what appears to be a recurring point of contention for you. Like you, everyone was appalled that JB made a specific reference to Casey having to go to school after having her Dad's <snipped> in her mouth. Triple AAA appalling. So you think it was beneath the prosecution to even "go there"? I think it was an error to ignore it.

I was merely implying that an astute legal team can "sense" when they are on a roll and when they are at risk of losing the jury. If I was on the prosecution team I would have attacked that remark as being beyond disgusting, yet not surprising or shocking because that is Casey Anthony's M.O. It wasn't enough to know that her parents would be devastated by the loss of their granddaughter, but Casey Anthony has no shame in spewing obscenities in a desperate attempt to divert attention from the facts and the evidence of her culpability. I would look the jurors in the eyes with sincere sarcasm and shock. Then I would look at the ground in disgust because I would have to go on to the remainder of my closing argument. Yet, it would be evident that it took every fiber of my being to contain my outrage and disgust at the extent of what Casey Anthony would do to others to further her own agenda.

I would then pound on the circumstantial evidence, the fact that it wasn't "junk science". For example, there was a time that DNA was not used. Is that junk science now? No, DNA is not junk science and neither were the air samples. They were cutting edge science and we were lucky it existed to provide additional proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

AAAAArrrrghghhhh, I can't even think straight right now. Maybe I should write out my own closing arguments and then I won't sound so all over the place.

1 bbm - in our initial postings I was referring to Confirmation bias/Illusory Correlation as the game the State doesn't play.
2 bbm - I am not appalled by that statement in the way you imply, yike, yuk ooey - Purely from a Jurors point of view - That statement created a visual that never left the jurors - In a court of law the defense nor the prosecutor should be allowed to throw out a "out of the blue" statement like that without presenting evidence, any evidence, one small piece of evidence, to back it up.
3 bbm - I am not a lawyer, but I am thinking that if the prosecutor had addressed that statement they would have had to put on, more or less, another case running along side of this one proving George was not a child molester. Why was it that JB was not allowed to talk about this statement in closing? Was it something to do with evidence not in fact? Not sure, I am not a lawyer.
I do agree with you -

I would then pound on the circumstantial evidence, the fact that it wasn't "junk science". For example, there was a time that DNA was not used. Is that junk science now? No, DNA is not junk science and neither were the air samples. They were cutting edge science and we were lucky it existed to provide additional proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I wish the State could have/would have have just gone off about everything. Also a lot of evidence that the State had was keep out because the court decided it was too prejudicial. Which is odd, don't you agree, considering this was a circumstantial case.

 

[JBean]

Yes I said and I agree with you that it is a game for both sides.
My original post was in response to a post re: Confirmation Bias & Illusory Correlation.
The prosecutors had a very serious case to present to the jury, the murder of a 2 year old child. Their demeanor reflected the seriousness of their duties as prosecutors and the evidence of the case. The defense did not win the jury over by being likable and approachable. The defense won the jury in the opening statement when JB said "She could be 13 years old, have her father's p**** in her mouth and then go to school and play with the other kids as if nothing ever happened" - Illusory Correlation. It was also a statement that the defense never backed up with facts. Casey never got on the stand and verified that statement. But she didn't have to because that statement was a whispering echo that never left the courtroom. It was a subliminal visual that the jurors saw every time they looked at Casey, appearing so small sitting next to her attorneys in her lowered chair....like a 13 year old child.
The defense didn't just use the media consultant to adjust their approach. They used the information to focus in on different people, singling them out as being the "real" murderer of Caylee.
Maybe the prosecutors needed to hire a sociologist to help them diffuse JB's statement.
Hire a media consultant, okay that might work but for the prosecutors and the presentation of the evidence of their case wouldn't that really just help during jury selection?

I don't think that OS is how the defense won, at all. I think it was inconsequential at the end of the day.
I think they won by carefully creating doubt in the minds of the jurors, which is what any defense team will do. FWIW, more neutral reporting here in CA, from reporters that did not follow the case from 2008, were reporting that Baez was doing a great job knocking down each expert! They thought she was guilty but were impressed with the defense! My point is that the perception of the defense was entirely different for those that did not follow the case. The jurors liked Baez and that went a long way to listening to what he said. LDB and JA were not generally "likeable" and while that should have absolutely nothing to do with the verdict, there is still the human element. Hey if I needed the jury to like me in order to convict KC, I would have made them love me!

the case was serious to be sure, which is why when Ashton laughed it was so offensive and Baez's outrage was authentic,imo. I think the jury got that. then for Baez to be magnanimous about Ashton getting in trouble, oh man,he was just reeling the jury in as a real fair guy. he was good.

I saw an interview with Jeff Ashton saying that he knew the young mother issue was going to be a hard one to overcome. Maybe he underestimated how hard it would be to convince a jury that a young mother would kill her child with no prior reports of abuse or any account that she did not care deeply for her daughter, couple that with no COD and you've got a foundation for doubt.
IMO, the prosecutors might have factored that in , in a bigger way, and perhaps played the "we don't know what happened and maybe it was an accident but it still amounts to manslaughter" angle instead of going for the premeditated angle that many of us thought was weak from day 1. Was the prosecution pressured into going this route? I think they succumbed to the public outrage and went for an all or nothing proposition.

All this means that if they had played the game with a little more strategy and taking all the pitfalls into consideration, things may have gone differently. The jury needed to be able to convict her of something that they felt comfortable with. In their minds it is still reasonable to conclude that the death was accidental and KC just didn't and couldn't deal with it. Even the defense would have almost supported this. the dt telegraphed their defense prior to trial, but the prosecution did not adjust their game and they should have.The prosecution did a great job with their case, but they would have hit a home run if they had adjusted with the defense and the jury.

Tapping into those that were unfamiliar with the case would have gone a long way in developing their strategy. I am not trying to debate the merits of the case, but rather that it is so much more than just presenting facts and facts interpretation. It is factoring in the human element.

IMO, it goes way beyond jury selection.

All this is just my very humble opinion and my take on it the morning after.

 

[RANCH]

I don't think that OS is how the defense won, at all. I think it was inconsequential at the end of the day.
I think they won by carefully creating doubt in the minds of the jurors, which is what any defense team will do. FWIW, more neutral reporting here in CA, from reporters that did not follow the case from 2008, were reporting that Baez was doing a great job knocking down each expert! They thought she was guilty but were impressed with the defense! My point is that the perception of the defense was entirely different for those that did not follow the case. The jurors liked Baez and that went a long way to listening to what he said. LDB and JA were not generally "likeable" and while that should have absolutely nothing to do with the verdict, there is still the human element. Hey if I needed the jury to like me in order to convict KC, I would have made them love me!

the case was serious to be sure, which is why when Ashton laughed it was so offensive and Baez's outrage was authentic,imo. I think the jury got that. then for Baez to be magnanimous about Ashton getting in trouble, oh man,he was just reeling the jury in as a real fair guy. he was good.

I saw an interview with Jeff Ashton saying that he knew the young mother issue was going to be a hard one to overcome. Maybe he underestimated how hard it would be to convince a jury that a young mother would kill her child with no prior reports of abuse or any account that she did not care deeply for her daughter, couple that with no COD and you've got a foundation for doubt.
IMO, the prosecutors might have factored that in , in a bigger way, and perhaps played the "we don't know what happened and maybe it was an accident but it still amounts to manslaughter" angle instead of going for the premeditated angle that many of us thought was weak from day 1. Was the prosecution pressured into going this route? I think they succumbed to the public outrage and went for an all or nothing proposition.

All this means that if they had played the game with a little more strategy and taking all the pitfalls into consideration, things may have gone differently. The jury needed to be able to convict her of something that they felt comfortable with. In their minds it is still reasonable to conclude that the death was accidental and KC just didn't and couldn't deal with it. Even the defense would have almost supported this. the dt telegraphed their defense prior to trial, but the prosecution did not adjust their game and they should have.The prosecution did a great job with their case, but they would have hit a home run if they had adjusted with the defense and the jury.

Tapping into those that were unfamiliar with the case would have gone a long way in developing their strategy. I am not trying to debate the merits of the case, but rather that it is so much more than just presenting facts and facts interpretation. It is factoring in the human element.

IMO, it goes way beyond jury selection.

All this is just my very humble opinion and my take on it the morning after.

Thank you so much for this post. This post shows no bias,no hate,no anger,none of the the things that make it hard to understand why this jury did what they did.I hope with time posters will look at both sides of this case, defense and prosecution, and make informed comments.MOO.

 

[Solange82200]

Okiedokietoo,

First you indicated that the "Prosecution doesn't play that game" and then you admit that it is a game. I am not in any way being dismissive of the gravity and serious nature of the events in the court room. However, my initial point was that it is the prosecutions duty to leave no stone unturned in obtaining a Guilty verdict.

Let me address what appears to be a recurring point of contention for you. Like you, everyone was appalled that JB made a specific reference to Casey having to go to school after having her Dad's <snipped> in her mouth. Triple AAA appalling. So you think it was beneath the prosecution to even "go there"? I think it was an error to ignore it.

I was merely implying that an astute legal team can "sense" when they are on a roll and when they are at risk of losing the jury. If I was on the prosecution team I would have attacked that remark as being beyond disgusting, yet not surprising or shocking because that is Casey Anthony's M.O. It wasn't enough to know that her parents would be devastated by the loss of their granddaughter, but Casey Anthony has no shame in spewing obscenities in a desperate attempt to divert attention from the facts and the evidence of her culpability. I would look the jurors in the eyes with sincere sarcasm and shock. Then I would look at the ground in disgust because I would have to go on to the remainder of my closing argument. Yet, it would be evident that it took every fiber of my being to contain my outrage and disgust at the extent of what Casey Anthony would do to others to further her own agenda.

I would then pound on the circumstantial evidence, the fact that it wasn't "junk science". For example, there was a time that DNA was not used. Is that junk science now? No, DNA is not junk science and neither were the air samples. They were cutting edge science and we were lucky it existed to provide additional proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

AAAAArrrrghghhhh, I can't even think straight right now. Maybe I should write out my own closing arguments and then I won't sound so all over the place.

ETA: And while I am in the mood to vent...let me address the ridiculousness of referring to Casey Anthony's deliberate lies with the intent to deceive, as "imaginary friends". Are you kidding me? The prosecution threw that out there first! Imaginary. Think about that. It immediately provokes an image of an enduring child like game. Such an innocent image. NOT THE IMAGE the prosecution should be conjuring up in the jury's mind in regards to Casey Anthony.

Okay, I'm going to go breathe now....

You make some really good points. The only thing I slightly disagree with is if they made a big deal about Casey making up the abuse, I agree they should have, but could that have maybe backfired even more, making them seem like all victims of sexual abuse are to be disbelieved? Like I said, I pretty much agree with you, but I am wondering if that may not have backfired (not doing it didnt work out well either, so who knows).

 

[Baznme]

In my estimation, JB and team were successful in confusing the jury. If you hadn't followed the case as closely as members here have, I can see how that could have happened. DT starts out by telling us KC is a liar and had imaginary friends and life situations. Then the incident is a drowning followed by accomplices such as her father and Kronk. Well, which is it? To me, you can't have it both ways but, that they did. The chloroform, decomp in the car, went right out the window. Therefore, reasonable doubt. Now that the jury has had the opportunity of having all the history and the strong evidence shoved under their noses, they have regrets. Shame that it happened but, it is the way it is. I do not have much confidence that she will make it out there in the open, the real world and we will see her again. I just hope and pray it isn't at the expense of another innocent child.

 

[KarmicLaw]

I wish the State could have/would have have just gone off about everything. Also a lot of evidence that the State had was keep out because the court decided it was too prejudicial. Which is odd, don't you agree, considering this was a circumstantial case.

Oh Okiedokietoo,

I could write a book about how I feel about pre-trial motions that exclude evidence. I think it is insulting to a jury. I know that all juror's are confused when so much of their time is spent being sent back to a room so that the parties can "take care of legal matters" outside of their presence. In fact, many times, the jury is twiddling their thumbs longer than listening to actual evidence.

The very first time I was on the stand, I was unable to speak freely because of a pre-trial motion. It was the first experience I had ever had where I was legally bound to censor myself. That made me sound almost robotic in an effort to mindfully be aware that I couldn't just tell the truth. On the other hand, I am a strong willed individual who had taken an oath to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth...yet the judge was preventing me from doing so. I almost directly violated the order and told the jury everything. I almost said the entire truth expecting that I would be talking over objections and would be risking a mistrial. I didn't care. The goal of the trial was to expose a criminally negligent company, not monetary gain. I wanted the jury to know that I took an oath but the court was preventing me from telling them the whole truth. :banghead:

But to your point...

It is simply a part of the judicial system that may be arbitrary, yet have a devastating effect on justice, for better or worse. For example, the fact that this jury thought they could not take any of Casey Anthony's behavior beyond 06/16 into consideration was absurd. The judge didn't make that ruling. If the judge had made that ruling, then no evidence of her behavior would have been allowed to be presented in the trial. The fact that the jury essentially created their own "exclusion of evidence rules" makes me cringe.

In that first example of the case I had to testify in, the jury was confused as to why certain action wasn't taken....BUT IT WAS TAKEN! When the trial was concluded and individual jurors discovered that the actions were taken, they were confused as to why we didn't inform them of that important aspect of the case. They stated that they "would have rendered a different verdict" had they known. When they found out the judge ruled that it was not admissable, they were as confused as I was, because it was clear that it would have been critical information for the jury.

That is when my education really began. :-(

 

[Solange82200]

LDB and JA were not generally "likeable" and while that should have absolutely nothing to do with the verdict, there is still the human element. Hey if I needed the jury to like me in order to convict KC, I would have made them love me!

NOW THAT I really really don't understand. I don't see why they wouldn't be likeable? I remember Baez and the nasty way he treated Cindy on cross, Mason and the nasty way he treated the CSI people, now THAT was unlikeable. I remember asking myself if they were trying to get people to hate them on purpose...

Jeff Aston and LDB, how were they in any way not likeable? They mostly asked appropriate questions and followed the rules, didn't defame anyone at all other than the person on trial (Casey). The only thing I could find someone not liking them on was the fact that they were intelligent and wellspoken, and I could see how some who aren't as intelligent and wellspoken could find that intimidating. I think the majority of people find that likeable. I just don't understand how anyone could not like them?

I also remember thinking how if I were on the jury I would be insulted at the way Jose was talking to them, overly friendly and obviously trying to influence them on something other than the facts. I would have found that a bit insulting, not likeable. I guess we could argue that the prosecution should assume that they will be presenting a case to 12 <modsnip> who would find a <modsnip> more likeable than them, but that is so sad I dont even think it's worth it. I'd rather just work on getting smarter jurors...

Again to my new favorite quote lol:

You think your average juror is King Solomon? No, he's a roofer with a mortgage. He wants to go home and sit in his Barcalounger and let the cable TV wash over him. And this man doesn't give a single, solitary droplet of **** about truth, justice or your American way.

 

[crucibelle]

I agree 110 percent. The state should not be pandering it's questions and strategy based on a juror or what they think might work. Unlike the defense, they are usually on a quest for the truth.

Respectfully, I don't think the prosecution (or any prosecution team, for that matter) is usually on a "quest for truth". They want to win their case - to get a conviction, period. I believe KC is guilty and I do believe the prosecution did a pretty good job, but let us not forget that they did try to keep that one computer forensics report out of the trial, and entered another one that looked better for their case. If they were on a "quest for the truth", they would have entered them both into evidence and let the jury decide which one was more valid. Instead, the defense entered that report into evidence and don't you know Baez told the jury that the prosecution had purposefully left it out. Baez made it sound like the prosecution was trying to hoodwink the jury, and I really think the jury may have bought it.

I personally feel that leaving out that one report was a mistake on the prosecution's part. That said, I never thought they really needed the chloroform search evidence to prove premeditation. I thought that the duct tape proved that well enough. The chloroform search evidence lead to something else that I think turned out bad for the prosecution -- they impeached Cindy. This proved Cindy was a liar, and bolstered the defense's theory that KC was taught to lie. Baez even said in his closing statement "I told you she (Cindy) was a liar! He turned that impeachment around to work for him. JMO!

 

[Americka]

NOW THAT I really really don't understand. I don't see why they wouldn't be likeable? I remember Baez and the nasty way he treated Cindy on cross, Mason and the nasty way he treated the CSI people, now THAT was unlikeable. I remember asking myself if they were trying to get people to hate them on purpose...

Jeff Aston and LDB, how were they in any way not likeable? They mostly asked appropriate questions and followed the rules, didn't defame anyone at all other than the person on trial (Casey). The only thing I could find someone not liking them on was the fact that they were intelligent and wellspoken, and I could see how some who aren't as intelligent and wellspoken could find that intimidating. I think the majority of people find that likeable. I just don't understand how anyone could not like them?

I also remember thinking how if I were on the jury I would be insulted at the way Jose was talking to them, overly friendly and obviously trying to influence them on something other than the facts. I would have found that a bit insulting, not likeable. I guess we could argue that the prosecution should assume that they will be presenting a case to 12 morons who would find a dumbass more likeable than them, but that is so sad I dont even think it's worth it. I'd rather just work on getting smarter jurors...

Again to my new favorite quote lol:

Water seeks its own level...

 

[txsvicki]

Some of the older people on the jury sure could have been hoodwinked if they told the truth and hadn't been following the case. My elderly mother (still in her right mind) hadn't followed the case at all until she started watching the trial. She thinks Casey is innocent, that George is covering for someone, that Cindy did it, and that Jose is in love with Casey. LOL.

 

[okiedokietoo]

I do respect both of "you alls" opinions, both are very plausible.
I just happen to believe that the OS created a visual for the jurors. And that statement made George a bad person and Casey a victim.

Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/confirmation_bias.htm

An illusory correlation is the perception of a relationship between two variables when only a minor or absolutely no relationship actually exists.
http://psychology.about.com/od/iindex/g/illusory-correlation.htm

 

[RANCH]

Respectfully, I don't think the prosecution (or any prosecution team, for that matter) is usually on a "quest for truth". They want to win their case - to get a conviction, period. I believe KC is guilty and I do believe the prosecution did a pretty good job, but let us not forget that they did try to keep that one computer forensics report out of the trial, and entered another one that looked better for their case. If they were on a "quest for the truth", they would have entered them both into evidence and let the jury decide which one was more valid. Instead, the defense entered that report into evidence and don't you know Baez told the jury that the prosecution had purposefully left it out. Baez made it sound like the prosecution was trying to hoodwink the jury, and I really think the jury may have bought it.

I personally feel that leaving out that one report was a mistake on the prosecution's part. That said, I never thought they really needed the chloroform search evidence to prove premeditation. I thought that the duct tape proved that well enough. The chloroform search evidence lead to something else that I think turned out bad for the prosecution -- they impeached Cindy. This proved Cindy was a liar, and bolstered the defense's theory that KC was taught to lie. Baez even said in his closing statement "I told you she (Cindy) was a liar! He turned that impeachment around to work for him. JMO!

I'm not clear on what computer reports were kept out. The prosecution absolutely must stand for the truth.The defense doesn't have to stand for the truth however.The defense doesn't have to prove anything.

 

[KarmicLaw]

Solange,

As soon as I watched JB's closing arguments, which I watched before I went back and watched the actual trial, I was afraid.

As I have mentioned, whether or not it makes rational sense, juror's are pursuaded by the attorney's they resonate with. Some of us can be disgusted by the smarminess of an individual, but others could be "enchanted" by them.

JB had some amazing rebuttal. It would have scored points with any jury. Yet the prosecution had a lot of missed opportunities to skewer the defense witnesses. In particular, the 'grief counselor". Puleeze... One question would have faceplanted her. Something along the lines of ...I don't know..."Do cold-blooded murderers grieve?" "What does that look like?" "Does a cold blooded killer or a hit man experience any one of these "grieving" behaviors or is their behavior consistent with that of Casey Anthony?" Sure, you may get an objection and it might be sustained...but you got it in and that is all that matters. Sheesh, it was like a softball against a hardball game. I got very nervous, very fast.

 

[Solange82200]

Maybe "quest for the truth" is an overstatement, but they have to present the truth and the evidence. They work for us, the people. If they are presenting things that aren't true, they shouldn't be there.

As for the computer report, I think the prosecutors let the orange county sheriff expert determine which was more reliable. Why would they purposely hide a report that they think is accurate, when they are under an obligation to turn all that over to the defense and they know the defense is going to point it out? After hearing Sandra Osborne talk about it at the last presser, it seems like they really just believed that was the accurate version. That was the last version they did, and they got the software developer to run it. In the end, I personally don't care which one was more accurate, the fact that she searched How to Make Chloroform once is enough for me (since chloroform was detected in her car trunk), etc.

 

[Friday]

Here is Judge H. Lee Sarokin's opinion on this topic. I agree with all he said.

SNIP

"The fact that Casey Anthony was the last person to have custody of her daughter, failed to report her missing (or dead) for 31 days, consistently lied once confronted, and the child was found dead and hidden, and she failed to tell what actually happened despite repeated opportunities to do so to her family, friends or law enforcement, (even when faced with the death penalty) was sufficient to find her guilty -- not necessarily of premeditated murder, but certainly all lesser charges. The duct tape and other forensic evidence provided additional, but not necessary, evidence."

The full text of his informative article can be found at:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judge-h-lee-sarokin/casey-anthony-jury_b_898550.html

 

[Solange82200]

Solange,

As soon as I watched JB's closing arguments, which I watched before I went back and watched the actual trial, I was afraid.

As I have mentioned, whether or not it makes rational sense, juror's are pursuaded by the attorney's they resonate with. Some of us can be disgusted by the smarminess of an individual, but others could be "enchanted" by them.

JB had some amazing rebuttal. It would have scored points with any jury. Yet the prosecution had a lot of missed opportunities to skewer the defense witnesses. In particular, the 'grief counselor". Puleeze... One question would have faceplanted her. Something along the lines of ...I don't know..."Do cold-blooded murderers grieve?" "What does that look like?" "Does a cold blooded killer or a hit man experience any one of these "grieving" behaviors or is their behavior consistent with that of Casey Anthony?" Sure, you may get an objection and it might be sustained...but you got it in and that is all that matters. Sheesh, it was like a softball against a hardball game. I got very nervous, very fast.

Very true... I just wonder how the attorney's will know whether smarminess will resonate with a particular jury? That part I don't get.

I wish they had gone a bit harder on a lot of witnesses, but if I remember correctly, everyone was cheering JA on when he pointed out that ANY scenario given would be consistent with grieving, according to the grief expert. And then he went on to ask something about how would a mother who murdered her child grieve? (or something similar) and Jose objected, they went to sidebar, and then there were no more questions. Someone correct me if Im wrong, but I think they did try to do a little of what you stated above....

 

[3doglady]

Maybe "quest for the truth" is an overstatement, but they have to present the truth and the evidence. They work for us, the people. If they are presenting things that aren't true, they shouldn't be there.

As for the computer report, I think the prosecutors let the orange county sheriff expert determine which was more reliable. Why would they purposely hide a report that they think is accurate, when they are under an obligation to turn all that over to the defense and they know the defense is going to point it out? After hearing Sandra Osborne talk about it at the last presser, it seems like they really just believed that was the accurate version. That was the last version they did, and they got the software developer to run it. In the end, I personally don't care which one was more accurate, the fact that she searched How to Make Chloroform once is enough for me (since chloroform was detected in her car trunk), etc.

BBM And specifically deleted the search.

 

[Friday]

Some of the older people on the jury sure could have been hoodwinked if they told the truth and hadn't been following the case. My elderly mother (still in her right mind) hadn't followed the case at all until she started watching the trial. She thinks Casey is innocent, that George is covering for someone, that Cindy did it, and that Jose is in love with Casey. LOL.

At this point it wouldn't surprise me much if she ended up being right. :floorlaugh:

But if KC is innocent, I'll eat my neighbor's ten gallon hat.

"TXFriday"

 

[KarmicLaw]

I do respect both of "you alls" opinions, both are very plausible.
I just happen to believe that the OS created a visual for the jurors. And that statement made George a bad person and Casey a victim.

Confirmation bias is a phenomenon wherein decision makers have been shown to actively seek out and assign more weight to evidence that confirms their hypothesis, and ignore or underweigh evidence that could disconfirm their hypothesis.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/confirmation_bias.htm

An illusory correlation is the perception of a relationship between two variables when only a minor or absolutely no relationship actually exists.
http://psychology.about.com/od/iindex/g/illusory-correlation.htm

Exactly!! Once one detects that a defense theory can result in a bias, such as adopting the "possibility" that this was an accident that was covered up by George, and agreed to by Casey due to sexual abuse, it was incumbent on the prosecution to "Rage Against That Machine"...so to speak. ;-) In fact, this should not have been a surprise. Casey and JB had been setting this up for some time with the jailhouse letters and confronting George about the allegations. The prosecution should have expected this and defended against the defense.

Confirmaton bias is the most dangerous risk in a trial. It's the most dangerous risk in politics too, but I digress. It is why it is imperative to give it the attention it warrants. I know that the "defense" is supposed to do nothing but sit back and see if the State proves it's case, but the reality is that the defense (if it's competent) is there to knock the prosecution off it's game and create reasonable doubt.

 

[RANCH]

At this point it wouldn't surprise me much if she ended up being right. :floorlaugh:

But if KC is innocent, I'll eat my neighbor's ten gallon hat.

"TXFriday"

Hi Friday. Hawk be cool.