Imperfect Justice-Prosecuting Casey Anthony by Jeff Ashton

[2goldfish]

YES!!! Amen!! It frightens me, too.

I've read quite a few very moving posts about folks being unhappy with the jury bashing that has gone on. I see the problem as being a major misunderstanding and misapplication of what is considered RELEVANT evidence.

As it stands, 12 people can indeed make up whatever conclusion they want. And now and then, they will get it wrong.

What I wonder is if the Pinellas 12 had thoroughly understood the relevance of circumstantial evidence, would they have rendered the same verdict?

bbm

I dont believe so. for example, foreman told them they werent allowed to consider her behaviour during the 31 days, when that behaviour was entered in as evidence. they just didnt understand what evidence was, let alone direct vs circumstantial.

also they didnt have their listening ears on. at least one of them said since there was no DNA in the stain in the trunk, they discounted it as being relevant at all. they were told by experts that there would be no DNA in decomposition fluids as the process of decomp destroys DNA.

that's just 2 examples from the few jurors who've spoken out. I hope every day we never hear more out of them it's just too painful froma common sense standpoint.

 

[bonniez451]

To this day I have only listened to the verdict once I have not and can not listen to it again.
Just too painful. Now I hear about this laundry, you cannot tell me his FBI brother isn't embarassed.

 

[Sweet Fox]

IIRC, it was the DEFENSE TEAM that brought these two occassions to Perry's attention, and wanted something done about them.

Please humor me. Show me where in the Court transcript, that it was the Defense Team who INFORMED the judge that the jurors wanted to know which 12 would actually serve and which 5 would be alternates. Show me in the Court Transcript, when the jurors wanted to see that one piece of evindence pre-deliberation, that it was the Defense Team who BROUGHT it to the judge's attention.

From the onset, this jury was colluding with each other. As you may recall, back in May it was reported, that some of the jurors send a note to HHBP demanding to know right there and then which of the 17 would be jurors and which would be alternates. If anyone wants to see the article link, let me know.

Also before going into deliberations, they requested to see one piece of evidence. Therefore, the judge KNEW on at least these 2 occasions that the jurors were colluding and discussing the case with each other, yet he allowed this sham trial to continue. I hope Ashton talks about this in his book. This disgraceful jury cost the taxpayers over $160,000 which doesn’t even include the cost of the sheriff’s dept who had to watch them. IMO) there were several stealth jurors who took control and persuaded the naive others to vote NG. MOO and I stand by it.

 

[LambChop]

Please humor me. Show me where in the Court transcript, that it was the Defense Team who INFORMED the judge that the jurors wanted to know which 12 would actually serve and which 5 would be alternates. Show me in the Court Transcript, when the jurors wanted to see that one piece of evindence pre-deliberation, that it was the Defense Team who BROUGHT it to the judge's attention.

I don't have a link and I was only able to view parts of the trial during the first three weeks in June because I was in Aruba but I believe it was CM who objected to the jury asking to see the heart shaped sticker and I think he asked for a mistrial because they asked to handle it instead of waiting until deliberations. At that point, yes, it is clear they were discussing it or why would they not wait. How many times did the judge remind them not to discuss the case amongst themselves and this was a clear indication that they were, in fact, discussing this case. jmo

 

[GracieLu]

If the only "guilty" verdicts resulted from smoking guns, we'd have a lot more dangerous people wreaking havoc in society than we do.

The jury failed to regard this giant pool of circumstantial evidence from the Law's point of view. That it is ALSO evidence, not just a bunch of smoke, but actual evidence. Evidence that must be handled differently, knitted together with other bits of circumstantial evidence, and re-connected with the direct evidence of the case.

Cumulatively, the circumstantial evidence as the state knitted together for us WAS a smoking gun, like, a smoking Uzi.

I sense the jury regarded circumstantial evidence as being equivalent to the defense team's hole-poking. Otherwise, how could they disregard it the way they did?

Here is some circumstantial evidence from real life. The jury foreman tells of his experience and thought processes on Greta. We get a picture of him as a very confident person, perhaps a little TOO confident, willing to regard his special abilities to "read people" because of his job as a PE teacher as somehow distinguished. He drops many other little "indications" of how important he believes himself and abilities to be.

Having some other jurist do his LAUNDRY illuminates and highlights this guy's self importance.

No where in this does the foreman come right out and say "I am a bonafide narcissist". But the accumulation of his own words and behaviors, along with being WILLING to allow another person to do his LAUNDRY has me drawing some conclusions about his character.

omgosh, excellent post! ((loser::loser:i wish i was as smart and eloquent as my fellow posters here on WS's....:loser::loser)) I think the PE teacher couldn't wait to "humiliate" JA. IMO the NG verdict came about because the "the self important PE teacher" just had to beat the brilliant prosecuting attorney (JA). I have no doubt that ego and bullying played a huge part in this verdict....

 

[MarthaM]

I'm not interested in the anti-jury discussion this seems to have evolved into, as I've read enough threads about that. But I am still interested in and curious about what Ashton will say in this book, so I hope it's okay to return to that topic.

I wonder about illustrations/photos? I would expect he'd include behind-the-scenes photos of LE and the prosecutors at work on the case and during the trial. Wonder if he'll include any more specific to the case and evidence itself?

I'm kind of surprised that its release date is November 29th rather than before Thanksgiving, but maybe this isn't really a 'holiday giving' kind of book. Or maybe it's better that it doesn't come out earlier and get lost in the shuffle of the shopping frenzy.

 

[essies]

Hadn't seen this posted anywhere so here's a tweet from MN about JA's book!
MarkNeJameMark NeJame





Had lunch w #jeffashton yesterday. His book on #caseyanthony will be out soon & telling much of what needs to be told. Will be a good read.

3 Sep
http://twitter.com/#!/MarkNeJame
I wonder if MN got to see a copy of the book or maybe they just discussed the book over lunch?:waitasec:

 

[Concerned Papa]

Please humor me. Show me where in the Court transcript, that it was the Defense Team who INFORMED the judge that the jurors wanted to know which 12 would actually serve and which 5 would be alternates. Show me in the Court Transcript, when the jurors wanted to see that one piece of evindence pre-deliberation, that it was the Defense Team who BROUGHT it to the judge's attention.

BBM

The defense team had nothing to do with bringing the question about seeing the sticker to the judge. This video shows it was a note to the judge:

http://www.cfnews13.com/video?clip=...om/newsvideo/cfn/perry-heart-sticker-0614.flv

What the defense DID do, however, was use this opportunity to try and renew this previously denied motion from December 29, 2010 to keep the sticker out as evidence.

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/26312095/detail.html

From juror's statements after the trial to direct evidence such as this request to the judge, it is very clear that this jury didn't need much time for deliberation of the facts for their verdict.

Despite his honor's daily admonishments to the contrary, they'd been doing the deliberating and discussing all along.

 

[RANCH]

I'm kind of surprised that its release date is November 29th rather than before Thanksgiving, but maybe this isn't really a 'holiday giving' kind of book. Or maybe it's better that it doesn't come out earlier and get lost in the shuffle of the shopping frenzy.

It's coming out in plenty of time for Christmas.I don't know of anyone who gives Thanksgiving gifts.Well maybe food.Books,I don't know?

 

[MarthaM]

It's coming out in plenty of time for Christmas.I don't know of anyone who gives Thanksgiving gifts.Well maybe food.Books,I don't know?

I don't know of anybody who gives Thanksgiving gifts, either. I'm talking about the traditional start of the Christmas shopping season, and that's Thanksgiving week. You know... Black Friday? I would have thought publishers would want this one at the front of bookstores that weekend. Unless, as I said, they're not expected it to be big for holiday giving and that those who are interested in it would just order it no matter what day it came out. Plus, I would think they'd want the pre-release publicity to fall before Thanksgiving week, too.

 

[RANCH]

I don't know of anybody who gives Thanksgiving gifts, either. I'm talking about the traditional start of the Christmas shopping season, and that's Thanksgiving week. You know... Black Friday? I would have thought publishers would want this one at the front of bookstores that weekend. Unless, as I said, they're not expected it to be big for holiday giving and that those who are interested in it would just order it no matter what day it came out. Plus, I would think they'd want the pre-release publicity to fall before Thanksgiving week, too.

I see your point now. What I find interesting is some people believe his book is coming out too soon, while others say it's coming out too late.I guess you can't please everyone.

 

[MarthaM]

I see your point now. What I find interesting is some people believe his book is coming out too soon, while others say it's coming out too late.I guess you can't please everyone.

I do think it's coming out too soon, regardless of when in November it's being released (or December, January, etc).

But as far as Nov 29th goes, maybe the publisher's thinking most sales would come from online purchases. The 28th is Cyber Monday, so it would ship right away for anybody who orders that day.

 

[cyberborg]

Hadn't seen this posted anywhere so here's a tweet from MN about JA's book!
MarkNeJameMark NeJame





Had lunch w #jeffashton yesterday. His book on #caseyanthony will be out soon & telling much of what needs to be told. Will be a good read.

3 Sep
http://twitter.com/#!/MarkNeJame
I wonder if MN got to see a copy of the book or maybe they just discussed the book over lunch?:waitasec:

That'd be one lunch conversation I'd give anything to overhear.

MN had insight into the early days of the A's and based on what he knew at that time ... was NOT a fan of FCA, was NOT willing to support her and, when he left the A's due to conflict he became very outspoken and against FCA. That is extremely telling and an indictment of FCA itself.

I wonder what MN knows from the inside and what CA did? I wonder if MN knows about DC and the search on Suburban? He quit around the time that the Suburban searches happened, the Caylee is Alive pressers were getting crazy and ... CA looked like she got some terrible news.

We have two folks who know a LOT about the FCA case having lunch together, I wonder if some of MN's knowledge will secretly make its way into JA's book?

 

[AngelWings444]

I do think it's coming out too soon, regardless of when in November it's being released (or December, January, etc).

But as far as Nov 29th goes, maybe the publisher's thinking most sales would come from online purchases. The 28th is Cyber Monday, so it would ship right away for anybody who orders that day.

I think Jeff Ashton's book has already enjoyed part of Cyber Monday, tuesday, wedsnesday etc..:woohoo: As the release date nears, the publicity gears up, I'm sure the pre-sale orders will be skyrocketing. When the news of his book first came out, it wasn't intentional, but went to # 1. He didn't even have the cover out. I'm thinking they don't have to worry about people ordering it on a specific date, plenty of people will get this book in time for Christmas! :great:

 

[Solace]

I think this foreman DID NOT LIKE Ashton and he did as much as he could to influence others. I did not listen to the entire juror interview with Greta becuase he was unbelievably obnoxious and I did not think Greta asked the right questions.

The fact that he would have someone else doing his laundry speaks volumes to me. He is self-centered. He did not like that Ashton did NOT say good morning. I remember laughing EVERY time I saw Baez smiling and "good morning ing" the jurors. Apparently , it had a huge effect.

The fact that he told others they could not consider 31 days is almost too much for me to take even today. If one person had said, well if we can't consider it, why then didn't the Judge tell us that. He certainly told us not to consider other things, e.g. the mark on Caylee's face when the photo was admitted.

And to allow himself and others to LIVE with this verdict, they said, we did not say "innocent" - we said "not guilty".

I realize that Ashton did laugh at the wrong time; but having said that, when we saw Ashton shaking his head no, it was out of disbelieve at how low the defense was sinking re Baez' opening.

Did the jury watch Cheney as he sat next to KC and physcially showed her how to cover her face and did they watch as he told his "aide" to pass the tissues to her and she took them and placed them in front of her. Did they watch as she shook her head yes when Cheney put his hands slightly over his face.

I don't think anything, even a video, would have worked her. They would need a chitload of DNA all over the tape (the tape which was holding the mandible in place, resting on the hair, which the defense SAID WAS NOT ON HER FACE.

I digress. To cap, the foreman led the troops and he had an easy group to lead. I know one of them had an iq of double digits only and I would not be surprised if there were more - to be swayed so easily is inexcusable unless of course, you don't have the brains to think for yourself.

 

[Sweet Fox]

BBM

The defense team had nothing to do with bringing the question about seeing the sticker to the judge.

Thank you, that was the point I was trying to make in one of my prior posts. Likewise, the defense team had nothing to do with bringing the question about the jurors wanting to know which 12 would actually serve and which 5 would be alternates. That was done by a written note and given to the judge. Both of these incidents clearly show that this jury was discussing this case from the onset.

 

[lauriej]

I think this foreman DID NOT LIKE Ashton and he did as much as he could to influence others. I did not listen to the entire juror interview with Greta becuase he was unbelievably obnoxious and I did not think Greta asked the right questions.

The fact that he would have someone else doing his laundry speaks volumes to me. He is self-centered. He did not like that Ashton did NOT say good morning. I remember laughing EVERY time I saw Baez smiling and "good morning ing" the jurors. Apparently , it had a huge effect.

The fact that he told others they could not consider 31 days is almost too much for me to take even today. If one person had said, well if we can't consider it, why then didn't the Judge tell us that. He certainly told us not to consider other things, e.g. the mark on Caylee's face when the photo was admitted.

And to allow himself and others to LIVE with this verdict, they said, we did not say "innocent" - we said "not guilty".

I realize that Ashton did laugh at the wrong time; but having said that, when we saw Ashton shaking his head no, it was out of disbelieve at how low the defense was sinking re Baez' opening.

Did the jury watch Cheney as he sat next to KC and physcially showed her how to cover her face and did they watch as he told his "aide" to pass the tissues to her and she took them and placed them in front of her. Did they watch as she shook her head yes when Cheney put his hands slightly over his face.

I don't think anything, even a video, would have worked her. They would need a chitload of DNA all over the tape (the tape which was holding the mandible in place, resting on the hair, which the defense SAID WAS NOT ON HER FACE.

I digress. To cap, the foreman led the troops and he had an easy group to lead. I know one of them had an iq of double digits only and I would not be surprised if there were more - to be swayed so easily is inexcusable unless of course, you don't have the brains to think for yourself.

..not that it makes a difference, but he was bragging to ashleigh of Good Morning America about getting his laundry done...

..here he is getting a huge chuckle out of telling her about it...

---JF11 : "juror # 12 ( the one who retired and fled the state ) "would do my laundry for me, she even folded my underwear---i didn't know that you could fold underwear".

---( and when told that kc could make a million ----he's "mortified!".)

http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anth...s-george-anthony-influenced/story?id=14050196
---mr. obnoxious jury foreman on GMA--begins at approx. 0.20.

 

[Solace]

..not that it makes a difference, but he was bragging to ashleigh of Good Morning America about getting his laundry done...

..here he is getting a huge chuckle out of telling her about it...

---JF11 : "juror # 12 ( the one who retired and fled the state ) "would do my laundry for me, she even folded my underwear---i didn't know that you could fold underwear".

---( and when told that kc could make a million ----he's "mortified!".)

http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anth...s-george-anthony-influenced/story?id=14050196
---mr. obnoxious jury foreman on GMA--begins at approx. 0.20.

The fact that he repeats this on the show speaks to just how shallow of a human being he is. A child is dead and killed in a horrific way and she definitely suffered to some degree - I don't care what anyone says - she may have passed out (hopefully) but before she did and while she was being drugged, it was an awful feeling - why is she doing this to me - that is how she felt and afraid.

And this person who was asked to dignify her death is talking about this on a show. There really isn't much more to say about him. There is very little to him.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Look at what Baez accomplished however against the juggernaut of the SA.

MOO ... Respectfully, I must disagree. Baez used "underhanded, dirty tactics" pre-trial, during the trial, and post trial. I have absolutely NO respect for Baez -- and the rest of the DT. MOO ...

It's one thing to "defend" your client under the respected laws of the Constitution, etc. ... but... it's another thing to resort to the "low-down tactics" Baez used during trial, a "prime example" would be the Opening Statement, which for some "reason" obviously "impacted" the Jury's "thinking" (if you want to even call it "thinking").

MOO ...

His client was acquitted...he was lead defense atty.
I will say that it interests me that many are far more certain that the Jury failed and that HHJP failed rather than believing it was the SA who dropped the ball or the defense who did an end run.
I know, o/t.
I wonder how kindly Mr Ashton will be towards Mr Mason and Mr Baez?

BBM: MOO ... I believe Mr. Ashton will ALWAYS BE A GENTLEMAN ...

:waitasec: But I sure do hope he "rips" both JB and CM with respect to their LACK of "courtroom skills", LACK of "knowledge of the law", and the DIRTY UNDERHANDED TACTICS used by Jose and the DT which MISLED the Jury ...

MOO ...

 

[Solace]

To Believe 09:

If it were, as you say, Baez' expertise that got KC off, I would agree. I don't always see eye to eye with the posters here. But that is not the reason KC got off. There was an genuine dislike for the prosecution and we know that because the first second juror interviewed said so by telling us they did not like that he did not say good morning to them.

This case was clear cut and there was a plethora of circumstantial evidence to convict to have an abiding conviction (which one juror basically says she had) but that they had no DNA.

You need a swine to show you where the truffles are!

Baez stumbled and fumbled up to the end and he opened with an egregious lie which he knew was a lie because we never heard about it again.