Imperfect Justice-Prosecuting Casey Anthony by Jeff Ashton

[logicalgirl]

BBM

True ,and what the Jury didn't know is that most of the delays were created by the defense. I wonder if that would have made a difference :waitasec:

Nah :maddening: I think the Jury Foreman intended for this to be a NG or at the very least ,a hung jury. :banghead:

Isn't this the guy whose brother is with the FBI? I suspect some long standing deep seated competitive issues and this may have been a loud and clear "Mason salute" to him a la - here's to "your law"....:innocent:

 

[Sweet Fox]

Nah :maddening: I think the Jury Foreman intended for this to be a NG or at the very least ,a hung jury. :banghead:

Absolutely!! 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.

 

[Francine]

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.

It would be great if Jeff Ashton could shed some light about the jury dynamic.

This foreperson almost sounds like he had a Svengali like influence on the jury, or he was like the Pied Piper, leading them to their doom.

But he probably whined and complained to this motherly-type figure that, "oh dear, poor me, sigh, I have to work so hard here, I have to take all these notes for everybody else during the trial, and complete my on-line master degree courses with a deadline looming, and I haven't seen my family in far too long and they need me so badly, that....I just don't have time to eat, or do my laundry, or take a shower, or...." ad nauseum. The older woman,feeling a twinge of guilt, probably bought his sob story, brought him food, did his laundry, got him toothpaste if the hotel didn't have it, etc. Maybe she even tucked him at night when he was simply "too tired" to do it himself, and sang him a lullabye. :crazy:

She was thoroughly manipulated by this dude. No wonder she ran away and hid after the verdict came.

Who knows what else he got the others to do for him?

Maybe Jeff Ashton heard something about this situation with the foreperson and the other jurors?

 

[RR0004]

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.

I knew nothing about the "laundry" and am now kinda glad that I chose not to listen to these jurors. Totally unfreaking believable!

PS- can't wait to read the book!!

 

[Bobbisangel]

He can still write a great memoir ,but I'm glad this book is coming out now. I want to hear more from the Prosecution. We weren't able to,because they couldn't speak out,but they have a perspective I want to hear about. I trust him.

It also tickles me that he's able to come out with a book before the A's or JB.:great:

My feeling exactly. I want to know what the Pros thought and what went on behind the scenes. I hope he can really say anything that he wants too now that he is retired. I laughed so hard when I heard that Jeff wrote a book and that it is coming out soon. I thought "I'll bet Jose had a heart attack!" I know he is just trying to figure out how he can get his hands on some big bucks through Casey's case. Too bad Jose...LOL.

 

[Bobbisangel]

Agree with all of your points. "smoking guns" I think are few and far between these days as criminals become more and more aware of how to not leave or do away with DNA at a crime scene, try not to leave any hair, fibers, people are becoming more and more knowledgeable about how to thwart computer forensics, destroy their harddrives, not use their cell phones leading up to and during the actual commission of the crime (buy "bat phones" :loser: lol, drive to places for no reason and with no connection to their crime with their cell phone on to confuse LE) etc., not make obvious withdrawals from bank accounts due to LE investigating financial records, etc. "smoking guns" are prosecutors dreams, but I think they are seeing less and less of them, IMO.

Your example of circumstancial evidence was spot-on about Mr. Foreman in this jury, also. IMO, MOO, etc.

Didn't anyone on the jury have any knowledge of the Scott Peterson's trial? There was no proof that he murdered Lacy and Connor but there was a ton of circumstancial evidence. The jury didn't hear a smoking gun or a video of the murder. They used their common sense and found him guilty along with the death penalty. I guess their foreman was what a foreman was supposed to be unlike this one. The foreman and that Jennifer that was out talking to the media really bothered me. She is probably the one that washed the laundry. She even got a trip to Disney World or Land on top of it all.

 

[rossva]

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

Absolutely!! 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.

 

[3doglady]

Didn't anyone on the jury have any knowledge of the Scott Peterson's trial? There was no proof that he murdered Lacy and Connor but there was a ton of circumstancial evidence. The jury didn't hear a smoking gun or a video of the murder. They used their common sense and found him guilty along with the death penalty. I guess their foreman was what a foreman was supposed to be unlike this one. The foreman and that Jennifer that was out talking to the media really bothered me. She is probably the one that washed the laundry. She even got a trip to Disney World or Land on top of it all.

Well, the foreman did think JB was very professional and you know he's good at reading people because he told us he was.:floorlaugh:

 

[okiedokietoo]

I was not convinced. Prosecution (JA) didn't convince me and I've followed this case in it's totality. I was hoping Prosecution would convince me. They didn't.

All along I kept waiting for a smoking gun or some PROOF of what happened to Caylee. We never got it. To this day, I still don't know what happened to her. So.......... that leaves us where? NG.

Circumstantial Evidence:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence

Books, movies, and television often perpetuate the belief that circumstantial evidence may not be used to convict a criminal of a crime. But this view is incorrect. In many cases, circumstantial evidence is the only evidence linking an accused to a crime; direct evidence may simply not exist. As a result, the jury may have only circumstantial evidence to consider in determining whether to convict or acquit a person charged with a crime. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that "circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence"(Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121, 75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954]). Thus, the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence has little practical effect in the presentation or admissibility of evidence in trials.

Indirect Evidence
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c342.htm

Indirect evidence that implies something occurred but doesn't directly prove it; proof of one or more facts from which one can find another fact; proof of a chain of facts and circumstances indicating that the person is either guilty or not guilty.
E.g., If a man accused of embezzling money from his company had made several big-ticket purchases in cash around the time of the alleged embezzlement, that would be circumstantial evidence that he had stolen the money. The law makes no distinction between the weight given to either direct or circumstantial evidence.

Scott Peterson convicted of murder
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6385208/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/scott-peterson-convicted-murder/#.TmVjBlsweSo

Police never were able to establish exactly when, how or where Laci died, but the circumstantial evidence proved persuasive. Prosecutors presented 174 witnesses and hundreds of pieces of evidence, from wiretapped phone calls to videotaped police interrogations, depicting Peterson as liar and a philanderer who sweet-talked his massage therapist girlfriend, Amber Frey, while publicly pining for his missing wife.
Peterson never took the stand. His lawyers suggested someone else abducted and killed Laci while she walked the dog, then framed her husband after learning of his fishing-trip alibi. They attributed his lies as the mutterings of a man in the midst of a breakdown over his missing wife.

 

[Truthwillsetufree]

bbm, That laundry revelation by Mr. Foreman during his interview seemed really bizarre to me. I realize these jurors spent a lot of time together, but I can't imagine myself doing another grown man's laundry who I barely knew!! Just another strange thing with this jury....who knows what else went on behind the scenes? Did she do others' laundry as well? or only his? how POWERFUL was this guy????? Bizarre is all I can say about that laundry situation.
IMO, MOO. etc.

Geez, I barely do my own Husband's laundry much less some guy I don't even know...fat chance of that ever happening!

 

[seeing_eye]

Well it was difficult for SA to prove that Caylee didn't drown because by the time they found her not much was left to test. If KC had stuck to the Nanny story I think the jury would have been more inclined to find KC responsible for the death of her child. But to throw out the drowning at the very beginning of the trial with no prior discovery that this would be her defense leaves the SA at a disadvantage. I could see the jury sitting there scratching their heads wondering why are we hearing about a nanny when we know there wasn't one. HHJP was pressuring them to remember the jury is sequestered and want to get home. So we can't just blame SA, nor the jury. It's just as HHJP said anything that could go wrong, did go wrong in this trial.

Not fair to completely blame SA when the jury were also remiss in their duties. A child is dead, the mother lied about the child being dead and if the child died accidentially why did her attorney not reveal that right up front instead of waiting, pushing the trial off for three years, constantly appearing on talk shows and complaining they haven't had enough time to read through all the discovery. Then there was that subliminal message on the 4th of July.....Freedom. jmo

So I guess after all his attempts Jose finally got his "trial by ambush" after all??

 

[jon_burrows]

It will be interesting if JA writes about the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence and if he thinks the jury understood the difference.

Cindy said on several occasions LE had nothing on FCA, just circumstantial evidence.

The best analogy I've seen is:

Direct evidence: You look out your window before going to bed and see it snowing.

Circumstantial evidence: You look out your window in the morning and see a foot of snow.

IMO

 

[Well Done 99]

Geez, I barely do my own Husband's laundry much less some guy I don't even know...fat chance of that ever happening!

I need to get myself on a Florida jury. Folks down there appear to very obliging! If the laundry thing is true (there's no reason to doubt it, he said it himself), what the heck else went on inside this jury?

 

[Schu7]

Mr. foreman taught them money laundering. As in - NG = $$$$

He got that wrong also.

 

[Intermezzo]

I knew nothing about the "laundry" and am now kinda glad that I chose not to listen to these jurors. Totally unfreaking believable!

PS- can't wait to read the book!!

Neither did I... doing the laundry of a man you just recently met that was serving on the same jury as you was,ummmm, nice. I guess :waitasec:

 

[AngelWings444]

I knew nothing about the "laundry" and am now kinda glad that I chose not to listen to these jurors. Totally unfreaking believable!

PS- can't wait to read the book!!

Neither did I. For some reason, this makes my stomach turn! Disgusting. :sick: "Something" went horribly wrong.

 

[RR0004]

Neither did I. For some reason, this makes my stomach turn! Disgusting. :sick: "Something" went horribly wrong.

The verdict still makes me cry. Caylee deserved so much better. I don't doubt that JA will talk of his feelings...what trying the case really meant to him. I look forward to him sharing his feelings.

 

[PeteJ]

If we cannot rely on a jury to follow the evidence and make a rational decision based on it, what have we got? Twelve people who can make up whatever conclusion they want? This time it was in the favor of the defendent but next time it might be as irrationally against and that should frighten all of us.

 

[PeteyGirl]

If we cannot rely on a jury to follow the evidence and make a rational decision based on it, what have we got? Twelve people who can make up whatever conclusion they want? This time it was in the favor of the defendent but next time it might be as irrationally against and that should frighten all of us.

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?

 

[Kavya01]

Circumstantial Evidence:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence

Indirect Evidence
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c342.htm

Scott Peterson convicted of murder
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6385208/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/scott-peterson-convicted-murder/#.TmVjBlsweSo

This!!! Is what should be DRILLED into any jurors' heads, at the start and during the trial it needs to be repeated to them, and it should be THE MAIN POINT in Jury instructions before they go into deliberations.

That way the Pinellas Twelve could not have hidden behind the "we were never given a smoking gun" excuse!!!!!!

Too late for Caylee, but it should certainly be done in any next court case.