Lanie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2007
- Messages
- 2,843
- Reaction score
- 38
I have never followed a case before, certainly not to the degree that I have followed this one. It stands to reason that I never read nor participated in a forum such as this one before either. I also have never served on a jury.
I stumbled upon this case purely by accident, I was preparing for a trip to the Orlando area and visited the newspaper web site to check the weather report which just so happened to be the day Casey was released from jail the first time. I could not quite understand what a young woman of that age had done which was causing such public outcry. The curiosity to find out eventually led me here.
Perhaps I am the oddball, I frequently feel out of place here. To me the word "sleuth" means to gather details and then studying those details in a search for truth. And to keep repeating that process until there are no more details before attempting to reach a final conclusion.
It seems that many people tend to form opinions early on, or at least before all the details are known and studied. From that point forward they tend to dismiss any new details that might be contrary to their already formed opinion. And they continue to "hope" for new details that prove their already formed opinion.
Perhaps I am way out in left field, but that approach is not sleuthing to me. It becomes a sort of what's the point? Once someone is convinced of something, it seems it should be time to move onto something else.
Having never served on jury I don't know if this same sort of dynamic commonly exists within a jury. Do jury members tend to form opinions early on, and from that point forward begin dismissing evidence that tends point away from their already formed conclusion?
If jury members in this case or any other take that approach, then no it is not a fair trial. However if jury members do keep an open minded approach and wait until the debate within the jury room to form any conclusion, then it will have been a fair trial.
I do not think its about where a trial is held that is important. It is about seating a jury with people who have that capacity to justly fulfill that duty.
I agree with most of what you are saying. I also think theories and conclusions are not the same thing.
I have served on a jury. It was a civil case, not a criminal one, and my experience on it was my theory began to form as evidence was presented. When evidence was presented that contradicted my theory, I changed my theory. When we got together in the jury room after the trial, there were a couple of people who seemed to have formed an opinon right at the beginning, and disregarded everything that came after if it didn't match. I have noticed this in here, as well, but it seems to be a minority.
I have some theories, but they aren't written in stone. I have no vested interest in this case, I don't know any of the people involved, etc., etc. I go where the evidence leads me, which is sometimes all over the place. When someone posts something I didn't know, I look it up. If true, and in conflict with what I am thinking, I adjust what I am thinking. I am not, however, viewing this case as a pretend juror, I am viewing it as a pretend investigator. There is a difference, and contrary to somes beliefs, one viewpoint is not better than the other, they are simply different, period.
If you are waiting to hear all the evidence before you make any decisions whatsoever, then that is what you should do, regardless of what anyone else thinks. I think you'll find most people will respect that.
Lanie