Sidebar Discussion #5

[2goldfish]

Again, that is the way our SYSTEM is set up and Judge Perry is in charge of upholding and overseeing that system. People are angry and shooting the messenger.

How could jury selection be his fault? What were we left with to choose from after three years of intense media attention and five billion pages of documents dumped ?

How is that his fault? They were left with the bottom of the barrel. People that didn't even pick up a newspaper to read about what was going on in the world and the communities around them. Lazy, apathetic, people.

The jury is not supposed to be selected to hang her, it is selected to be fair and impartial to BOTH SIDES, which is why the both have a certain amount of strikes. They had to find 16 people with no knowledge of the case, that made enough money and had enough resources to be away from their jobs and families for at least a couple of months, and under severe budget constraints, while inconveniencing and borrowing a courtroom in another country. Not an easy task.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. jmo.

BBM they only had to find people who could agree to set aside their present beliefs and judge on the basis of evidence in court. it was I believe juror #2 who did state he thought she was guilty but that he could set it aside.

I believe SP took 8 months to seat his jury, so I do not know if HHJP's way of doing it led to this or not. I can see both sides of that and my opinion is that if he could do it over, he would. whether it would change anything, how could we ever know?

 

[Spice]

I don't think taking more time would have made a bit of a difference Fish, this case was overexposed in the media to the nth degree. I live 900 miles away from Pinellas and Orlando and I knew every single detail and iota of this case. (which isn't even necessary to make a judgement of guilt) All you would have to hear is baby murdered, 31 days, and imaginary nanny to make an educated guess.

 

[cyberborg]

I just have a couple of quick questions this morning - are we ever going to understand and get over this verdict?

The OJ verdict still polarizes folks today. There are those who are convinced he did it and those who are convinced he did not. Having seen both trials it is impossible to ever 'understand the verdict'. Folks just want to shine a light on the truth. :twocents:

In terms of getting over the verdict, it is likewise impossible to 'get over this verdict' until there is justice for the victim, Caylee Marie.

None of the A's ever stood up for or sought justice for Caylee. Not even today now that the killer is freed. The truth and the A's are strangers. :maddening:

Seeking the truth can become a lifelong mission. If we don't always seek the truth and justice, if we simply accept wrongdoing then we devolve towards anarchy. We can seek the truth for Caylee.

Justice for Caylee.

 

[Lanie]

BBM. You are a more objective and disciplined person than me and a slew of others out there. That is for sure. I could never have been able to vote for anything other than guilty.

My hat is off to you.

I don't know, Spice, I don't think I'm anything special. I just think as flawed as our system is, it's all we have, and IMO a lot of the flaws come from abuse of the system.

I'll use Joran Van Der Sloot (sp?) as an example. I believe the man is guilty of killing Natalie Holloway, but I understand why he wasn't charged and tried for it, because IMO they didn't have evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he did it. If he had gone to trial and I had been a juror, with the evidence I'm aware of, I would have let him go, even though it would have sickened me to no end.

To me, it is what it is. I may not like the way it is, but until I have a better way, I need to follow it.

 

[rose222]

They could have taken out half, no 3/4 of the evidence from this trial and I would still been able to objectively vote guilty. When common sense gets thrown out the window it becomes a very scary world to live in.

 

[Spice]

I don't know, Spice, I don't think I'm anything special. I just think as flawed as our system is, it's all we have, and IMO a lot of the flaws come from abuse of the system.

I'll use Joran Van Der Sloot (sp?) as an example. I believe the man is guilty of killing Natalie Holloway, but I understand why he wasn't charged and tried for it, because IMO they didn't have evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he did it. If he had gone to trial and I had been a juror, with the evidence I'm aware of, I would have let him go, even though it would have sickened me to no end.

To me, it is what it is. I may not like the way it is, but until I have a better way, I need to follow it.

Being objective and nonjudgemental is pretty special in my opinion, we live in a very unfair, self-righteous and uninformed world at times. It takes incredible discipline to put aside emotion and opinion to see a bigger picture and be able to frame things in a different way.

As a social work student (almost done!) I struggle every single solitary day with some of the training that I am receiving. It is drilled into our heads over and over to put our bias' aside, to look under the rocks and unearth the bigger picture when helping people.

If we are judging them, we cannot make a difference in helping them or fight against social injustices that have a part in shaping them. For example, I can't truly help an at risk adolescent that I am working with if I judge his or her behavior without trying to first understand the myriad of issues in his greater environment (home and community) that helped shape him/her psychosocially. If I judge his parents (SO HARD NOT TO SOMETIMES) without understanding them, I can't help them to help their child.

The worst project that I EVER had to do was a mandatory research paper and presentation where I had to hypothetically "defend" (more mitigate for) a pedophile who had been sexually abused himself. It was AWFUL and I could barely get through the project. It taught me that I could never work with that population and be effective, it is one of my bias'. We are taught to try and find the inherent worth and dignity in every client, and if we can't do it, we are to pass that client to someone else.

Basically, we are taught not to forgive heinous behavior but to try to understand it and use it in the helping process. Admittedly, I cannot always do so, and I have questioned a lot in the beginning, whether or not this field was for me. We are only human after all. So , I do think it is special that you can be so unbiased and objective, I know all too well how hard that really is, even when you are trained to approach a situation in that way.

Kudos to you.

 

[NocturnalLady]

BBM. You know, that is the only example I ever see of Jeff Ashton being unprofessional. I know he's not perfect, and I would never say he is, but I get tired of seeing that one time he laughed being pulled up and equalled to three years of Jose Baez laughing, not to mention that Jose smirked throughout the trial and did so many other unethical things that he can't hold a candle to Jeff Ashton.

Again, Jeff Ashton is not perfect. He probably wishes he had a done lot of things in that trial differently, and so does HHJP. I just get tired of ONE TIME he laughed being held up as the bar to make him completely unprofessional. I just don't think that is fair to Ashton. So, what other examples are there besides that one time of laughing that makes Ashton unprofessional? I would really like to know this because I all EVER see cited is the one time he laughed. I mean really, one time laughing makes him a bad prosecutor? I don't think so. He followed the law to the best of his ability in that trial, unlike Baez. So he laughed one time. That does not destroy his career or make him a bad prosecutor.

All I'm saying is, if we're going to truly analyze this case, let's try to find more things to stick to someone than one example over and over again.

I think Ashton is a great lawyer. I just don't think he should get a pass on any of his mistakes just because he was playing for the right team.

Other examples - Ashton did plenty of his own "emoting" or whatever you want to call it through out the trial. Just watch him during Jose's opening statements. He was shaking his head no, smirking in disbelief etc. Look at LDB at the same table at the same time. You don't see her doing any of that.

Of course the defense & Casey did the same thing to a much more egregious level. Of course that should have been stopped by HHJP. But just because the DT did it doesn't make it okay for Ashton to do it. I would have liked to see him hold himself to a higher standard than that. I'd bet if you asked him about it now he would say he shouldn't have done that and that he let his emotions get the best of him.

 

[Spice]

Other examples - Ashton did plenty of his own "emoting" or whatever you want to call it through out the trial. Just watch him during Jose's opening statements. He was shaking his head no, smirking in disbelief etc. Look at LDB at the same table at the same time. You don't see her doing any of that.

To be fair, this is true. He did do a lot of that.

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I don't think taking more time would have made a bit of a difference Fish, this case was overexposed in the media to the nth degree. I live 900 miles away from Pinellas and Orlando and I knew every single detail and iota of this case. (which isn't even necessary to make a judgement of guilt) All you would have to hear is baby murdered, 31 days, and imaginary nanny to make an educated guess.

Spice, this is the only thing so far I disagree with you about. I think more time = different jurors and ANYTHING would have been better than the P12. I think the odds of seating someone, ANYONE with common sense would have greater if they had gone longer on jury selection. At least I believe this particular 12 would have been mixed up with (hopefully) more .... err...how to say...thinker types.... :innocent:

 

[NocturnalLady]

I totally agree with this!!! Great post, logicalgirl!

ETA: I think the problem is that some of us are willing to overlook what we consider minor offenses - like JA laughing that one time - when it comes to people who fought hard for Caylee and justice. But people like Baez and the Pinellas 12, who wouldn't know ethics, logic, and reason if it bit them on the butt, they are the ones that get talked about because ALL THEY DID was be unethical and unprofessional. Even HHJP, who I agree probably did make mistakes, retained a professional dignity and never went down to Baez's level. I credit him for that, not use it against him to blame him for the outcome of the trial. Jeff Ashton and HHJP are still brilliant minds who are fantastic at what they do. This trial should not hang on them as something shameful that brings down their entire careers. That is just not fair to them at all.

I am more than willing to talk about mistakes. However, I am not willing to use those mistakes to bash the careers of Ashton and HHJP.

I don't consider it bashing Ashton or HHJP to point out their mistakes. Don't we analyze these cases in the hope of learning something? I'm pretty sure both of those men would make changes if they had it all to do over again.

I highly doubt that the Casey trial will somehow stain their careers. If anything Ashton is capitalizing on the higher profile he gained through the trial in his run for office. (Just to be clear, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. )

 

[TotallyObsessed]

I think Ashton is a great lawyer. I just don't think he should get a pass on any of his mistakes just because he was playing for the right team.

Other examples - Ashton did plenty of his own "emoting" or whatever you want to call it through out the trial. Just watch him during Jose's opening statements. He was shaking his head no, smirking in disbelief etc. Look at LDB at the same table at the same time. You don't see her doing any of that. Of course the defense & Casey did the same thing to a much more egregious level. Of course that should have been stopped by HHJP. But just because the DT did it doesn't make it okay for Ashton to do it. I would have liked to see him hold himself to a higher standard than that. I'd bet if you asked him about it now he would say he shouldn't have done that and that he let his emotions get the best of him.

Yes, he did. But normal reactions to statements made by the Lead Clown in Anthony Circus Parade do not, in any way, equal the egregious misconduct (for which JB was reprimanded time and time again) of the defense team.
I am not trying to be obstinate here...it's just that I cannot believe that the ONE THING Jeff did in open court will go down in history, while ANYTHING JB did will fade into obscurity.

 

[NocturnalLady]

I think one of the major problems with the prosecution case started long before this jury was seated. The fact that in order to find people who had no interest in current affairs and therefore had no knowledge of the extensive news coverage of the case in the years proceeding the jury selection, they had to choose from people who really don't care much about the world around them and therefore these people were completely lost and uninterested in most of the evidence that was presented to them. If this case didn't grab their attention in the news before, what would make anyone think it would grab their attention sitting in that courtroom? I also think some of them may have related to situations of abuse in their own lives and were tuned out and believed that OS lie from the get go.

In order for a jury to understand that evidence and to have been able to put everything together, it required a group of people with at least average intelligence and lots of common sense who could follow the dots and put the puzzle together. People who had some kind of an interest or knowledge in current affairs and the court system and who had perhaps at least followed other cases in the news might have stood a better chance of taking in the evidence and deliberating properly over everything that had been presented. It is well known that most people like this do anything they can to get out of jury duty. I'm sure there were many who did that in this case and are kicking themselves for it now.

This was a group of people who admittedly didn't care much for what was going on around them and lived in a bit of a bubble with themselves and perhaps their immediate circle being the only thing of importance to them. And getting back to that life and their circle of family/friends was probably pretty important to a good deal of them. Either that or some of them lied and had an agenda because of the death penalty on the table, or any number of other reasons...which is entirely possible as well. How ironic that one or more of them could have lied to get on this jury. And if anyone did have an agenda and they were the ones who took up the task of convincing everyone else that there was no case for murder because they needed certain evidence that wasn't presented to them in order to convict then the prosecution never stood a chance from day one.

Jeff Ashton did do a brilliant job in that courtroom but there were times when he could appear to be condescending to someone of average or below average intelligence. I have no idea if any of the jury members fit into this category but if there were I can see them getting their back up when he was "making mincemeat" for lack of a better expression with some of the real doozies that the defence team brought forward. The "plant lady", the "grief lady", the "pigs in a blanket" guy and the loopy old "crack the skull" medical examiner just to name a few. All of them took at least one zinger from JA's arsenal. To most of us at home watching, he was effectively making them look as ridiculous and uncredible as they were. To some members of that jury who may have sympathized with them he may have seemed condescending and disrespectful. For those who, for whatever reason, took to JB, JA would have looked condescending and disrespectful to him on a daily basis. :floorlaugh:

It's so hard to tell exactly what factors led to this disastrous outcome but I really think it started before the jury selection. Perhaps the sunshine law needs to be looked at. I live in Canada where we have publication bans to prevent any kind of jury pool tainting. While it certainly makes following a case not nearly as interesting, I think it's effective in making sure that the prosecution has a better jury pool to choose from.

MOO

BBM I totally agree. I think that Ashton and LDB were perceived by that jury as being "smug, superior and acting like they were smarter than everybody else". That jury responded better to JB who they saw as being an average joe just like them. He smiled at them, he drew little pictures on a big sheet of paper for them etc. Unfortunately I think that counted more for this jury than someone of obvious intelligence explaining the evidence to them. There are certain types of people who resent other people who are smarter than they are and I think the jury was loaded with people like that.

I thought LDB was really great through out the trial. But I'll bet the jury really disliked her. Intelligent, capable and professional women spark alot of dislike in some people who lack those qualities...

 

[Spice]

Spice, this is the only thing so far I disagree with you about. I think more time = different jurors and ANYTHING would have been better than the P12. I think the odds of seating someone, ANYONE with common sense would have greater if they had gone longer on jury selection. At least I believe this particular 12 would have been mixed up with (hopefully) more .... err...how to say...thinker types.... :innocent:

It's possible, if only we could go back in time and find out. It still can't believe that "jury." What a bunch of ...........:banghead:

If just ONE of the two that were voting guilty would have stuck to their guns he or she would have truly been Caylee's hero. That person could have stood up for her and spoken for her when her own grandparents and uncle wouldn't even do so.

 

[NocturnalLady]

I totally believe in Goverment transparency and to be fair the PT asked for a gag order. What is wrong is the DT fighting it and then wanting a change of venue.

BBM

SO true! I wonder if HHJP could have said no way to the change of venue based on that issue. That would have been an interesting thing to see.

 

[NocturnalLady]

Small correction:

Ashton, George, and Drane-Burdick played them like a Stradivarius.

Jose played them like a cheap fiddle.

Turns out they were cheap fiddles. No recognition of a concerto, but a deep kinship with some backwoods chicken screeching.

That's about the best description I have heard of this jury! :floorlaugh:

 

[Spice]

BBM

SO true! I wonder if HHJP could have said no way to the change of venue based on that issue. That would have been an interesting thing to see.

If she were tried and found guilty in Orange County, that would have been a guaranteed mistrial and they would have had to start all over again.

 

[NocturnalLady]

I still think the not guilty verdict was gonna be their payday. They just seriously under estimated the backlash and once they saw it decided that might not be the way to go.

Agree 100%. I'm glad they got cold feet in the end though. I still think we might see some books come trickling out in the next few years though when the major interest has died down some...

 

[NocturnalLady]

I think the problem lies in the assumption that it is a good thing to have people who are uninformed about the case. Who says knowledge beforehand = inability to think critically and decide fairly? They could still vet the jurors effectively even if they watched the news or read the docs imo.

Totally agree. I can't get over what a fallacy it is to chose people who "know nothing" to judge anything!

That said Casey certainly did get a jury of her peers - know nothings who cared less.

 

[LolaMoon08]

I had the craziest dream last night... and I mean crazy!! A lot of you were in this dream as Webslueths was not just an online forum... I had actually stepped into Webslueths as it was now a real office. Tons of files, computers, evidence, books, papers, etc... I would say it resembled a law office and a nightclub in one as we had a bar (I can only assume it was the sidebar?) just outside the office where we would all meet up.

I don't know if I should go any further with this dream, as we had found Casey Anthony herself hiding in the closet underneath AZLawyer's fur coat? She was spying on us.

 

[NocturnalLady]

Again, that is the way our SYSTEM is set up and Judge Perry is in charge of upholding and overseeing that system. People are angry and shooting the messenger.

How could jury selection be his fault? What were we left with to choose from after three years of intense media attention and five billion pages of documents dumped ?

How is that his fault? They were left with the bottom of the barrel. People that didn't even pick up a newspaper to read about what was going on in the world and the communities around them. Lazy, apathetic, people.

The jury is not supposed to be selected to hang her, it is selected to be fair and impartial to BOTH SIDES, which is why they both have a certain amount of strikes. They had to find 16 people with no knowledge of the case, that made enough money and had enough resources to be away from their jobs and families for at least a couple of months, and under severe budget constraints, while inconveniencing and borrowing a courtroom in another country. Not an easy task.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. jmo.

Certainly HHJP couldn't get around the jury system. BUT he did make it worse by rushing selection, "rehabilitating" people who should never have served on that jury, allowing selection of jurors who clearly had motivation that would inhibit their desire to deliberate the case properly (ie. people who had booked vacations and had stated they didn't want to serve because they didn't want to miss their vacation) and also sequestering the jury (this is a big can of worms and I know people will have very different opinions BUT I see no reason to have sequestered that jury).