The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree? #4

[cityslick]

I too watched the entire jury selection and kind of shrugged at some of the selections, but wrongly make the assumption that each individual would see the seriousness of this case and the information they would hear. I also assumed they would make a genuine effort to listen carefully, absorb ALL of the information, weigh and balance their objectives and instructions and come to an informed decision.

But one thing never occurred to me - that this jury wouldn't actually "decide on " any of the evidence. That no decisions would be made, that no evidence would be carefully weighed and balanced. That their primary effort would be to get the heck out of sequestration and go home. That no way would they stay to go through a penalty phase.

So you are right, we never know what they will decide on. But I had high expectations that were not fulfilled. I expected them to make decisions, which they chose not to make at all. It was apparently beyond their combined ability to follow directions and connect any dots. They wanted a TV style trial, but instead were unable to grasp the difference between speculation and hard evidence. I feel certain that in their own minds, they will forever question their own completely inane behaviour. And we will forever be left with one question about the crime and their lack of decision - the question will be "why"?

I'm just glad it isn't me who is forever for life wearing the T-Shirt that reads "I let a killer go free".

I agree with everything you posted. My point was more to the fact that believe it or not, this stuff with juries happens in hundreds of courtrooms in this country all the time. Juries wind up getting it wrong one way or the other but there is no way to tell that at the beginning of a trial. I've read some suggestions that we should do IQ testing and stuff like that but is that really going to guarantee the verdict you want? They can institute all these kinds of 'parameters' to serve on a jury and the first time that 'new age' jury returns a verdict that's unpopular/wrong in the eyes of the majority, then what? Will it make people feel better that a NG verdict was rendered because the jury had a high IQ, took a common sense test and sat in the jury room for a week to deliberate?

It wouldn't make me feel better. If I believe someone should of been found guilty, I don't care if they deliberated a day/week/month and had reviewed every single piece of evidence. It would still be the wrong decision in my eyes and the anger would still be there. I wouldn't be 'comforted' by the fact that they 'took their time'. The hell with that, they got it wrong.

 

[bananarama]

I have been a fan of Investigation Discovery for a very long time. I am having allot of difficulty watching it these days, especially when it comes to shows involving trials. The other night I watched "Murdered in the Moonlight", about a couple who went for a walk on a secluded Jacksonville beach. They were supposedly attacked and shot by a mugger. She died, he didn't. A grand jury indicted him for murder. The trial lasted seven days. The jury deliberated for FOUR days! They asked to review testimony. They did what they were supposed to do. They found him guilty and sentenced him to death. The judge overrode that decision and sentenced him to life. He has exhausted all of his appeals.
I am still so heart broken that Caylee's jury did not give her the time to completely review all of the evidence presented. I keep seeing these stories where so many people were convicted on much less evidence. I guess being sequestered for six weeks was too much to handle. They couldn't give Caylee the time she so very much deserved!

 

[logicalgirl]

I have been a fan of Investigation Discovery for a very long time. I am having allot of difficulty watching it these days, especially when it comes to shows involving trials. The other night I watched "Murdered in the Moonlight", about a couple who went for a walk on a secluded Jacksonville beach. They were supposedly attacked and shot by a mugger. She died, he didn't. A grand jury indicted him for murder. The trial lasted seven days. The jury deliberated for FOUR days! They asked to review testimony. They did what they were supposed to do. They found him guilty and sentenced him to death. The judge overrode that decision and sentenced him to life. He has exhausted all of his appeals.
I am still so heart broken that Caylee's jury did not give her the time to completely review all of the evidence presented. I keep seeing these stories where so many people were convicted on much less evidence. I guess being sequestered for six weeks was too much to handle. They couldn't give Caylee the time she so very much deserved!

Agree. I was sitting the other night casually flipping the channels and saw an advertisement for two young slick lawyers, who were talking about winning trials - follow the evidence, follow the law, and if none of that works, have a big busted blonde take her shirt of in the witness box - said as they were showing a clip of it - oh yeah, sure - you guys can count on me watching your show about a couple of smart "hat" lawyers.........like no freaking way will I ever watch another TV show about defense lawyers and the tricks they pull to win. Never, Ever, EVER!

 

[Openmyeyes]

I have been a fan of Investigation Discovery for a very long time. I am having allot of difficulty watching it these days, especially when it comes to shows involving trials. The other night I watched "Murdered in the Moonlight", about a couple who went for a walk on a secluded Jacksonville beach. They were supposedly attacked and shot by a mugger. She died, he didn't. A grand jury indicted him for murder. The trial lasted seven days. The jury deliberated for FOUR days! They asked to review testimony. They did what they were supposed to do. They found him guilty and sentenced him to death. The judge overrode that decision and sentenced him to life. He has exhausted all of his appeals.
I am still so heart broken that Caylee's jury did not give her the time to completely review all of the evidence presented. I keep seeing these stories where so many people were convicted on much less evidence. I guess being sequestered for six weeks was too much to handle. They couldn't give Caylee the time she so very much deserved!

I watched this trial on Court tv, as it happened and this dude was absolutely guilty. The jury did their job, unlike KC's jury. I've been fairly quiet since the trial, but honestly, I will never come to terms with them letting KC walk. I think this jury was tampered with. How, I don't know, but their conclusion baffles me and the only way I can come to terms with their decision is to believe this. The fear of the death penalty justified the set up. Some day down the road one of the folks that had some inside info on the set up will eventually talk about it.

Now, if we can just get George and Cindy to say what they are doing to
find Caylees killer......

 

[PeteyGirl]

I agree with everything you posted. My point was more to the fact that believe it or not, this stuff with juries happens in hundreds of courtrooms in this country all the time. Juries wind up getting it wrong one way or the other but there is no way to tell that at the beginning of a trial.

Ain't that the truth :crazy: well, as it should be.

I've read some suggestions that we should do IQ testing and stuff like that but is that really going to guarantee the verdict you want?

Ahh. No, "the verdict you want" is not the point, ever. The verdict that is reached by intelligent, thorough evaluation of the evidence (or lack thereof) via jury instructions is what you mean, I think?

They can institute all these kinds of 'parameters' to serve on a jury and the first time that 'new age' jury returns a verdict that's unpopular/wrong in the eyes of the majority, then what? Will it make people feel better that a NG verdict was rendered because the jury had a high IQ, took a common sense test and sat in the jury room for a week to deliberate?

Not sure what a "new age jury" means, am I right in thinking it means a revamped, screened and tested jury?

If so, I think a person of average intelligence and average everything is perfectly capable of rendering an "accurate" verdict. What seemed to happen, was (as stated by JF) the OPPOSITE of "we judged by the law, not by emotion" (oh, the iorny ). They mistook EMOTIONALISM for FACT, because of how compelling it felt to them.

I don't think what we really and truly want is "intelligence". It is somewhat overrated. What we want is a jury made up of people who take responsibility for the job in front of them. Come to think of it, maybe that is a kind of "emotional intelligence"? Oh, the iorny again .

It wouldn't make me feel better. If I believe someone should of been found guilty, I don't care if they deliberated a day/week/month and had reviewed every single piece of evidence. It would still be the wrong decision in my eyes and the anger would still be there. I wouldn't be 'comforted' by the fact that they 'took their time'. The hell with that, they got it wrong.

Well, here's a thought. If *I* believe someone should be found guilty or not is not the point. It's not about what *I* think. Even my disagreement about the verdict for FCA is not about what *I* wanted or thought. It's not PERSONAL, to me. I (to the best of my ability) judged the evidence against common sense, what I understand of the law and human nature, and came up with "guilty". I share this conclusion with a majority of the people, some of whom base their conclusion on pure emotionalism and some who base theirs upon an exercise in reason. The waystations along the road to my conclusion were also marked by others, who reached them independently, which affirms I am probably going in the right direction. There is basis in fact for "the majority rules", and yes, there are historical events where the majority got it wrong, but that is fortunately rare.

I hope this made some sense :waitasec: , and you asked some very good questions.

 

[PeteyGirl]

I watched this trial on Court tv, as it happened and this dude was absolutely guilty. The jury did their job, unlike KC's jury. I've been fairly quiet since the trial, but honestly, I will never come to terms with them letting KC walk. I think this jury was tampered with.

I am very reluctant to agree with this. At least in the conventional sense of "tampering" (a deliberate act). Less dramatically, I sense that at least one person on this jury was charismatic and outspoken, and had a way of making a person feel "stupid" if they disagreed with him/her.

Also, perhaps, there was a "perfect storm" of submissive or unconfident personality types in this jury (here's my conspiracy theory lol) deliberately selected for via the jury consultant process. Combine that with at least one charismatic person good at shaming others . . .

Just a thought. I guess I trust the system enough to be able to evacuate a "plant", but I wouldn't swear on it.

How, I don't know, but their conclusion baffles me and the only way I can come to terms with their decision is to believe this. The fear of the death penalty justified the set up. Some day down the road one of the folks that had some inside info on the set up will eventually talk about it.

Very, very possible. If what Jennifer Ford said in her first interview was any indication, I agree with this. It also clues us into how poorly the jury understood the basics of their responsibility, what was at that point, to determine guilt, NOT determine sentencing.

Now, if we can just get George and Cindy to say what they are doing to find Caylees killer......

God, please, NOOOOO!!!! We've been through that already :crazy: . It probably causes cancer to listen to such pure idiocy presented as fact.

 

[PeteyGirl]

I too watched the entire jury selection and kind of shrugged at some of the selections, but wrongly make the assumption that each individual would see the seriousness of this case and the information they would hear. I also assumed they would make a genuine effort to listen carefully, absorb ALL of the information, weigh and balance their objectives and instructions and come to an informed decision.

Go figure, I also had the same fallacy :crazy: :banghead: :crazy: Silly us!

But one thing never occurred to me - that this jury wouldn't actually "decide on " any of the evidence. That no decisions would be made, that no evidence would be carefully weighed and balanced. That their primary effort would be to get the heck out of sequestration and go home. That no way would they stay to go through a penalty phase.

Me either. This is what will continue to shock and appall me more than a not guilty verdict.

So you are right, we never know what they will decide on. But I had high expectations that were not fulfilled.

Yep. I sense you too have a decent faith in the 'system'.

I expected them to make decisions, which they chose not to make at all.

"Chose", not "forced by bad evidence" or Ashton's theatrics. CHOSE.

But no . . . we are expected to believe this jury was helpless to make any other decision and stay within the LAW.

It was apparently beyond their combined ability to follow directions and connect any dots. They wanted a TV style trial, but instead were unable to grasp the difference between speculation and hard evidence.

Perhaps their combined ability to justify their helplessness and general cowardice was a tad too strong. My personal pet paranoia is that this was selected for by the jury consultants.

I feel certain that in their own minds, they will forever question their own completely inane behaviour. And we will forever be left with one question about the crime and their lack of decision - the question will be "why"?

I certainly hope so. In my experience (I am fascinated with this stuff, in myself and others too), an awful lot of justification goes into defending mistakes, to the point that the most insane mistake gets "justified" so you can live with yourself.

When I say that I hope these jury members learn something important for themselves out of this, this is what I mean. We (thank God) are not challenged with these kinds of decisions, just the daily types regarding job performance, financial choices, etc. This jury's collective choice could not have been made by people who INDIVIDUALLY make "good choices" when confronted with the Big Stuff. These jurists probably have histories of failing to buck up. Just my opinion and semi-educated armchair psychology guess.

A person's life is made good or not so good because of the quality of their choices. And the jurists here could learn a lot about themselves, and how their willingness to take the easy way out has caused unnecessary pain and hardship.

i am a poster child for having made some crappy choices and living with the consequences, because I refused to engage my courage. Probably a lot of folks here can relate. The point is to learn from your mistakes. First, you have to be brave and humble enough to admit you made one. Second, you have to care enough about yourself to follow through and see where you went astray, and third, forgive yourself and "repent", so to speak, of those immature ways.

I'm just glad it isn't me who is forever for life wearing the T-Shirt that reads "I let a killer go free".

God, no kidding. I will keep this in mind.

 

[PeteyGirl]

<mod snip>

I posted again and again that I thought that they were doing a fantastic job defending this <mod snip>. They didn't use facts, except where the prosecution did not have them, they used razzle dazzle and misdirection, they threw out theory after theory, look over here, no over there, no back here, if the glove doesn't fit Casey didn't do s**t... and yeah, they lost damn near every objection. It was a freaking sideshow.

And it worked. It worked because the prosecution started playing their game and they overplayed the actual evidence that they had. This case is not based on internet searches and weird-science chloroform detectors, it is based on Casey's conduct. Who she is, what she did, how she acted. Her lies and her parties and her tattoos. The stuff that shows, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the pretty girl in the prim and homey collared shirts is not the real ICA. That the real ICA is a lying manipulative evil ***** who murdered her infant so she could keep clubbing.

You know, the stuff the prosecution didn't really bother with until the last possible minute, when it was pretty much too late.

My Opinion Only

Interesting, Chris. Why wouldn't the prosecution not be above reacting in a self-defeating way to the defense? They are fallible human beings, too.

What gets me is how the jury decided the prosecution was mortally wounded by their shortcomings, while the defense was practically SANCTIFIED by their shortcomings?

Ah, even more fuel for my paranoia around how this jury was selected :crazy:

Victim-think. Anti-authoritarianism. Poor little ole "me", and identifying with the "victim", who was NOT Caylee Marie, mind you, but poor Mr Baez and pathetic little Casey Anthony. I'll bet that can be "selected for" by devious jury consultants too.

As suspicious as I am of my OWN paranoia, it is all making too darn much sense for me to toss it out . . .

 

[PeteyGirl]

<<snipped>>

But IMO, the State was not defeated by the defense (fools or not), even though that is what the official record will show. The jury cost the State this case, as I tend to believe most experts who before the verdict asserted that the State had presented a complete and convincing case. Lesson learned at the State Attorney's office that even when you have a strong circumstantial case, you need to pay strict attention to jury selection with regards to both venue and the candidates available to sit on the jury.

Amen.

I hope the State(s) will learn something from this failure of justice. That what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Am I remembering rightly that the state did not use jury consultants, while only the defense did?

If this is the case, the state of Florida DID indeed proceed with too much confidence. They had too much faith in their evidence. Not that the evidence was not good enough, but in underestimating the bumbling inexperience of Baez who was being guided by very experienced defense attorneys.

The defense "won" because they exploited weakness. Right under everyone's noses!!

I for one could barely tolerate watching Baez making a ditz out of himself, or watching an experienced atty like Mason resort to bullying. I thought this would be SO obvious to the jury it was barely worth noting.

How wrong I was, too.

 

[AuburnSchnauzer]

I totally disagree with the verdict. I would like to know the background and makeup of the jurors. There was more evidence in the Caylee case than there was in the Laci & Connor Peterson case!!! And the jurors in that case had no dam problem finding him guilty of 1st degree murder. His atty can appeal but the fact that that panel of jurors "SAW IT" and this panel of jurors "WERE BLINDED" really ticks me off.....There was no Cause of Death in that case, either...remember...

 

[PeteyGirl]

I totally disagree with the verdict. I would like to know the background and makeup of the jurors. There was more evidence in the Caylee case than there was in the Laci & Connor Peterson case!!! And the jurors in that case had no dam problem finding him guilty of 1st degree murder. His atty can appeal but the fact that that panel of jurors "SAW IT" and this panel of jurors "WERE BLINDED" really ticks me off.....There was no Cause of Death in that case, either...remember...

Precisely the point most of us are struggling with.

I suspect a triumph of jury selection on the part of the defense team.

 

[GracieLu]

Agree. I was sitting the other night casually flipping the channels and saw an advertisement for two young slick lawyers, who were talking about winning trials - follow the evidence, follow the law, and if none of that works, have a big busted blonde take her shirt of in the witness box - said as they were showing a clip of it - oh yeah, sure - you guys can count on me watching your show about a couple of smart "hat" lawyers.........like no freaking way will I ever watch another TV show about defense lawyers and the tricks they pull to win. Never, Ever, EVER!

this is a little off topic but kind of along the same lines. the other night i was watching an hbo documentary "there is something wrong with aunt diane." about halfway through the documentary, diane's husband and sister in law make a visit to none other than DR. SPITZ! of course when i saw dr. spitz i immediately thought "quack" (and other words I cannot post or may get kicked out of WS's).

anyway, for the rest of my life ill look upon the players in this case as disgusting and now get where all the jokes and hate towards defense lawyers comes from...

 

[Aedrys]

Amen.

I hope the State(s) will learn something from this failure of justice. That what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Am I remembering rightly that the state did not use jury consultants, while only the defense did?

If this is the case, the state of Florida DID indeed proceed with too much confidence. They had too much faith in their evidence. Not that the evidence was not good enough, but in underestimating the bumbling inexperience of Baez who was being guided by very experienced defense attorneys.

The defense "won" because they exploited weakness. Right under everyone's noses!!

I for one could barely tolerate watching Baez making a ditz out of himself, or watching an experienced atty like Mason resort to bullying. I thought this would be SO obvious to the jury it was barely worth noting.

How wrong I was, too.

Respectfully, the state did not lose this case because they didn't have a jury consultant. The case was lost because jury selection was rushed, and the DT got lucky. As much as I complained about how slow it was going, I think it should have gone on until a better jury was selected. The state and the DT had to deal with what they got. HHJP, as much as I like him, didn't want this jury selection to take too long, and rushed the deadlines for it so the trial would start on time. No one really had time to really pick a good jury for either side, IMO. I mean, the defense, as the jury went to deliberations and even when waiting to hear the verdict in court, thought they had lost. If they really thought they had the jury, they would have been a lot more confident of no conviction, and they weren't. I think the state thought they had done a good job, and that the jury would be intelligent and competent enough to use logic and reasoning to come to a good verdict, but the jury didn't. Everyone was surprised at the verdict. I honestly don't even think the DT's jury consultant helped them that much. The DT just got lucky because jury selection was rushed, and people who didn't want to be on the jury had to be on it (even if they said they wanted to be on it, it's obvious no one wanted to be there). However, even during trial, I know I thought the jury was agreeing more with the prosecution than the defense. They had me totally fooled, and when talking about liking the defense more, I kept saying to myself, it just didn't seem to be that way at the time of the trial! Not at all! It was pure luck that this jury sided with the defense. Seriously, I think a coin toss was about the odds of this jury going one way or another, not because of the DT's jury consultant.

 

[PeteyGirl]

Respectfully, the state did not lose this case because they didn't have a jury consultant. The case was lost because jury selection was rushed, and the DT got lucky. As much as I complained about how slow it was going, I think it should have gone on until a better jury was selected. The state and the DT had to deal with what they got. HHJP, as much as I like him, didn't want this jury selection to take too long, and rushed the deadlines for it so the trial would start on time. No one really had time to really pick a good jury for either side, IMO. I mean, the defense, as the jury went to deliberations and even when waiting to hear the verdict in court, thought they had lost. If they really thought they had the jury, they would have been a lot more confident of no conviction, and they weren't. I think the state thought they had done a good job, and that the jury would be intelligent and competent enough to use logic and reasoning to come to a good verdict, but the jury didn't. Everyone was surprised at the verdict. I honestly don't even think the DT's jury consultant helped them that much. The DT just got lucky because jury selection was rushed, and people who didn't want to be on the jury had to be on it (even if they said they wanted to be on it, it's obvious no one wanted to be there). However, even during trial, I know I thought the jury was agreeing more with the prosecution than the defense. They had me totally fooled, and when talking about liking the defense more, I kept saying to myself, it just didn't seem to be that way at the time of the trial! Not at all! It was pure luck that this jury sided with the defense. Seriously, I think a coin toss was about the odds of this jury going one way or another, not because of the DT's jury consultant.

This makes as much sense with the known facts as my paranoia :crazy:, probably a lot more because paranoia is not a very reliable indicator of truth .

I guess I want some sort of explanation, so that similar mistakes can be prevented in the future.

I am old enough to know that a lot of mistakes are NOT preventable and have no cause that can be controlled. It's like genetics, so many variables that it's still impossible to keep track of them, much less control them.

I agree that the DT was as flabbergasted at the verdict as anyone. I realize they were mostly hoping to keep Casey from getting the DP, but got so much more.

 

[Baznme]

We would like trials to be about truth. They are not. They are about reaching a verdict.

I learned this a long time ago when I was called upon to testify as an expert at a trial. I, like several others that were there, knew exactly what happened.

No one in that courtroom was interested.

Then it's high time the American public does something about it. When you take the oath before you get on the stand to testify, do they not state "Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God"? That's why you're there. That's allegedly what's expected to ultimately aid the jury in coming up with a fair and just verdict. If you don't believe that is what happened in your case, perhaps it's time you jumped on the bandwagon and help change things.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7026925&postcount=250"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - How the defense team used social media to their advantage[/ame]

 

[cityslick]

This makes as much sense with the known facts as my paranoia :crazy:, probably a lot more because paranoia is not a very reliable indicator of truth .

I guess I want some sort of explanation, so that similar mistakes can be prevented in the future.

I am old enough to know that a lot of mistakes are NOT preventable and have no cause that can be controlled. It's like genetics, so many variables that it's still impossible to keep track of them, much less control them.

I agree that the DT was as flabbergasted at the verdict as anyone. I realize they were mostly hoping to keep Casey from getting the DP, but got so much more.

BBM

This was mainly the point of my post above. Because the way our system works, there is no way to determine that a jury will not make what you call in your opinion 'mistakes. As long as you continue to choose a jury of peers, you are always subject to them making a decision that you don't agree with or feel is correct. That's another word that gets tossed around, 'correct'. According to our system of justice, there is no such thing as a correct or incorrect verdict. You may not accept the verdict the jury rendered, but juries are not instructed to reach the only 'correct' verdict.

Here's an example. Recently in my area there was a trial of a guy who got in a car accident and killed a girl. The guy was accused of vehicular manslaughter (and some other charges) because he got in the car intoxicated. But, according to evidence he did get out of the car and try to help the girl. He (and defense witnesses) testified that he tried to slow down when he saw the other car but it was too late.

The jury only gave him 2.5 yrs, mainly because there was no intent. Was that the 'correct' verdict? Was this jury not paying attention, or wanted to get out of there (the trial only lasted 3 weeks)? Of course not, but the jury did not go into it with that frame of mind. My point is no matter how you screen a jury, you are always going to have instances like this. And no explanation is ever going to be sufficient to explain why they reached the conclusion they did.

 

[MissJames]

I have been a fan of Investigation Discovery for a very long time. I am having allot of difficulty watching it these days, especially when it comes to shows involving trials. The other night I watched "Murdered in the Moonlight", about a couple who went for a walk on a secluded Jacksonville beach. They were supposedly attacked and shot by a mugger. She died, he didn't. A grand jury indicted him for murder. The trial lasted seven days. The jury deliberated for FOUR days! They asked to review testimony. They did what they were supposed to do. They found him guilty and sentenced him to death. The judge overrode that decision and sentenced him to life. He has exhausted all of his appeals.
I am still so heart broken that Caylee's jury did not give her the time to completely review all of the evidence presented. I keep seeing these stories where so many people were convicted on much less evidence. I guess being sequestered for six weeks was too much to handle. They couldn't give Caylee the time she so very much deserved!

If it's the same trial,I remember it. Didn't he downoad songs that were incriminating and he took awhile to get help?
His computer forensics were even less incriminating than "how to make chloroform" and "how to kill with household products"(paraphrasing by memory) .The time he took to report was minutes or hours,not a month,yet he was still found guilty. :banghead: It all comes back to the (unusual) jurors.

 

[PeteyGirl]

BBM

This was mainly the point of my post above. Because the way our system works, there is no way to determine that a jury will not make what you call in your opinion 'mistakes. As long as you continue to choose a jury of peers, you are always subject to them making a decision that you don't agree with or feel is correct. That's another word that gets tossed around, 'correct'. According to our system of justice, there is no such thing as a correct or incorrect verdict. You may not accept the verdict the jury rendered, but juries are not instructed to reach the only 'correct' verdict.

Here's an example. Recently in my area there was a trial of a guy who got in a car accident and killed a girl. The guy was accused of vehicular manslaughter (and some other charges) because he got in the car intoxicated. But, according to evidence he did get out of the car and try to help the girl. He (and defense witnesses) testified that he tried to slow down when he saw the other car but it was too late.

The jury only gave him 2.5 yrs, mainly because there was no intent. Was that the 'correct' verdict? Was this jury not paying attention, or wanted to get out of there (the trial only lasted 3 weeks)? Of course not, but the jury did not go into it with that frame of mind. My point is no matter how you screen a jury, you are always going to have instances like this. And no explanation is ever going to be sufficient to explain why they reached the conclusion they did.

It's hard for me to compare the two trials and outcomes because they are so different, right from the roots on up.

OF COURSE the jury won't and shouldn't be expected to make the call *I* or *we* prefer. Of course they can make an unpredictable decision. No one I'm aware of here calls their verdict a "mistake" just because they are angry it was not the verdict they prefer.

I/we feel outraged the jury made what they did out of a body of evidence. When a few jurors stepped forward to explain their decision, they admitted to misunderstanding jury instructions. In describing how they came to their conclusion, they demonstrated grossly inappropriate decision making skills.

I'd have a heck of an easier time accepting their verdict if they'd reached it using actual reason. By their own words, they were distracted by the defense team to focus on George Anthony. They ignored forensic evidence (for what it was worth) and even WORSE, they ignored clear behavioral indicators on the part of FCA that indicated consciousness of guilt. They refused to string the evidence together, as they were obliged to do. Ten hours of deliberation in a complex circumstantial case is not enough time.

 

[mimmy03]

If it's the same trial,I remember it. Didn't he downoad songs that were incriminating and he took awhile to get help?
His computer forensics were even less incriminating than "how to make chloroform" and "how to kill with household products"(paraphrasing by memory) .The time he took to report was minutes or hours,not a month,yet he was still found guilty. :banghead: It all comes back to the (unusual) jurors.

i remember that case (used to live in Jacksonville) and i think there was a lot of circumstantial evidence and he was still convicted.

 

[Sustained]

i remember that case (used to live in Jacksonville) and i think there was a lot of circumstantial evidence and he was still convicted.

Yep, he also shot himself 3-4 times to make it look like a robbery gone bad.