Trial Analysis

[LancelotLink]

Wow. Forgey was GREAT!
Jose never ceases to amaze me.
Jose was so intent on trying to make him look inept, he uttered the following:
"I don't believe a dead body in the backyard is a disputed issue in this case."
So, in his brilliance, did he really place her dead body in the backyard? Then why try to discredit the cadaver dog searches?
Was this like the car trunk? Was there another dead body? Or is this the same evidence of a homicide that George drove off the towlot?
What a great defense!!

 

[Whisperer]

The key word in reasonable doubt is the word reasonable. I believe to many people confuse this into thinking that the system must prove an individual guilty beyond the shadow of doubt. It may seem like semantics but the two are very different. I do however completely agree with Miss Plum.
You have to understand that these networks are about ratings and these shows on HLH and TruTV, ect are for entertainment. These "analysts" are basically nothing more then actors with "credentials". That or have their own agenda when giving their "professional" opinion.

So which one is going to keep you watching more? A show that agrees the SA has this in the bag or a show that causes a bit of controversy and builds up the defense as though it has a strong case when everything points to the contrary.

Case in point we are talking about it right now.

Thank you for pointing this important fact out to many of us.

This is the most important part for the jury to understand. Unless all jurors are well-educated and can abstract think, their understanding of this concept falls on death-ears.

They will sit there and shake their heads and say they understand Reasonable Doubt is common to witness. Having been on a jury, I say not all people grasp the concept.

O.J.'s jury didnt'. If they had, he never would have walked. It is important to get a complete pool of people sitting who can fully understand. IMO, many still operate on "Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt"...how pitiful!!

 

[Whisperer]

Watched Dr. Drew show and Joy Behars (sp?) show last night. Almost all the analyst are saying that the defense is doing a good job at showing reasonable doubt. I'm not seeing how they are coming to that conclusion. Are they watching the same trial???:waitasec:

Can someone else that sees it please let me know what exactly the defense has shown???

Nothing..I can see.

Most of the Hollywood types are people that don't deal with logic very well. They are "Feeling" types. They get all muddled up when you confuse them with the facts. Don't worry about Joy Behar's opinions. Dr. Drew also leans towards Defense type situations...afterall, that is his job. He tries to help and explain away the down-trodden.

 

[Nova]

Thank you for pointing this important fact out to many of us.

This is the most important part for the jury to understand. Unless all jurors are well-educated and can abstract think, their understanding of this concept falls on death-ears.

They will sit there and shake their heads and say they understand Reasonable Doubt is common to witness. Having been on a jury, I say not all people grasp the concept.

O.J.'s jury didnt'. If they had, he never would have walked. It is important to get a complete pool of people sitting who can fully understand. IMO, many still operate on "Beyond a Shadow of a Doubt"...how pitiful!!

BBM: In fairness to the OJ murder jury, the trial was moved to inner city Los Angeles, far from Brentwood, where the murder took place. Now those of us who lived on L.A.'s Westside (which includes Brentwood) knew perfectly well that (a) fame trumps race in Hollywood, and (b) Westside policemen aren't going to risk their careers by framing a celebrity. We had no reasonable doubt as to Simpson's guilt.

But in the many LAPD scandals that followed, it became clear that an instant police conspiracy was NOT such an unreasonable concept to jurors in inner-city L.A., where the trial was held.

That's the thing about "reasonable" doubt: we all reason based on our past experiences. If two people (or two groups of 12 people) have very different past experiences, they may find the same evidence leading to different, yet equally "reasonable" conclusions.

(And though the burden of proof is somewhat less and Simpson had to take the stand, when the civil trial was held near the scene of the crime, the result was a unanimous verdict against Simpson.)

I doubt that any of this will apply in the Anthony case, but it's something to keep in mind while we wait for a jury to decide what is "reasonable doubt."

 

[Nova]

Nothing..I can see.

Most of the Hollywood types are people that don't deal with logic very well. They are "Feeling" types. They get all muddled up when you confuse them with the facts. Don't worry about Joy Behar's opinions. Dr. Drew also leans towards Defense type situations...afterall, that is his job. He tries to help and explain away the down-trodden.

I wouldn't blame "Hollywood types." They're competing for viewers and, in fact, most people don't deal with logic very well.

 

[Mamabear1963]

Wasn't sure where to put this but it is trial analysis...

JB and the DT are obviously on a low end budget...and possibly...acting more like that than they really are...

Easel
Pictures

As opposed to the states high tech presentation....

I haven't been too worried about a conviction up until this morning...as I was sitting here thinking about it....if we have some jurors that have an issue with big government spending and feeling for the little guy that can't afford anything...

Does that make sense?

What do you all think...
Is the SA is coming off as very sophisticated and high tech...or just big government with lots of money?

Is the DT coming off as a bumbling lot of clowns that need to go back to school ...or...is the jury going to feel for them because they had limited funds?

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Wow. Forgey was GREAT!
Jose never ceases to amaze me.
Jose was so intent on trying to make him look inept, he uttered the following:
"I don't believe a dead body in the backyard is a disputed issue in this case."
So, in his brilliance, did he really place her dead body in the backyard? Then why try to discredit the cadaver dog searches?
Was this like the car trunk? Was there another dead body? Or is this the same evidence of a homicide that George drove off the towlot?
What a great defense!!

ITA. When he was making up his little "theory" he should have taken the path of least resistance and conjured something up which was consistent with what the experts claimed. No we have cadaver dogs that are only right when he needs them to be, and all of the bizarre circumstances needed to explain the chloroform.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Wasn't sure where to put this but it is trial analysis...

JB and the DT are obviously on a low end budget...and possibly...acting more like that than they really are...

Easel
Pictures

As opposed to the states high tech presentation....

I haven't been too worried about a conviction up until this morning...as I was sitting here thinking about it....if we have some jurors that have an issue with big government spending and feeling for the little guy that can't afford anything...

Does that make sense?

What do you all think...
Is the SA is coming off as very sophisticated and high tech...or just big government with lots of money?

Is the DT coming off as a bumbling lot of clowns that need to go back to school ...or...is the jury going to feel for them because they had limited funds?

the state comes off as effecient imo. I don't know how the jurors see it, but "Baez" had the chance to learn how to use the technology in the courtroom but couldn't be bothered (if I'm not mistaken). Then you have Mason who refuses to live in the 21st century...and seems proud of it. I don't know if the jury would pick up on that though.

 

[Mamabear1963]

ITA with you HF. I think the SA has their act together...and JB is just trying to get by...(kinda like I used to in HS)

I just hope the jury sees it for what it is...

 

[MelissaLee]

The key word in reasonable doubt is the word reasonable. I believe to many people confuse this into thinking that the system must prove an individual guilty beyond the shadow of doubt. It may seem like semantics but the two are very different. I do however completely agree with Miss Plum.

You have to understand that these networks are about ratings and these shows on HLH and TruTV, ect are for entertainment. These "analysts" are basically nothing more then actors with "credentials". That or have their own agenda when giving their "professional" opinion.

So which one is going to keep you watching more? A show that agrees the SA has this in the bag or a show that causes a bit of controversy and builds up the defense as though it has a strong case when everything points to the contrary.

Case in point we are talking about it right now.

bbm

ITA that too many people, and probably too many Jurors unfortunately, never quite understand "beyond a reasonable doubt". Some may think that if they have ANY doubt in regard to the evidence of the defendant's guilt that is provided by the Prosecution, then that is "reasonable doubt". That's incorrect. In most cases, there will always be some doubt in any thinking person's (read "reasonable") mind, because I think most people by nature look for twists, and answers to "why", or see many "yes, buts". Maybe the keyword is "BEYOND".

To paraphrase a good explanation I recently read somewhere is that "reasonable doubt" means to be convinced by the evidence of guilt presented to a rational, common-sense degree of certainty or belief. If the evidence presented - although at times incapable of dispelling all doubts - leaves a fair and/or sound basis on which to base a verdict, the defendant should be found guilty.

moo

 

[suzihawk]

I have complete confidence that HHJP will thoroughly explain the concept of reasonable doubt to the jurors before they deliberate.

 

[IfIMay]

Wasn't sure where to put this but it is trial analysis...

JB and the DT are obviously on a low end budget...and possibly...acting more like that than they really are...

Easel
Pictures

As opposed to the states high tech presentation....

I haven't been too worried about a conviction up until this morning...as I was sitting here thinking about it....if we have some jurors that have an issue with big government spending and feeling for the little guy that can't afford anything...

Does that make sense?

What do you all think...
Is the SA is coming off as very sophisticated and high tech...or just big government with lots of money?

Is the DT coming off as a bumbling lot of clowns that need to go back to school ...or...is the jury going to feel for them because they had limited funds?

I would think it would be cheaper and easier to use the technology PROVIDED in the courtroom and the State's photos in evidence than to spend money blowing them up poster size to parade around the room with. Seems a foolish waste of Taxpayers' money to me. :waitasec:

 

[fridaybaker]

I have complete confidence that HHJP will thoroughly explain the concept of reasonable doubt to the jurors before they deliberate.

But will they understand it???

 

[downport]

BBM: In fairness to the OJ murder jury, the trial was moved to inner city Los Angeles, far from Brentwood, where the murder took place. Now those of us who lived on L.A.'s Westside (which includes Brentwood) knew perfectly well that (a) fame trumps race in Hollywood, and (b) Westside policemen aren't going to risk their careers by framing a celebrity. We had no reasonable doubt as to Simpson's guilt.

But in the many LAPD scandals that followed, it became clear that an instant police conspiracy was NOT such an unreasonable concept to jurors in inner-city L.A., where the trial was held.

It also helps to remember that the OJ trial came on the heels of the Rodney King beatings & the subsequent aquital of the cops involved ... And the race riots that followed ( remember Reginald Deney being dragged from his truck ?).

Jonny Cochoran was quite implicit in speaking to the jury that they must "send a message". That's really the ONLY reason OJ got off; a smooth, polished, expierienced lawyer used all his wits and tools to play to a jury.
In contrast, Jose Baez is AWFUL at every aspect of his profession. I firmly believe he has long since alienated the jurors.
Dr Vass could have said he uses coat hangers to speak to the dead, it wouldn't matter at this point.
The only cliff hanger will be death or life & that will depend on individual jurors personal convictions regarding an eye for an eye.

 

[fridaybaker]

Hello everyone. I am fairly new here and not sure if this is the appropriate thread for my question. Please advise if not.

I've heard so much about chloroform and whether or not traces of it was present in the car, including at least one witness testifying that it was. However, CA apparently cleaned out the car and could have used cleaning products that would leave those traces (why in the world would she do that, knowing that her granddaughter's been missing and the trunk smells like a dead body???) I've seen people interviewed on TV and talk show types who claim that this was bad for the "chloroform evidence portion of the trial", including, seemingly, Dr. Baden, who has been commenting on this case on TV and whose opinion is highly regarded.

However, it seems to me that THE KEY piece of evidence re: chloroform doesn't really have much to do with the trunk, it's that someone was researching how to make it on the computer in the weeks leading up to the death. Why doesn't this ever seem to get mentioned?

 

[fridaybaker]

and, by the way, I've never had reason to research how to make chloroform in my, considerable, lifetime. I wonder how many people have? People who decide they want to do their drycleaning at home?......... People who, I don't know, want to kill someone?........

 

[donnam]

SA says they will wrap up by Friday. Wonder if it will be on Thus the 16th. I will be paying close attention to KC on that date also.
Thoughts?

 

[Marple]

I'm pretty sure it will be just another day for KC.

 

[Americka]

I'm leaning more towards the 17th as the day the state wraps up its case in chief. They still have a slew of witnesses to call including the botanist, Robyn Adams (who has been transferred from state custody to OCSO custody), the AT&T cell ping guy, Dominic Casey, and the tattoo guy.

As for her behavior on the last day of the SA's case in chief - who knows? She might ATTEMPT to look sad, but it won't last long because the DT's turn is next. I know we will see tons of smirks and contemptuous stares during that portion of the trial...:twocents:

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I wonder if Casey will wear her black outfit on the 16th. :dramaqueen:

ETA: Maybe she'll be in such deep mourning that she will have to take to her sickbed and the trial will be delayed. I wouldn't put the attempt past her!