Verdict Suggests Juries are Tired of Theoretical Justice & Circumstancial Evidence

[nursebeeme]

i really really wish we could put the blame for this result on the shoulders of the Anthony's for this verdict - I really wish we could. And I understand you can. I agree their combined testimony - CA's outright and proven lies, GA's anger and attitude, and whatever the heck Lee was doing - may have an influence.

But I can't. I can't explain why the jury chose Dr. Spitz over Dr. G., ignored the evidence of the canines, the variety of police, Dr. Vass, Dr. Haskell, and the others and chose to go with Baez and this unproven theories and theatrics that made no logical sense and were not based on fact. I mean seriously - someone actually believed Dr. Spitz? No rational person did.

No, I lay the blame right at the feet of the jury - who chose not to examine the evidence, not to deliberate, not to ask questions, and not to try to put the evidence together to be considered in totality. This was a jury who wanted the easy way out...and took it.

I've given up trying to understand what brought them to their decision. I've listened to the jurors who have spoken to date, and all it has done is convinced me even more that they abandoned all sense of reason, and all sense of duty to country and the legal system at the door when they walked into the jury room.

I agree with you.

I also tend to think this was a "perfect storm"... in a sense of the word

and in keeping with the opening post/topic here... I truly think the jury was not up to evaluating all of the circumstantial evidence... ((that is where I think all the lies by the family came into play))

 

[AnaTeresa]

I believe a lot of intelligent people would have voted the same exact way, and some of them stated such on national TV.

Circumstantial evidence is fine IF it is strung together in a believable fashion which the State, in my opinion, did not. There was doubt over every piece of their "scientific" evidence, not to mention a lot of their "science" was brand new, never been used before. A trial of this magnitude is NOT the place to test brand-new science.

I am so tired of hearing the jurors being put down. None of us were sequestered for weeks, even missing a major holiday with friends and family.

Bravo to the jurors for doing their duty, I find no fault with them or their verdict!

I know I would have gone the same way as the jury - and I'm a law student. I have been "educated, principally on how to think critically, how to evaluate evidence or the lack thereof, how to apply the law and most importantly, how to really listen," as PaulaF513 put it. I'd like to think that I'm intelligent. And I had reasonable doubt.

In my gut, yes, I do feel like Casey may have contributed to Caylee's death. But a gut feeling is not enough to convict someone. I too am very tired of the jurors being put down, particularly because I feel a lot of people would be lauding them had they given another verdict.

If they had said she was guilty, would they still be stupid? Lazy? Made up their minds before it started? Corrupt or unethical?

 

[songline]

I completely disagree with you and I find it offensive that you would use "...even missing a major holiday with friends and family" as a justification. I think the proper outcome is considerably more important than missing a barbeque and fireworks.

I think you will agree that the consensus (including legal scholars) is that the jury rendered an improper verdict. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

I agree that it was not a good outcome.
but the Jury had seen a stage show.
Not a case. but fog.
IMHO the state had only so much in hand and went for the gusto.
A Criminal Negligence would have gotten them further.
I think once they got some verdict on negligence then they could have gone for other things.

 

[Trident]

I agree with you.

I also tend to think this was a "perfect storm"... in a sense of the word

and in keeping with the opening post/topic here... I truly think the jury was not up to evaluating all of the circumstantial evidence... ((that is where I think all the lies by the family came into play))

BBM. I don't quite understand what you mean in the bolded part. Lies, there were a plenty, but how are you tying the jury not evaluating circumstantial evidence with the Anthony's lying?

Txs

 

[SaltyTexan]

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/circumstantial-evidence/

Circumstanctial Evidence:

Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence which creates an inference from which a main fact may be inferred. For example, circumstantial evidence of a murder is not based on first-hand eyewitness accounts, but may consist of threats made, fingerprints at the crime scene, or the presence of the accused in the vicinity of the crime.

Direct evidence, such as eyewitness testimony, is generally considered more powerful, but successful criminal prosecutions often rely largely on circmstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. When circumstantial evidence is cumulative, the weakness of such circumstntial evidence is strengthened.

-----------------------------------------------

B&BBM: Too bad "someone" didn't "videotape" what happened to Caylee because it was obviously needed to prove to the "jury" that FCA was the murderess ... then "MAYBE" the "jury" would have believed it !

And ... the "cumulative evidence" against FCA was HUGE ! HUGE ! ! !

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

Even if they had a videotape, they would say it was photoshopped. :banghead:

 

[liltexans]

The article at the beginning of this thread talks about credible witnesses to crimes. Who determines the credibility of the witness? If a LEO witnesses a crime is he or she a credible witness? Some LEOs are corrupt and accept bribes. If a gang member witnesses another gang member committing a crime is he or she credible? Probably not since he or she is also a gang member and may have an ulterior motive. What constitutes a credible witness and who makes that judgment?

 

[annalia]

some douments were sealed. MUST be some reason. THERE IS!
We can not elaborate more on what I said..

You can start here.
http://eassurvey.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/casey-anthony-trial-child-abuse-connection/

What do you mean by "we can't elaborate more on what I said"?

I read that and that is just one person speculating. We can all do that and we can go as far as our imagination will take us. Has there been one shred of evidence?

 

[songline]

Wow - we can only hope that, in addition to everything else, this did not happen. If that is true however, we must all fervently hope the truth is revealed.

Without surmising as to other things however, I still believe there was ample evidence for Felony Murder on the part of Casey Anthony.

There are some sealed records.
I believe that is the real case.
Hiden for a reason - A REASON we can not talk about here.

 

[nursebeeme]

BBM. I don't quite understand what you mean in the bolded part. Lies, there were a plenty, but how are you tying the jury not evaluating circumstantial evidence with the Anthony's lying?

Txs

I am thinking (moo) that it was the perfect culmination of events:

1)lies by family members

2)jury not taking ample time to evaluate 6 weeks of testimony (10 hours and 40 minutes of deliberation after 6 weeks of testimony):twocents: that is my opinion

jmhoo.

and in keeping with the spirit of the opening post topic of this thread that juries are tired of circumstantial evidence cases, etc

 

[Trident]

The article at the beginning of this thread talks about credible witnesses to crimes. Who determines the credibility of the witness? If a LEO witnesses a crime is he or she a credible witness? Some LEOs are corrupt and accept bribes. If a gang member witnesses another gang member committing a crime is he or she credible? Probably not since he or she is also a gang member and may have an ulterior motive. What constitutes a credible witness and who makes that judgment?

The Judge, in his instructions to the jurors, stated they could choose to believe or disbieve any witness, or expert testimony - it was up to THEM, the jurors to make a decision - which they did, and it behooves us to give them respect, at least, instead of questioning their intelligence and/or sanity.

My opinion only

 

[liltexans]

The Judge, in his instructions to the jurors, stated they could choose to believe or disbieve any witness, or expert testimony - it was up to THEM, the jurors to make a decision - which they did, and it behooves us to give them respect, at least, instead of questioning their intelligence and/or sanity.

My opinion only

I'm not referring to expert witnesses. The author of the article at the beginning of this thread states the necessity of a witness to a crime. The author states a witness to a crime is necessary and must be credible.

 

[Trident]

I am thinking (moo) that it was the perfect culmination of events:

1)lies by family members

2)jury not taking ample time to evaluate 6 weeks of testimony (10 hours and 40 minutes of deliberation after 6 weeks of testimony):twocents: that is my opinion

jmhoo.

and in keeping with the spirit of the opening post topic of this thread that juries are tired of circumstantial evidence cases, etc

Perfect storm, true - circumstantial case all the way by the state, theoretical scenario of what happened and why, lies by Anthony's, new "science" by the sniff test, plus a little tale-telling by Kronk, LOL, no wonder the jury wouldn't put Casey in jail.

My opinion only

 

[songline]

What do you mean by "we can't elaborate more on what I said"?

I read that and that is just one person speculating. We can all do that and we can go as far as our imagination will take us. Has there been one shred of evidence?

Early in the case there was more said about this and then we were told to not post on that topic.
That article is just a small segment of many that we have seen in the early stages of this case.
I WILL SAY NO MORE. please do not push me, see if you can find information on your own, but much has been removed.
OR believe what ever works for you. I do not believe that the case presented is the case at all.

 

[annalia]

EVEN the state (I believe) could not get at the sealed records about sex investigation of abuse to the baby. WHY would that be? The real people that are involved and are PROBABLY somewhere in the Caribbean watching the case from far.
THIS CASE WAS CONTROLED.

My bolding

Do you know this for a fact?

 

[RANCH]

The article at the beginning of this thread talks about credible witnesses to crimes. Who determines the credibility of the witness? If a LEO witnesses a crime is he or she a credible witness? Some LEOs are corrupt and accept bribes. If a gang member witnesses another gang member committing a crime is he or she credible? Probably not since he or she is also a gang member and may have an ulterior motive. What constitutes a credible witness and who makes that judgment?

I guess the idea is we can't convict anyone for anything. Eye witness testimony can be shot down for the reasons you stated and a lot more. Circumstantial evidence is no good according to this story.That leaves very little else.Well, there's some people out there that believe no one should be put in prison. It's not really their fault they committed a crime. They just need help.

 

[Eileen730]

KCA refused to see her mom tonight. cindy requested a visit to see KC at 8pm this evening KC denied her request. HLNews

 

[Trident]

I'm not referring to expert witnesses. The author of the article at the beginning of this thread states the necessity of a witness to a crime. The author states a witness to a crime is necessary and must be credible.

No, actually he didn't. What he did say was:

"I would never convict someone based on circumstantial evidence. Somebody whom I deem reliable is going to have to testify that he saw the crime committed before I'm going to help send someone to prison or have them executed."

Notice the "I", meaning it would take that for HIM, the author, before he would send anyone to death or prison.

Lots of circumstantial cases have been successfully prosecuted, and rightly so. This one just wasn't the right one, too many theoretics, and not enough substance. All emotion and no proof, in my opinion.

 

[songline]

Ok, I haven't pushed you I simply responded to a comment posted, but you keep saying I will say no more and then continue to post more about it.

I try to make you all aware that it was all just a show.
But there is enough out there that can give you all food for thought.
I just do not want this circus to go unrealized. It is sad enough that
Poor Caylee is now hanging out with Shaniya Davis.

At lease SD's demise will be punished.

 

[logicalgirl]

No, actually he didn't. What he did say was:

"I would never convict someone based on circumstantial evidence. Somebody whom I deem reliable is going to have to testify that he saw the crime committed before I'm going to help send someone to prison or have them executed."

Notice the "I", meaning it would take that for HIM, the author, before he would send anyone to death or prison.

Lots of circumstantial cases have been successfully prosecuted, and rightly so. This one just wasn't the right one, too many theoretics, and not enough substance. All emotion and no proof, in my opinion.

I'm going to take the opportunity to disagree with you here.

If I was to criticize the prosecutors case, the only criticism I can make is that their case was too cut and dry - just the facts. It obviously bored this jury to the point that they didn't listen and disregarded it. If their case had been full of innuendoes and gossip and he said/she said like the defense - they would have had their slam dunk.

The only time the jury heard passion from JA and LDB was in their closing statements and by then the jury was "gone". IMO

 

[nursebeeme]

here is the theory thread: [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6884247#post6884247"]Theories On What Happened to Caylee Part #8 - Page 17 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame] please refer back to the opening post for the topic of this thread. We seem to be getting off topic of the opening post.