Verdict Suggests Juries are Tired of Theoretical Justice & Circumstancial Evidence

[Nova24]

ICA will end up back in jail or dead before that happens. She will one day lie to the wrong people and they will kill her. It's only a matter of time.

 

[nursebeeme]

Imagine putting together a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle, and then finding out that there were only 490 pieces. But after putting together those 490 pieces, it looked like a beach scene, and it appeared to be a little girl in the picture. You see a pink bathing suit and a barbie doll, and a Dora back pack, but her face is missing. Most of us would sumise that it is indeed a little girl, and be confident doing so, but this jury would say, we don't really know that it's a little girl, we have some missing pieces. At least that's the way I see it, IMHO.

I agree this is what happened with the verdict! however... in a circumstantial case they should be able to put the face on the barbie with the circumstantial evidence.


they obviously couldn't.

I am ever so curious why they could not.. from what we have heard so far from alternates they did not believe GA at all... so in other words they most likely could not dismiss that:

1) he was there that morning (worked 3-11... wonder what would have happened in this verdict if his hours were 7-3?)
2) LE did not investigate him (GA)
3) he buried pets in tape and trash bags
4) he had ties to the henkle duct tape (missing signs using it)
5) CA was impeached via her chloroform searches so her prior state testimony that the pool ladder was up was not considered most likely
6) GA never called Casey after he smelled death in the car
7) River gets up and further digs GA a hole with her testimony and snowball out of control seems to be a sticking point with jurors as they have quoted it in media





***are these some of the reasons they couldn't connect the dots for a circumstantial case?***

((note I do not agree with the verdict))

 

[cluciano63]

I honestly think that if the state had a strong motive that people could identify with, i.e. an insurance policy on Caylee, she would have been convicted. People like motives, it is a fact. We see husbands convicted all the time (wives too) in murder cases with a great big insurance policy and/or an affair, even if the evidence is circumstantial or not great. Because the jurors can relate to that kind of a motive. But the State just standing up there saying Casey loves to party seemed pretty weak, IMO.

The state could have juiced it up a bit if they had shown the real relationships going on in that household, but it still may not have been enough, unless they could convince the jury that Casey really wanted to hurt Cindy more than anything else. They could have put Jesse G. on to talk about the tirade he says he got about why would he want to be with someone like Casey. But then of course, every witness had two sides, in this case, it seems, and they didn 't want him to tell what he says Casey told him about Lee. The state was hamstrung by the witnesses in this case, the ones they called and the ones they could not call.

 

[Velouria]

I honestly think that if the state had a strong motive that people could identify with, i.e. an insurance policy on Caylee, she would have been convicted. People like motives, it is a fact. We see husbands convicted all the time (wives too) in murder cases with a great big insurance policy and/or an affair, even if the evidence is circumstantial or not great. Because the jurors can relate to that kind of a motive. But the State just standing up there saying Casey loves to party seemed pretty weak, IMO.

The state could have juiced it up a bit if they had shown the real relationships going on in that household, but it still may not have been enough, unless they could convince the jury that Casey really wanted to hurt Cindy more than anything else. They could have put Jesse G. on to talk about the tirade he says he got about why would he want to be with someone like Casey. But then of course, every witness had two sides, in this case, it seems, and they didn 't want him to tell what he says Casey told him about Lee. The state was hamstrung by the witnesses in this case, the ones they called and the ones they could not call.

I do wish the state had found a way to bring up the argument between CA and Casey. Even if CA denied it, it would "still be out there", and give the jury something else to think about regarding motive.

I missed some of TL's testimony and wondered, was it ever brought out that he told Casey he would be finishing college soon and planned to return to NY soon after?

 

[cluciano63]

I do wish the state had found a way to bring up the argument between CA and Casey. Even if CA denied it, it would "still be out there", and give the jury something else to think about regarding motive.

I missed some of TL's testimony and wondered, was it ever brought out that he told Casey he would be finishing college soon and planned to return to NY soon after?

I agree, the state could have asked Cindy a "negative" question i.e. "Isn't it true that the night of June 15th your tried to choke Casey?" At least get it heard, even if it was sustained. But they were still placating the grieving grandma when they had the chance to ask her that.

I think TL touched on the fact that he would be going back to NY eventually, but no one really turned it into anything-there were a lot of frustrating things that were touched on but not expanded on, IMO...

 

[Bon]

I don't know where to put this post so I'll start here. Something must be wrong with me because I still honestly cannot believe Casey is walking free. I can't comprehend how this happened. How did these 12 jurors come to this conclusion? Charged with nothing but lying to LE...Poor Yuri was in the balcony waiting to watch her go down.... I am still sick over it.....my stomach is in knots. I cannot believe they found her not guilty and she walks out a free woman. And know one is held responsible for Caylee's death.Feel like it's a bad dream and I will wake up from it....is anyone else still struggling with this? I know I need to move on but it's just haunting me............Casey, Jose and Chaney M and Cindy sure get the last laugh on this one........... a murderer walks free...

 

[evelyn24]

That was the dumbest article because apparently this jury loved theories, and voted to free Casey Anthony based on theory alone. They thought it might have been an accident, yet there was no proof introduced that this was an accident. They claim the state didn't prove its case, but I'd like to see them back up their verdict with proof, and not innuendo.

We have a great justice system, but what this case proves is that there needs to be an interactive instruction session for the jurors prior to deliberations so that we are assured jurors understand the task that lies ahead of them. No, on second thought, we need to insure that jurors are competent to be seated as jurors prior to voir dire, that their comprehension isn't lacking, that they understand the difference between theory and proof, that they have an understanding of the expression cumulative evidence, etc., etc., that they know what inculpatory and exculpatory evidence is.

Exactly. And tired of circumstantial evidence? What...really?
All physical evidence, including DNA, is circumstantial.

 

[rotterdam]

Ah - but who pays that "professional" jury? Frankly, I think there's just as much room, if not more, for jury tampering when we're making it a profession rather than using our peers.

How many people would be questioning this jury or their actions if the verdict had gone the other way? This is what frustrates me the most about a lot of the criticism being thrown at the jury. To me, it's clear this criticism stems from the verdict being "wrong" than any broad sort of critique of the jury system. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I agree, that would be a very slippery slope. You might as well have a panel of judges decide and do away with a jury system all together. Too much room for corruption. I do not think there is a fail proof system. But regardless of what system you use, there is always room for improvement. Guilty folks sometimes get off while not guilty folks sometimes get convicted. The more money you have, the better defense attorneys you can hire. In KC's case , the more media hype you get, the better defense attorneys/expert witnesses you can attract. Not saying that Baez is that great, but he did surely obtain valuable advise IMO from more experienced defense attorneys. In the final analysis winning of a case by either side depends apparently on which side plays the gullible jury better. Solid scientific evidence seems to take a less than primary position in a high profile case.
Not sure if over charging was a factor in this case. The Feds always over charge IMO and have a high rate of conviction, many are plea deals though.
But then the Feds have some crafty fail safe statutes that most states do not have.

 

[Baznme]

The simple answer as to why the jury acquitted on the 3 major charges is that the states evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that KC was guilty of these charges.
The simple answer as to why they did not at the very least find her guilty of the 3rd charge is that based on the evidence and the testimony of GA, is that either GA or KC could have been responsible.

The states theory that KC's actions of not calling the police for 31 days, was partying, and told lie after lie, could only mean that KC murdered her daughter. The defense negated the states theory here with the defense theory that something was wrong with KC, and these actions could be attributed to denial.

The states forensic evidence was weak to begin with, using untested (in the courtroom) science amongst other things, that the defense successfully negated with their own experts, at least to the point of reasonable doubt.

The states theory that Caylee's death could only have been caused by either the chloroform or the duct tape, was negated by the defense theory that Caylee drown in the pool, supported by photos.

The states theory that KC was the last one seen with Caylee alive, was negated by the defense theory that Caylee had drowned while both GA and KC were at home. GA's testimony on the stand seemed confrontational, evasive and that he may have been misspeaking, which leads to reasonable doubt.

If the jury's verdict had been guilty on all counts, very few would have been claiming they did not have time to deliberate all that evidence.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only

As much as I hate to admit it, I think you are right. You have a talent for seeing it objectively. It was just the way it went down. Lots of aspects of the trial could have been handled differently, from both sides, but that's just not the way it played out. Had there been more emphasis on the chloroform and less on the duct tape, it would have been more logical to the jury IMO. If Baez hadn't thrown the pool theory in there, it wouldn't have befuddled the whole works......had GA not had anything to do with this RC...period.....would have made him more credible.......etc., etc., etc. This entire case is definately one for the books.

 

[allycat1208]

I don't personally buy this logical leap that one bewildering verdict means that the Jury System is broken in America. :twocents:

The vast majority of times, justice is served around the country.

In this particular instance, through some strange quirk of legal maneuvering and a rather lazy jury (in my opinion), justice went wrong.

They didn't ask the Judge a single question.

They had missed 4th of July and wanted to go home.

They now say things like "OMG - I'm Sorry, We Hate This Horrible Verdict!"

But as Nancy Grace said last week - they don't get a do-over. The only conclusion from this is that the Jurors didn't respect the gravity of the case. Unlike some people here, I think most Jurors on such a big case would feel that responsibility.

Jay Leno tried to make a joke about the Jury last week, and not one person in the audience laughed, and in fact they boo'ed and hissed, because it isn't normal.

The lack of logic comes from the fact that the Jury members interviewed seem to have no idea what happened to Caylee, no alternate theories, and don't even seem to care that anything happened to a child while in the care of negligent mother who was a party girl.

I think it was the alternate Juror who said that they didn't care if Casey was a party girl. The problem is, they didn't seem to think about where Caylee was while the partying was going on. It's not "reasonable" to think that a bunch of imaginary vacation friends were taking care of this little girl.

Reasonable = Logical = Not this Jury

ETA: Groupthink and people going along with the crowd just to go home - Heck Yes!

How do we know that the vast majority of times, justice in served? I would think its really hard to prove. Sometimes the defendant just was lucky with finding a decent attorney or had enough money to find a really good attorney. Sometimes the juries happen to believe the truth and other ones believe the falsehoods. I'm curious to know how does one measure the times that justice prevails in court trials.

 

[ColdDayIn]

I am so tired of hearing people say our system works. It may work most of the time, but it did not work in this case. Why put your head in the sand and say it did? I think that jury did NOT take their duty seriously. I don't think it was unplanned that the trial ended right at the Fourth of July holiday. There were jurors who had other things planned and wanted out. But I heard this morning that most of them did not take any notes. How can you remember everything over that long a period without taking notes? I think some of them were in a hurry to get out and start making money, as evidenced by some of the things we have seen. And then for people to tell us we must RESPECT that decidion!!! It is a travesty and I hope people don't forget it soon. There should have been more time spent on selecting that jury. They should have had more instruction before it started. A person who can't judge another person should not have been on a jury whose purpose is to judge. I could go on and on, but something needs to change.

You nailed it on the head with the statement I bolded. Everyone that is preaching at our nation as a whole on t.v., that we need to "move on" or "accept the decision" or "respect the verdict", is forgetting a HUGE fact---THIS IS AMERICA, LAND OF THE FREE!!!!! We are taught from a very young age about our country's freedoms, and what has been sacrificed to gain and uphold those freedoms. Part of that freedom includes VOICING OUR OWN OPINIONS! Every major change that has taken part in our country has come from citizens expressing their concerns, voicing their opinions, until the government is forced to listen and change. This is NO different. It IS time for a change, which is obvious from not only the verdict itself, but the voice of our nation as a majority. We do not have to accept, respect, nor move on. This may be our country's judicial system, nobody is disagreeing with that fact, but that does not mean we all think it should continue on without some changes being made, and I think that is what everyone is going to focus on, once they can see past their anger.

When something you believe in wholeheartedly and trust unwaveringly fails you, it hits you hard. That is what has happened. We all trusted the system to bring justice to Caylee. We all watched in as jury members ourselves, in our own rights, in anticipation of seeing our system work it's magic, do what it's supposed to do. This is a system we have trusted to uphold the law and justice, and while the majority of the time it does, the times like this that it doesn't really impact the morale of the country. Besides an innocent, beautiful 3 year old not receiving justice, I think the biggest impact this situation is having on us, is when we all stop and think, this could happen to any of us. All of us have someone we love, whether it's a child or an adult, and our loved ones could be in the position that some monster could come along and take that person's life, and in the end, justice may not be served. We will have no peace that the monster will face punishment and we will have no retribution or closure. It's a scary thought, and not something that the people of OUR NATION, OUR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA should have to fear. We have men and women dying everyday for this country and what this country stands for, and I know they are not putting their lives on the line so that we can all live in fear that monsters could roam the streets and take the lives of anyone they feel like, just to walk free amongst us after being tried by a jury of their "peers".

While I do not think juries are tired of theoretical justice and circumstancial evidence, I do agree that the CSI and law and order type shows, movies, documentaries, and reality shows might be having an impact in some way. I also think, with all of the new science being brought forth, the jury system is going to have to adapt. What is going to kill me, is in 20 years when air sample tests like Dr. Voss conducted (and called junk science by the DT) are the norm and "expected" much like DNA is today, Casey will be sitting back with the last laugh. I think new sciences should not be allowed to be degraded as "junk science" or "voodoo science", when the court allows them in. How do we move forward to the next year, decade, or century with so much resistance trying to hold us back. So much needs to be evaluated with a fine tooth comb and changed in the coming months and years.

Sorry for rambling!!

ETA- Once all of the anger recedes, we all need to take our experience and emotions from this, and refocus them towards bringing forth changes. We have the opportunity to put the spotlight on many different aspects of this entire trial, and use this trial as an example to change the things that we disagree with.

 

[allycat1208]

The author of this article, states that he can only convict someone who he deems a reliable witness who had seen the crime which occurred. Supposing that we believe the witness remembers the defendant, how often does it happen that an eye witness was at the crime scene? So many crimes are committed at night or dark places, in places where there are few people around, in someone's house where nobody but the victim and the perpetrator are, etc. If we are only to convict criminals based on eye witnesses accounts, probably few criminals would ever be convicted!

 

[rotterdam]

The author of this article, states that he can only convict someone who he deems a reliable witness who had seen the crime which occurred. Supposing that we believe the witness remembers the defendant, how often does it happen that an eye witness was at the crime scene? So many crimes are committed at night or dark places, in places where there are few people around, in someone's house where nobody but the victim and the perpetrator are, etc. If we are only to convict criminals based on eye witnesses accounts, probably few criminals would ever be convicted!

I find a single eye witness account sometimes less reliable that solid scientific evidence. Not saying that eye witnesses deliberately lie but they have been wrong before because of the crime conditions you describe above. Folks have been acquitted in spite of an eye witness because of conflicting scientific evidence. Bottom line, you have to consider the whole picture which those IMO incompetent jurors did not do.

 

[Gracenote]

While this thread is in progress, I want to say that this discussion we are having is what the jury should have had. And we have been talking for daaaaaaaaays now. They took 11 hours. They must be a million times smarter than we are is all I can suppose.

 

[krkrjx]

Verdict Suggests Juries are Tired of Theoretical Justice & Circumstancial Evidence

What evidence would the jury prefer? Maybe no one should ever be indicted unless there is a videotape of the crime being committed?

Most evidence in criminal cases is circumstantial; the fact that this jury could not come to a reasonable conclusion with the 300+ pieces of evidence that was presented at trial makes me wonder if it was more a case of their being tired of sequestration than anything else. They wanted to get back to their lives, to summer, to their homes. And they let a killer go free to do that. They can claim it was lack of evidence but I am not buying it.

 

[Chewy]

I was desperately waiting for the judge to put a stop to the defendant constantly testifying by not just shaking her head "no" but mouthing 'words' especially whenever it came to the testimony of GA either by him or the state in OS/CA..How could that be allowed? And with her facing the jury head-on (extremely unusual) they had to see it but with this jury I'm sure they'd all deny it but that's beside the point..IIRC, JA was asked about this & he said they wanted the jury to see her "behavior" so they did not make an objection..That just did NOT make sense to me. :waitasec:

Even without an objection surely JP saw it himself & could've put a stop to it but he did not..Why I have no clue..I also didn't like him butt-kissing the jury all the time..He treated them like little children (turned out they had that mentality) & made sure they got 'special treats' to make up for what he obviously felt was an UNFAIR situation..He constantly made mention of these 'poor folks' being sequestered=he's not so keen on it.

One juror said they got to talk to their family with a deputy standing by..What good is that when they didn't know what was being said on the other end of the phone? I don't believe it was a 'speaker' call but it def should be! IIRC, juror #3 is the lawyer's daughter..I'm sure she was prepped by her dad but good prior to her leaving for Orlando..For all we know this one passed along her knowledge re: the evidence to the other jurors during deliberations & I can see this bunch falling for whatever she had to say even if she had it all WRONG!

One of the THs said when it was at 6-6 (which is what we heard it was) more often then not the jurors are swayed to 'guilty' vs 'not guilty'..He was very surprised it was butt-backwards but so was everything in this case!

Can someone post the explanation for 'child neglect'? If anything, she should've been found GUILTY of that..End of story! :banghead:

I agree with this 100 percent. I could not believe the judge allowed her to "silently testify without cross" by mouthing the words and reactions. That pissed me off.

If KC was staging a kidnapping, wouldn't she have just put a single, short piece of duct tape over the mouth only?? To use three pieces of tape and completely block the baby's airways does not look like kidnapping to me. MOO of course.

Ok simple explanation for those who might be willing to look at reality..

She duct taped Caylee after she died. And Caylee had discharge coming out of her mouth so the tape did not stick. You can't duct tape a wet surface remember? So some of the tape sticks but the side comes off, so rip and stick another one, then worry it's not going to stick and do one more.

The evidence logically points to someone who wants to make sure the duct tape STICKS. Who would want to do that? Well some say a person who, though having a free alibi death of a pool in the back yard, decides to duct tape her kid.


OOOOOR maybe someone who's child died under a situation of drugging and being left in a car, or in the other room even, and wanting to cover up the "drugging death" by making it look like a kidnapping. In her mind it was essential that the child's body be found with duct tape on it, so she uses a lot to make sure it stuck.


:twocents:

 

[Gracenote]

OMG tehcloser!

I can't string two grammatically correct sentences together so I don't know what makes me think I should be on discussion boards giving my opinions.
It's frushtrating to me (and has been since I was in high school decades ago) not to be able to come up with words/descriptions/a phrase that is eloquent, expresses what is in my head and is coherent to the reader.

I just type what comes out and hope that there are at least a few folks out there that can make out what I'm trying to say.

Then I come across a post like yours, short, sweet, to the point, and if you could hear me, you'd hear
"YES! Exactly! PERFECTLY Said! Exactly what I WANTED/Tried to say! "

So of course, I thank the poster with the little "Thanks" button.

A bit earlier I posted about most of the public today not having to connect the dots, they want it done for them.........what with phone numbers memorized in phones for us, 7th graders being allowed to use calculators during a test, etc.
I must have filled up a whole text page just trying to explain and then I see your post and it's exactly what I was trying to say. (only your post was easy to read, easy to understand, grammatically written and well composed) Sometimes the Thanks button just isn't enough. Thank you!

She's a smart cookie!

 

[Mulegirl]

In reading through here, something dawned on me.

Particularly in reading Chewy's comments and the ensuing discussions.

THIS is what deliberations should have been. While we cannot know for sure what went on in that jury room, it certainly seems more than plausible that those jurors did not engage in this kind of thoughtful discussion based upon the evidence presented. I'd have no problem with a jury made up of the folks on here, because even though I see the evidence slightly differently than some here, and agree wholeheartedly with others, we have been able to thoughtfully discuss and back up why we see what we see.

And Grandmaj, I really wholeheartedly appreciate your posts here (up to page 4 at least, which is as far as I've gotten so far) and totally agree. Thanks!

Back to the thread topic, after reading that column, I am thinking that I'm really glad I don't have to deliberate on a jury with that author. His thoughts frighten me as representing too many people who fail to understand that murderers don't videotape their murders, that circumstantial cases are often all there is and have been responsible for putting away many, many, many dangerous murderers, and and eyewitness testimony is the most easily tampered with evidence and has been responsible for far more innocents being convicted than anything else. Good grief. I'm exhausted with frustration.

But I do appreciate the thoughtful dialogue here.

 

[Mulegirl]

respectfully snipped.

I know I need to move on but it's just haunting me............Casey, Jose and Chaney M and Cindy sure get the last laugh on this one........... a murderer walks free...

I know I feel the same way you do. I'm exhausted with mulling this and my anger and frustration, yet I can't stop thinking about it. I try to watch something else to distract me, and either I fall asleep (exhaustion!) or something reminds me of something in the trial, and I'm right back.

so you're not alone!

 

[RR0004]

You nailed it on the head with the statement I bolded. Everyone that is preaching at our nation as a whole on t.v., that we need to "move on" or "accept the decision" or "respect the verdict", is forgetting a HUGE fact---THIS IS AMERICA, LAND OF THE FREE!!!!! We are taught from a very young age about our country's freedoms, and what has been sacrificed to gain and uphold those freedoms. Part of that freedom includes VOICING OUR OWN OPINIONS! Every major change that has taken part in our country has come from citizens expressing their concerns, voicing their opinions, until the government is forced to listen and change. This is NO different. It IS time for a change, which is obvious from not only the verdict itself, but the voice of our nation as a majority. We do not have to accept, respect, nor move on. This may be our country's judicial system, nobody is disagreeing with that fact, but that does not mean we all think it should continue on without some changes being made, and I think that is what everyone is going to focus on, once they can see past their anger.

When something you believe in wholeheartedly and trust unwaveringly fails you, it hits you hard. That is what has happened. We all trusted the system to bring justice to Caylee. We all watched in as jury members ourselves, in our own rights, in anticipation of seeing our system work it's magic, do what it's supposed to do. This is a system we have trusted to uphold the law and justice, and while the majority of the time it does, the times like this that it doesn't really impact the morale of the country. Besides an innocent, beautiful 3 year old not receiving justice, I think the biggest impact this situation is having on us, is when we all stop and think, this could happen to any of us. All of us have someone we love, whether it's a child or an adult, and our loved ones could be in the position that some monster could come along and take that person's life, and in the end, justice may not be served. We will have no peace that the monster will face punishment and we will have no retribution or closure. It's a scary thought, and not something that the people of OUR NATION, OUR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA should have to fear. We have men and women dying everyday for this country and what this country stands for, and I know they are not putting their lives on the line so that we can all live in fear that monsters could roam the streets and take the lives of anyone they feel like, just to walk free amongst us after being tried by a jury of their "peers".

While I do not think juries are tired of theoretical justice and circumstancial evidence, I do agree that the CSI and law and order type shows, movies, documentaries, and reality shows might be having an impact in some way. I also think, with all of the new science being brought forth, the jury system is going to have to adapt. What is going to kill me, is in 20 years when air sample tests like Dr. Voss conducted (and called junk science by the DT) are the norm and "expected" much like DNA is today, Casey will be sitting back with the last laugh. I think new sciences should not be allowed to be degraded as "junk science" or "voodoo science", when the court allows them in. How do we move forward to the next year, decade, or century with so much resistance trying to hold us back. So much needs to be evaluated with a fine tooth comb and changed in the coming months and years.

Sorry for rambling!!

ETA- Once all of the anger recedes, we all need to take our experience and emotions from this, and refocus them towards bringing forth changes. We have the opportunity to put the spotlight on many different aspects of this entire trial, and use this trial as an example to change the things that we disagree with.

Whenever CM cites the Constitution I can't help but think (and scream) that it took almost two centuries (!!!) to recognize that all Americans have equal rights under the law.
Yes...We the People have a voice and the right to be counted!! And our great country was founded on the principle of fighting injustice, IMVHO.

PS- and not to be sexist or anything, but were there any women who drafted our Constitution? If history serves me correctly, any input from a woman was shot down (ie, Abigail Adams).