Verdict Suggests Juries are Tired of Theoretical Justice & Circumstancial Evidence

[teedie2]

< snip >

Everyone loves HHJP and I thought I did too. Then I sat back and realized that he severely rushed the jury selction process, the trial, and gave the jury the impression (by working on a Holiday) to hurry up and get this done. He also gave way too much leeway to the defenses "theory" because of his fear of a mistrial.

JMO....

I hate to agree with you about HHJP, but have to admit that I felt truly unsettled after jury selection. Perhaps JP was trying to prevent JB from turning jury selection into a 4-6 week affair, not counting trial time. But, it didn't sit well with me. It seemed superficial.

 

[teedie2]

< snip >

This jury never even asked to see any evidence.
They left their notebooks on their chairs not that they took many notes, that alone should have told us something... they had their minds made up before they entered that room.. JMO

bbm

You are SO right, Eileen. They even came dressed for the occasion!

 

[donnam]

Apparently this jury needed an eyewitness (only eyewitness is deceased), video or a taped confession.

 

[krisskross]

Having taken a bit of time to digest things and having now heard from two jurors and two alternates :waitasec:, I have to think some group dynamic had formed quite early on with this jury. They expected everything tied up in a neat little package for them. The CSI factor was huge, they expected to be told exactly how Caylee died......literally and in glorious technicolor. They needed dna, finger prints, a motive. LDB's biggest fear came true. They were thinking about ICA's punishment. Well that's the impression I got from Jennifer Ford and I feel she would have been a strong influence on others. She admits her mind was made up before they entered the deliberation room.

But I have to admit I was over confident about Casey Anthony's trial. I thought the case for the State was rock solid. I could just not imagine jurors would not see the evidence the way I see it, but I've been looking and analysing the evidence and the Anthonys for nearly three years. :crazy: And there were some points in the trial where Baez did make the State look iffy. For example the heart sticker looked a bit desperate. And those 84 searches to the chloroform site, for me now look suspect. The Anthonys were predictably not credible. That had to effect the jury, regardless of JB's OS not being evidence, he was very dramatic.......that dysfunction and abuse bell was rung. George was awful on the stand and imo River Cruz (accident that snowballed) was credible. :truce: I got nervous after hearing Baez' closing.

But when I heard JA and LDB's closing rebuttal, my confidence was restored. It made so much sense, as opposed to the defense claims. I was positive she would be convicted of at least manslaughter and aggrevated child abuse. After all these people saw Caylee's tiny skull with duct tape still attached. I even considered a hung jury. But never in my wildest dreams did I think 12 people would collectively not choose to re-examine and evaluate 6 weeks of testimony. Surely they knew they were empowered to draw inferences or conclusions of their own . Surely they had taken the time to understand that reasonable doubt isn't any old doubt.

What's more mind boggling is how Casey's lies and behaviour don't seem to have figured in their decision atall.

 

[donnam]

Wasn't this supposed to be a death qualified jury? If you don't believe in the DP how can you be death penalty qualified? Several of them stated they couldn't impose the DP. Why were they picked?

Maybe it is time to change the burden of proof.
Guilty until proven innocent. I used to believe in our justice system and the way it worked. I served on a jury and completely understood what was expected of me.

Now, not so much.

 

[donnam]

I know I am on a roll tonight, but have been doing a lot of thinking, as it appears all of you have been.

Another thing that really bothers me is the bull***t of evidence not being allowed in because it is "too prejudicial". What is that about anyway. IMO evidence is evidence. If it is out there it should be allowed in
IE: Her reaction to the news a childs remains were found goes to consciousness of guilt. Well, if she wasn't guilty she wouldn't have reacted that way!
I just don't get not allowing pertinent information in. Makes no sense to me and never has.

 

[RR0004]

I know I am on a roll tonight, but have been doing a lot of thinking, as it appears all of you have been.

Another thing that really bothers me is the bull***t of evidence not being allowed in because it is "too prejudicial". What is that about anyway. IMO evidence is evidence. If it is out there it should be allowed in
IE: Her reaction to the news a childs remains were found goes to consciousness of guilt. Well, if she wasn't guilty she wouldn't have reacted that way!
I just don't get not allowing pertinent information in. Makes no sense to me and never has.

Wasn't the MySpace posting also deemed too prejudicial?

 

[otto]

The verdict suggests that the jury seccumbed to the defense's perpetration of a "fraud upon the court" and to pondering cause of death and punishment, neither of which they were asked to consider. Because the jury was unclear about their responsibilities, they were lost on a tangent. There is nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence and DNA is no more complicated than grade 9 math (intro to stats) ... and it's very unfortunate that the jury does not have a working knowledge of stats., circumstantial evidence and the rules of law.

 

[Schu7]

I know I am on a roll tonight, but have been doing a lot of thinking, as it appears all of you have been.

Another thing that really bothers me is the bull***t of evidence not being allowed in because it is "too prejudicial". What is that about anyway. IMO evidence is evidence. If it is out there it should be allowed in
IE: Her reaction to the news a childs remains were found goes to consciousness of guilt. Well, if she wasn't guilty she wouldn't have reacted that way!
I just don't get not allowing pertinent information in. Makes no sense to me and never has.

Judge Perry bent over backward to make sure the case was not over turned on appeal. Well, it will not be over turned on appeal now. Judge Perry is very proud of his track record of not having his trials not over turned on appeals. That fact was fully brought out as soon as he got the case sent his way. Well he may have his track record in tack, but what a price to pay for it. JB was well on his way to winning the defense case as soon as Judge Perry came along. I strongly believe Judge Strickland would have let lots of bared evidence into the trial. And a far different tone and tenor to the trial would have transpired. And Justice for Caylee would have prevailed.

 

[otto]

Judge Perry bent over backward to make sure the case was not over turned on appeal. Well, it will not be over turned on appeal now. Judge Perry is very proud of his track record of not having his trials not over turned on appeals. That fact was fully brought out as soon as he got the case sent his way. Well he may have his track record in tack, but what a price to pay for it. JB was well on his way to winning the defense case as soon as Judge Perry came along. I strongly believe Judge Strickland would have let lots of bared evidence into the trial. And a far different tone and tenor to the trial would have transpired. And Justice for Caylee would have prevailed.

I laughed when the Judge asked Mason if he'd like to drop his "mistrial" application after the verdict.

So you think that the Judge was partial to the defendant and that may have influenced the trial? He did everything he could to avoid an appeal with the assumption that she would be found guilty ... and now there's really nothing to do except ensure that buffoons don't make their way into court in the future ... or ... that lawyers no longer pertetrate a fraud upon the court.

 

[krisskross]

I know I am on a roll tonight, but have been doing a lot of thinking, as it appears all of you have been.

Another thing that really bothers me is the bull***t of evidence not being allowed in because it is "too prejudicial". What is that about anyway. IMO evidence is evidence. If it is out there it should be allowed in
IE: Her reaction to the news a childs remains were found goes to consciousness of guilt. Well, if she wasn't guilty she wouldn't have reacted that way!
I just don't get not allowing pertinent information in. Makes no sense to me and never has.

I think we have to remember how her reaction was obtained. It clearly came out through depositions Commander Matt Irwin formerly of OCSD had asked that she be specifically brought to that area where the tv was on. She apparently was unaware anything was going on unless she had heard on her cell radio. Irwin admits he asked jail staff to take her down to that area, specifically to gauge her reaction. The jail and the Sheriff's dept obviously colluded together, yet during many of the pre-trial hearings they insisted they be treated as separate and distinct entities. I get what you're saying about certain evidence and I whole heartedly share your frustration that she's going free, but in this case it certainly looked like she was being set up.

BTW Judge Strickland (who sealed the video) gave an interview to Tony Pipitone the other day and he talked about this video. He said it isn't actually that damning. :crazy: I'm gonna assume its former Judge Strickland. :waitasec: As there's no more predudice to her case, I think we will get to see that video soon.

 

[Schu7]

So you think that the Judge was partial to the defendant and that may have influenced the trial? He did everything he could to avoid an appeal with the assumption that she would be found guilty ... and now there's really nothing to do except ensure that buffoons don't make their way into court in the future ... or ... that lawyers no longer pertetrate a fraud upon the court.

I find it unlikely Judge Perry will go after the "defense lawyers" here. If he goes that way, his own negligence in allowing the prosecution a fair change at presenting their case would be exposed. Time will tell here.

 

[otto]

I find it unlikely Judge Perry will go after the "defense lawyers" here. If he goes that way, his own negligence in allowing the prosecution a fair change at presenting their case would be exposed. Time will tell here.

There was only one instance where both the prosecution and the defense were reprimanded, and that was during closing arguments. The remainder of the time it was the defense that was in serious violation of the law - repeatedly.

What "negligence" would you assign to the Judge?

 

[Schu7]

Judge Perry's legal interpretation of what prejudicial evidence is. As in being continually swayed by JB's badgering on the key issue.

 

[krisskross]

Judge Perry bent over backward to make sure the case was not over turned on appeal. Well, it will not be over turned on appeal now. Judge Perry is very proud of his track record of not having his trials not over turned on appeals. That fact was fully brought out as soon as he got the case sent his way. Well he may have his track record in tack, but what a price to pay for it. JB was well on his way to winning the defense case as soon as Judge Perry came along. I strongly believe Judge Strickland would have let lots of bared evidence into the trial. And a far different tone and tenor to the trial would have transpired. And Justice for Caylee would have prevailed.

I totally disagree. Judge Perry made many rulings against the defense that imo risked coming back on appeal. He allowed Dr Vass' testimony. He allowed in post mortem root banding (first time in a Florida Court). He allowed in the superimposition of the duct tape over a photograph of Caylee. And he denied the defense motion that she should have had her miranda warnings at the house or at Universal. At the house he was probably on safe ground but she was confronted at Universal. I applaud him for that one. Like it or not as presiding Judge he has to ensure the rights of the defendant too, Judges have to wear many hats. All in all I think he did a good job.

And what Judge wants to do any trial twice. :waitasec:

 

[otto]

I missed that ... but Baez did repeatedly hammer at points that were not in evidence, undoubtedly swaying the jury (by the repeated sidebars) into believing that he was being picked on while presenting legitimate points such as "how she died" and "when she died" and "whether it was reasonable to impose punishment without even being able to prove that it was a murder ... without a time, cause, manner and snapshot of how the victim died".

 

[LaLaw2000]

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.

This is quite a post, SaltyTexan! I would like to think that those of us with any common sense would indeed surmise that it was a beach scene, and it was a little girl in a pink bathing suit with a Dora backpack.

This is where common sense comes in and putting the pieces together meaning the totality of the evidence. There will always be missing pieces in a murder case unless there is a confession. When all of the circumstantial pieces are put together in this case, it points to one person and one person only, IMO.

I also agree with Nursebeeme, the Anthony's lies from beginning to end obstructed and muddied the waters. Continously.

I am now, and will remain, so sick over this verdict. As for the article in the title of this thread; all I can say is that the article writer does not live in the same world I do.

MOO

 

[otto]

I totally disagree. Judge Perry made many rulings against the defense that risked coming back on appeal. He allowed Dr Vass' testimony. He allowed in post mortem root banding (first time in a Florida Court) and he denied the defense motion that she should have had her miranda warnings at the house or at Universal. At the house he was probably on safe ground but she was confronted at Universal. I applaud him for that one.
Like it or not as presiding Judge he has to ensure the rights of the defendant too, Judges have to wear many hats. All in all I think he did a good job.

I was impressed with the Judge and enjoyed his sense of humor however, during closing arguments, when the defense was repeatedly slandering the profession of law, I thought the Judge should have intervened ... and that was way before the prosecutor burst out laughing.

 

[LaLaw2000]

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.

I agree with you, Nova24.

Furthermore, she will be quite upset that people will not welcome her with open arms. She is going to find that she is not as marketable as Baez has promised her she would be (JMO). She will get probably one shot at some big bucks and it will be gone in no time at all after she repays all of her obligations. She will expect to be supported and cared for all of her life, IMO. Question is; who will do this?

She will fall into either the drug scene and/or alcohol and be found overdosed or someone will kill her.

*As for the person that wrote the article in the thread title; there are many more cases with circumstantial evidence than either eyewitnesses or even a smoking gun. I do not take this person as an authority on anything whatsoever.

MOO

 

[krisskross]

I was impressed with the Judge and enjoyed his sense of humor however, during closing arguments, when the defense was repeatedly slandering the profession of law, I thought the Judge should have intervened ... and that was way before the prosecutor burst out laughing.

I stick with....I think overall he did a good job in a very testing case.
I concede like every human being he is fallible. But do you think the verdict would have been any different?