Verdict Suggests Juries are Tired of Theoretical Justice & Circumstancial Evidence

[Just K]

If this forum continues to be as active after Casey's release, I fully expect to read some interesting comments. Like a moth to the flame.

Her DT let her look at their laptops and blackberry's throughout the six week trial. Jose Biez got many of his favorite phrases word for word from WS posts. You can be certain that she and they wil be here spewing their lies and innuendo.

 

[Eileen730]

Noooooooo, I didn't hear about the sleeping juror!!!!
I don't think they could add or read.

Yes one of them fell asleep it was on HLN....

 

[Duckley]

I agree that the deliberations should be taped. This jury has a lot of explaining to do IMO. From the snippets I have heard about their rationale - it seems like only a confession or a videotape of the actual crime would have convinced them of ICA guilt. It appears they eleived much of the unsubstantiated stuff from the DT and none of the evidence from the PT.
This case was very similar to the Peterson trial.... what was his real motive? Exactly when did he kill Lacy? How did she die exactly? Any murderer who is clever enough to hide a body til it decomposes and leaves no ferensics appartently should go free???? ReallY????

 

[Eileen730]

Her DT let her look at their laptops and blackberry's throughout the six week trial. Jose Biaz got many of his favorite phrases from WS posts. You can be certain that she and they wil be here spewing their lies and innuendo.

OH they did get alot from Websleuths!

what ever happend with the pic of CM flipping the bird?
someone said he was reported to the bar association!

 

[Amity]

"THE CASEY Anthony verdict made one thing perfectly clear: Juries are tired of theoretical justice and circumstantial evidence.

http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2011/072011/07082011/637652/index_html?page=1

I dont agree with the opinion expressed by the aurthor entirely. I do think as a society we do except more in court then before but is that because we are tired of theorectical justice and circumstantial evidence or because we as a society have more diverse experience than jurors once had? The world is much more open and transparent then before (cell phone, computers, gps's and facebook) that we believe proof should be easy to obtain?

Everyone has had a court room experience or a traffic infraction or needed a lawyer, do these things reflect on jury duty in court cases at trial in the way of needing a higher standard of evidence?

Thank you.
We as a society no longer have to 'think' as we used to.
Calculators are even allowed in 7th grade while taking a test.
We don't have to memorize phone numbers......they are 'saved' in our phones, push one button and that number is dialed.

So so so many more examples that I've thought of in the past but don't come to the top of my head right now, but you get the idea.

So it stand to reason, for me at least, that some jurors no longer feel they have to connect the dots, no longer need to work that hard. They might be feeling it's the attorneys' job to connect the dots for them.

Connecting the dots, whether it's for a verdict or situations in life, boils down to common sense.
My husband has worked with the 'average public' for 26 years.
For the last 10 years his biggest complaint when he gets home from work after a particularly trying day......
"Damn......what's happened to common sense?"

As he vents to me about his day, I can see exactly where he's coming from.
What has happened to "think it through" and "common sense" ?
Technology is wonderful.
But maybe it's provided 'too easy of an answer' when it comes to day to day life.
Maybe it's allowed our (collective) brains to turn into a bit of oatmeal.

Sorry......after all these days I thought I was done venting. Guess now. :banghead:

 

[nursebeeme]

'juries are tired of theoretical justice and circumstantial evidence'

((from opening post article))
-------------------

well... that is just no excuse. How many times does the perp stand there with the smoking gun in their hand witnessed by someone else???

The jury was given the responsibility of examining all of the circumstantial evidence and following the law.

10 hours and 40 minutes ((more like 9 if you count all the smoke breaks)) later, with no notebooks... and not one question asked they come up with not guilty on everything but the lying. How could they possibly examine 6 weeks of testimony in that amount of time to give proper weight where weight was deserved?????

imhoo there was a gross misunderstanding of the law and what was expected of them and also I agree that some of them may have been swayed easily by the opinions of other jurists.

All that being said, I also believe that the State could have stressed in opening and closing more about what they were required to prove (COD, motive, etc being what they are not required to prove) much like CM did in his portion of the closing (re: stressing the instructions).

I also think that the impeachment of CA on the computer searches was a double edged sword for the state because it pretty much impeached her early testimony during the SA's case in chief when Cindy said she did NOT leave the ladder down.

All in all you know what I think folks? This whole family, in their lying and covering up, provided the smoke and mirrors the jury was faced with during their deliberations. They couldn't see the science, the circumstantial evidence thru that fog.

It is a shame they couldn't have given more time on such a very important decision but it is what it is... It is over now and there is no going back...

Justice for Caylee Marie Anthony.... could have been achieved if her grandparents and uncle had testified truthfully from the START. I personally lay the fault at their feet. It really has been there since this whole rodeo started 3 years ago.

I don't blame the State, the Defense, or the Jury... I blame the family. Well, now they will have their cake... and they will get to eat it too. Where is the justice in that? I am not sure...

 

[liltexans]

Sad thing is, George even told them 2 + 2 = 4 & they still didn't get it.

They didn't "like" George, remember? This from the jury who claims not to have let emotion influence their decision.

 

[Puzzler]

She was staging a kidnapping to be reported after she had gotten rid of the body. Her out partying was an alibi of sorts that showed everything was normal and Zanny was with the baby.

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.

 

[annalia]

They didn't "like" George, remember? This from the jury who claims not to have let emotion influence their decision.

And as one of the jurors said, Casey "looked like" a good mom. I almost fell off my chair with that one. They used that as evidence?? How many seemingly "good" moms have gone to commit crimes against their children?? They needed Casey to be shown as a monster.
Emotions instead of evidence.
JMHO

 

[Italy]

The jurors have said they think Casey was a "good mother".

Let's see:
This was testified to by Mallory who is the fiancé of brother Lee.
Lee is the incestuous sexual pervert who molested Casey.

Mallory seemingly has no problem being engaged to a man this "good mother" accuses of being a sexual deviant. I'm sure she has the ability to tell good from bad.

 

[DIXIECAT]

Three overlapped pieces of duct tape were still stuck together, and both ends were still stuck to Caylee's hair. They had to cut the hair to free the duct tape. The ME concluded that the duct tape had been applied prior to decomposition and that is what had held the mandible in place--which is not what usually happens when a skull decomposes, the mandible normally falls away. Hence, there was duct tape over Caylee's face. A single piece would have been enough to cover the nose and mouth, if it were applied in the right place. Three overlapped pieces would definitely block a toddler's airways. If the pieces had not been stuck in the hair, the duct tape and the mandible would have fallen away as the head decomposed (sorry for image).

Duct tape has been used before to smother people, including children. (I can hunt up some links if you wish.) There was also chloroform present in this case, which may or may not have contributed. Chloroform was originally used to anesthetize children for medical procedures, but it fell out of favor because too many children died. It's possible Caylee died of chloroform before suffocating from duct tape, and we can never know that.

However, I don't need to know the exact cause of death to know this was a homicide, and neither did the ME. The tape applied to a toddler's face is enough.

Apparently, the jurors were woefully devoid of critical thinking skills... I'm beginning to believe that "professional" jurors might be a good idea. JMHO :maddening:

 

[Dragonlady]

1) Because jurors may be less likely to render an unpopular opinion, because it's on tape who said what. Just because something is unpopular does not mean it is wrong.
2) What one person interprets as coercion, another would call real deliberation and discussion in the jury room. Who really should decide this issue?
3) How long before the media starts clamoring for their right to view the videotaped deliberations and it becomes even more of a circus?
4) If we don't like what they focused on in the jury room, are you going to invalidate it?

Video taping the jury would lead to a greater miscarriage of justice and would pander to mob mentality.

1. You don't think that the verdict that they reached was an "unpopular opinion"?
For the record the jury is supposed to follow the judges instructions and not base the verdict on opinion.
2. Coercion is not discussion, and I fail to realize how you could claim them to be the same.
3. I don't see how a video of jury deliberations would harm the system, like I said before we video tape interrogations, depositions, trials and we even have police cams and street cams all to ensure that the laws and rules are followed.
4.We the public do not validate, that would be up to the judge to decide, I'm sure that HHJP knew that something went terribly wrong in their deliberations but with no video proof to see what occurred he was forced to accept it.
You pose great questions and I don't have all the answers but it's obvious that we need change in order to have fair trials and verdicts, even when we personally do not agree with the outcomes.

 

[Hisimage]

not liking someone is not an emotion? I am probably wrong but I would consider it an emotion. Didn't Mr. Baaaez say you may not like ICA but that is not grounds for guilt?

I fell asleep on the couch last night to the sound of HLN news station. I could swear somebody was talking about accusations of brainwashing the jury. LOL wow this just gets strange.

 

[joypath]

Wait a minute didn't the guy who was forced out of his job because of those tainted records testify for the defense. Isn't that one of the defense experts? :waitasec:

This jury didn't think it was willful? So I might ask what evidence did they base that on? I do not recall Baez ever being able to back up his wild assertions in his opening statement. There was more evidence that this was in fact willful, the hiding of the body, the actions for 31 days, the lies, the way the body was found and the items that were found with Caylee, the smell in the trunk.

Now what did we hear about not willful. A woman who was allowed to give hearsay testimony that George allegedly said "This was an accident that snowballed........"

There has to come a time when Defense Attorneys are not allowed to come out with fantasy in their opening statements unless they know going in they can back up those statements.

This trial has nothing to do with what the jury saw as not enough evidence but the State being forced to not only prove it's case, but to fight the fabrications and emotional bunk that defense Attorneys are allowed to throw out (and not prove) to confuse and play on the emotions of a jury.

If the system is broken it is because jurors are not able to remove myth from fact.

And, because the family went into a CYA mode protecting Casey. lying in the earliest stages and trying to justify what had happened. It proves if you scream loud enough and confuse the truth with spin you can get away with crime.

All this trial did for me was tell me that if you are in a high profile case your defense attorney can fabricate stories and if you hide a body long enough you will get away with your crime because most of the evidence of what happened i.e. "cause of death" is lost.

While the ENTIRE thought in this post is OUTSTANDING, the BBM is the lesson learned from this experience! THANK were just NOT enough, IMHO!

 

[tink92]

If you think she does not got mental issues, I have to ask ... does a perfectly healthy and sane person murder their own child and throw them away like trash with seemingly no remorse?

She is not sane by any stretch of the imagination... in fact all of the lying and stealing all show she is not a functional member of society in any way.

The tests show she is sane and fit to stand trial. She is just EVIL. But I know what you mean..how can she not be insane?...

 

[PaulaF513]

"THE CASEY Anthony verdict made one thing perfectly clear: Juries are tired of theoretical justice and circumstantial evidence.

http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2011/072011/07082011/637652/index_html?page=1

I dont agree with the opinion expressed by the aurthor entirely. I do think as a society we do except more in court then before but is that because we are tired of theorectical justice and circumstantial evidence or because we as a society have more diverse experience than jurors once had? The world is much more open and transparent then before (cell phone, computers, gps's and facebook) that we believe proof should be easy to obtain?

Everyone has had a court room experience or a traffic infraction or needed a lawyer, do these things reflect on jury duty in court cases at trial in the way of needing a higher standard of evidence?

The writer of this article is ridiculously sophomoric. Every prosecutor would love that every crime came accompanied by a crystal clear video and ample DNA. Reality says that most murders of children are committed clandestinely. People don't generally go to the public playground to kill their kids.

I agree with you that we expect more today because we have all experienced the indiscreet, the violence, the flat out obscene that is put out there by the readiness of cell phones and the abundance of surveillance cameras. Does this fact mean that we should simply never again try to hold a person responsible if concrete direct evidence doesn't exist? If a criminal is lucky enough or smart enough to eliminate evidence or hides a body until it disintegrates, do we simply say huhum, can't getcha?

Nothing excuses this particular jury's collective lack of due diligence in discharging their civic duty. Add to that their collective lack of understanding the judge's orders, which clearly told them that opening statements were not evidence. JB presented no evidence of a drowning and a coverup. GA denied the scenerio, plainly and emphatically as he did when asked about the alleged molestation.

I have always held that the death penalty should not be sought in cases with circumstantial evidence only. I am perfectly satisfied with with a sentence of LWOP. However, the death of Caylee Marie Anthony was replete with incriminating evidence from her murderer however indirect it may have been.

The sole problem here was in selecting jurors who lacked the intelligence and common sense to apply the law or to follow instructions. This above all worries me because if they are any indication of the "average" juror, our criminal justice system is dire straits indeed.

 

[annalia]

I think longer.


The condition of Caylee's body showed foul play. So she wanted to pretend the child was kidnapped to explain the use of chloroform.

It's a natural connection. So who did it?


Think of Susan Smith where "the black guy stole my baby!!" Cops see right through that stuff.

So she decides to make it look like a kidnapping from a Mexican lady. Why? Think of all the kidnappings in Mexico that were in the news that year.

If she reports it right away the cops are going to do an Amber alert and lock down. So she wants to establish that she's been with Zanny.

I think she got blind sided by Cindy. (this is theory but born out by her not wanting Cindy to go to the cops but to give her one more day)

When she got caught she hadn't nailed down the details enough and screwed up left in right in her story.

But if the nanny already had Caylee for 31 days, why would there be a need to duct tape Caylee in order to kidnap her? She already had her, she could have just taken off anywhere.

I realize we're talking about casey here so it's hard for normal people to think like she would think, but for the jury to consider it as a possibility, there has to be some semblance of rationality in it.

 

[Chili Fries]

It's not possible to draw general conclusions from this verdict. This is just one murder trial out of thousands every year.

 

[Eileen730]

Well i had to turn off HLN i just cant stand to watch anything about KC any longer.
I never thought id feel this way about this case but it has left me with this huge emptiness inside i found i had trouble breathing and sighing ALOT. then those feeling just became overwheling anger.

I really thought after three years justice would finally have its day.
I never wish bad for anyone but i hope this jury sees what a huge mistake they made
and how utterly foolish they are i hope they have sleepless nights and when they look at their children or grandchildren they see Little Caylee Anthony.

Caylee's entire family are guilty. A family of liars!!!!
The only sadness i feel is for the little girl that lost her life.

We reap what we sow!!!!!!!

 

[Italy]

The writer of this article is ridiculously sophomoric. Every prosecutor would love that every crime came accompanied by a crystal clear video and ample DNA. Reality says that most murders of children are committed clandestinely. People don't generally go to the public playground to kill their kids.

I agree with you that we expect more today because we have all experienced the indiscreet, the violence, the flat out obscene that is put out there by the readiness of cell phones and the abundance of surveillance cameras. Does this fact mean that we should simply never again try to hold a person responsible if concrete direct evidence doesn't exist? If a criminal is lucky enough or smart enough to eliminate evidence or hides a body until it disintegrates, do we simply say huhum, can't getcha?

Nothing excuses this particular jury's collective lack of due diligence in discharging their civic duty. Add to that their collective lack of understanding the judge's orders, which clearly told them that opening statements were not evidence. JB presented no evidence of a drowning and a coverup. GA denied the scenerio, plainly and emphatically as he did when asked about the alleged molestation.

I have always held that the death penalty should not be sought in cases with circumstantial evidence only. I am perfectly satisfied with with a sentence of LWOP. However, the death of Caylee Marie Anthony was replete with incriminating evidence from her murderer however indirect it may have been.

The sole problem here was in selecting jurors who lacked the intelligence and common sense to apply the law or to follow instructions. This above all worries me because if they are any indication of the "average" juror, our criminal justice system is dire straits indeed.

Well and eloquently stated. Thank you.