Verdict Suggests Juries are Tired of Theoretical Justice & Circumstancial Evidence

[Eileen730]

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.

Sorry i dont think they knew what the judge instructed them to do!

 

[logicalgirl]

BBM

I think this is what JA was trying to get Spitz to explain and in the end Spitz couldn't explain it except by getting frustrated and making accusations that there was NO evidence to support except his words.

The duct tape was found still attached to Caylees hair and the jaw area, keeping the lower jaw in place on the skull on one side (if I understood correctly). There would be only two directions for that tape to have come from...wrapped around the back of her head, or wrapped around her face. Which makes the most sense?

Thank you for this - I'm late to the thread and was sitting here pondering the statement regarding what made people assume the duct tape was on her face when the skull was so decomposed - and was quite "in awe" at the statement.

And yes, the duct tape had to be cut out of Caylee's hair on each side of her face, even after six months of skeletonization, animals pulling the remains apart and being submerged in swamp water for weeks during the flood.

I also want to point out that this jury was not there to decide on the death penalty. Even for a guilty decision on the most serious charge, the option was there for LWOP. But this part of the trial was only to decide guilt or innocence on the three charges. The penalty phase is the second part of the trial.

The jury doesn't even decide on death. There are laws in place for this decision, and during the penalty phase, after deliberating all the aggravating and mitigating factors, they make a recommendation. But the judge has the final decision.

And they got "stuck" on cause of death. The prosecution does not have to prove either cause of death, or motive. But there is no way around it - if you have the number 4, there are a wide range of numbers that can add or subtract to arrive at the number. But the final equation can never be 0+0+0=4.

In other words ICA was completely innocent despite all the scientific evidence, but Caylee was still duct taped, dead, and thrown in a swamp like garbage.

 

[Eileen730]

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.

Sorry i dont think they understood what the judge instructed them to do!

 

[Amity]

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

Nah......what it proved to me is society has been "dumbed down". They don't want to have to actually think about anything.........they want the "app" that does it for them.

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!

 

[amysmom]

To make it look like they drugged the child and put her in the trunk of a car with duct tape over her mouth while they kidnapped her.

The nanny would have to move the child out of state. I'm speculating how CA thinks of course which is the thing I don't like to do. That's the stuff of gossip and discussion.

Since this is (IMO) how she died it makes it look the same.

Or if you want to take it a step further, she killed her this way on purpose to make it look like a kidnapping, thinking that's what it would look like.

I can see that argument.


The only reason I don't agree with that argument is why would she go to all that trouble to kill her when she could have just drowned her in the pool?

bbm

Or throw her in the pool during a fit of rage cos Caylee was bugging her to "swim" while she was busy either texting or on the puter..I can see that easily happening even tho I don't believe it did..Either way, the one thing I do believe is IF she had drowned in the pool CA would never have forgiven her..Baez got at least that right..Just more proof of what a "bad mother" she really was..She would have no choice but to dispose of Caylee & come up with something to show that's not what really happened to her IF she was ever found..I'm kinda surprised Baez didn't go there with CA in his 'accidental' drowning instead of using GA as an accomplice which nobody in their RIGHT mind should've ever considered as 'truth of the matter'..OTH! His mission was to show ICA had ZERO to do with it..I wonder what, if anything, she could've been found guilty of in this scenario since 'tampering with a body, illegal disposal' wasn't included in the charges. :waitasec:

 

[Eileen730]

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.

No you heard correctly someone was talking brainwashing i read it on another thread here.

 

[wandering]

http://http://www.worldlawdirect.com/forum/law-wiki/25844-circumstantial-evidence.html

"...circumstantial evidence has an advantage over direct evidence..."

 

[annalia]

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.

ITA. I don't understand the RAH, RAH, we're the best, juries are the best, don't dare question them, mentality. There have been other cases where the guilty have gotten off and innocent have been convicted. And this case probably won't be the last. To question it is our right as citizens just as we question those in government.

I was swayed by listening to the few jurors own words, that they failed in upholding the law. Would I want to be on a jury, no way, but that doesn't make it ok for juries to do as they please.

JMHO

 

[Eileen730]

If they believed her lies to police they should have believed she killed her daughter!

 

[wandering]

I am more perplexed than I am angry.

Maybe being inside the courtroom as in 'Judge Judy', or watching real life courtrooms 'in session' has seriously diluted our RESPECT for the courtroom, judge and the system that it represents.

I hear lots of people say that the jurors took their responsibility seriously, except I don't think they did. They ignored judges instructions about motive and COD, used their time supporting a complex and outrageous theory (As in the plot of a CSI or Law and Order episode).
I'd have no problem accepting a verdict that was contrary to my belief, IF I felt that they just read the evidence and testimony differently to me. However I am really struggling with some of the excuses (disguised as reasoning) that the jurors are offering in explanation.

I recall a day when if one was stopped by LE, you put on your 'yes sir' voice and were respectful to the uniform. On the way to court, you hid your head in shame.

Today, when stopped we call 1-800-lawyerPlease, and watch as the lawyer is disrespectful to the LEO and the rules he has sworn to uphold, and on the way into court we wave to the crowds and smile for our pics.

This is part of a steady decline. Instead of TV interviews, I'd like to see some serious studies of the jury system and how it works or fails in legal schools right now.

Sorry for being so long - I'm still confuzzled

I think part of the problem is that television crime dramas solve the whole case at the end of the program. People have gotten used to the whole case wrapped up neatly with all the details solved in one hour.

 

[Dragonlady]

Sorry i dont think they understood what the judge instructed them to do!

I'm sure they did not understand HHJP or any expert testimony and that's how they arrived at the not guilty verdict, if the deliberations had been video taped, then HHJP could have had a chance to view them before announcing the verdict to make sure that the decision reached was based on his instruction and allowed him to clarify this for the jury and sent them back to deliberate, because I know that he was shocked and did not agree with the verdict, it was allover his face and tone after he read it.

 

[Just K]

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:

As long as they are not allowed to profit off of their decisions either or to run for public office where their decisions might be used to garner public support.

 

[com n sense]

I truly believe Chewy has the right explanation of what happened.

My hypothesis is that Casey wanted her to be found with the duct tape over her mouth and the explanation would be the nanny kidnapped and killer her.

If you read Casey's jailhouse letters, she states that if Caylee is never found, she is going to be put away for eternity.

Felony murder, felony murder, felony murder.

Lee states that Casey didn't even think or bring up a kidnapping until the police were on their way. She was backed into a corner so had to add a lie to her nanny lie.
Lee explained to her in so many words, the police would demand she take them to Caylee.
The duct tape was not put on Caylee to look like a kidnapping as that was an after thought.

 

[liltexans]

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

I can only speak for myself, but this is not the first time I've questioned the intelligence of a jury or their ability to follow basic instructions from a judge. I'm not talking about the OJ verdict either. We have a murder case here that is about to be retried because during jury deliberations in the first trial, one of the jurors was turned in by another juror for having done "research" on the definitions of murder and manslaughter. Apparently the juror hopped on the internet and looked up the definitions even though this was expressly forbidden by the judge. This was not a sequestered jury of course. Fortunately the judge quickly declared a mistrial since what this juror did was a clear violation. They were also considering fining the juror in question and holding them in contempt. I haven't heard if that has been decided yet.

 

[Amity]

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

Above BBM

So where are those witnesses that stated in their depos that Precious Caylee was taken to parties where smoking pot was going on while her mother tried to get her to go to sleep on the couch?

Why didn't anyone ask: If Cindy did not have Precious Caylee, and she was not with Casey, where was she? Who was babysitting her? Was she in a safe environment?

 

[amysmom]

I agree Judge Perry did not read the jurors instructions very well i kind of tuned him out also... He is at fault also in this,,,,,JMO

he could have made it all very clear and easy to understand..

It sounded like 'white noise' to me..I dunno if it was his tone or what while reading the instructions but that's how I felt at the time..Maybe the jury too?

Trust me I HATE to say this but CM did a far better job explaining his part of the jury instructions & having it written down on HUGE paper for them to read along with made it much easier for THIS jury..Maybe this is something all judges need to do at this phase just to insure the jurors actually GET it!

 

[logicalgirl]

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.

Thank you! And could I point out that even if the jury had voted guilty on the most severe charge the penalty was not death.

It was death OR Life without the possibility of parole. It was NOT just death.

 

[logicalgirl]

It sounded like 'white noise' to me..I dunno if it was his tone or what while reading the instructions but that's how I felt at the time..Maybe the jury too?

Trust me I HATE to say this but CM did a far better job explaining his part of the jury instructions & having it written down on HUGE paper for them to read along with made it much easier for the jury..Maybe this is something all judges need to do at this phase just to insure the jurors actually GET it!

The jurors had that list of instructions and the Judge was available to the jury at any time if they had questions or needed further clarification.

Didn't "get" it is not excuse.

 

[Dragonlady]

Above BBM

So where are those witnesses that stated in their depos that Precious Caylee was taken to parties where smoking pot was going on while her mother tried to get her to go to sleep on the couch?

Why didn't anyone ask: If Cindy did not have Precious Caylee, and she was not with Casey, where was she? Who was babysitting her? Was she in a safe environment?

They also tuned out when ICA's ex boyfriend stated that Caylee slept in bed between them!

 

[logicalgirl]

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.

Please do not repeat what is a malicious story from a known liar and a lawyer who wanted to win at all costs. There is no proof that information is fact at all.

Mallory stated also that she saw ICA infrequently with Caylee. Perhaps no more than a dozen times. In family situations. How realistic an opinion would that be?