logicalgirl
Peace Hawk
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2009
- Messages
- 16,024
- Reaction score
- 2
:waitasec: I heard that - the poster said she was expecting a vote of negligence. Was that more right than those who thought a murder?
Because the verdict was "neither".
Verdict Suggests Juries are Tired of Theoretical Justice & Circumstancial Evidence
- Thread starter Soulmagent
- Start date
- Status
:waitasec: I heard that - the poster said she was expecting a vote of negligence. Was that more right than those who thought a murder?
Because the verdict was "neither".
jon_burrows
New Member
snipped from the article:
"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."
BBM - I'd like to respond to the writer's comment about eye witness testimony. I am routinely mistaken for some one else by friends as well as strangers. Eye witness testimony is horrible. I would much rather see a circumstantial case. A few examples that happened recently:
- I was having lunch with a friend. The waitress came up, looked directly at me and said, "oh you're back." I had not eaten at that restaurant in years. I told her she must have seen my twin (joking). She did not believe me. She insisted it was me and even pointed to the table that I supposedly sat in a few days before. My friend asked me what the heck was that all about? I said I get it all the time. It's crazy.
- A good friend of mine saw a woman at work from a distance at first. He was sure it was me. He said she even had my same mannerisms. He walked all the way up to the woman to say hello and just as he got the word out of his mouth he realized it wasn't me. This was a well lit place and he was a friend of many years. My family even spent many weekends at his beach house with him (water skiing, going to the beach, eating out, the whole works). He definitely knows exactly what I look like and had he not come face to face with this woman, he would have sworn he saw me.
- The most recent, I had a meeting to attend and the time was changed at the last minute. I got the email in time and showed up at the correct time. When I got to the meeting, a man who never met me apologized to me for having to show up twice. I swore up and down that I had not been there an hour before. He kept asking are you sure? I said yes, I know exactly where I was an hour ago and I was not there. My so called look alike came in late. I looked nothing like her. The only thing we had in common was we were both relatively tall (both wearing heals too) wearing long black skirts. He came up to me after the meeting and said you really don't look alike at all, I think it was the clothes that threw me off.
- I was in a grocery store and the man behind me said, "oh, so we meet again." I was really taken off guard, had no clue who he was. I said nicely that you must have me mixed up with someone else. He told me, no I saw you at some sort of church event. I still maintained it was not me and I had never been to the church he was taking about. He eventually apologized but it did take a few minutes for me to convince him.
These are just a few of many people mistaking me for someone else. There is no doubt they would have all sworn on a stack of bibles in court it was me. My friend would have sworn too if he hadn't been face to face with the woman. They would have convinced a jury it was me, not by malice but by mistake.
It got so bad that I jokingly (but half serious) asked my parents if I had a twin they gave up for adoption.
Bottom line - I would have to have more than just eye witness to convict someone because I've been mistaken for someone else too many times to count.
IMO
"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."
BBM - I'd like to respond to the writer's comment about eye witness testimony. I am routinely mistaken for some one else by friends as well as strangers. Eye witness testimony is horrible. I would much rather see a circumstantial case. A few examples that happened recently:
- I was having lunch with a friend. The waitress came up, looked directly at me and said, "oh you're back." I had not eaten at that restaurant in years. I told her she must have seen my twin (joking). She did not believe me. She insisted it was me and even pointed to the table that I supposedly sat in a few days before. My friend asked me what the heck was that all about? I said I get it all the time. It's crazy.
- A good friend of mine saw a woman at work from a distance at first. He was sure it was me. He said she even had my same mannerisms. He walked all the way up to the woman to say hello and just as he got the word out of his mouth he realized it wasn't me. This was a well lit place and he was a friend of many years. My family even spent many weekends at his beach house with him (water skiing, going to the beach, eating out, the whole works). He definitely knows exactly what I look like and had he not come face to face with this woman, he would have sworn he saw me.
- The most recent, I had a meeting to attend and the time was changed at the last minute. I got the email in time and showed up at the correct time. When I got to the meeting, a man who never met me apologized to me for having to show up twice. I swore up and down that I had not been there an hour before. He kept asking are you sure? I said yes, I know exactly where I was an hour ago and I was not there. My so called look alike came in late. I looked nothing like her. The only thing we had in common was we were both relatively tall (both wearing heals too) wearing long black skirts. He came up to me after the meeting and said you really don't look alike at all, I think it was the clothes that threw me off.
- I was in a grocery store and the man behind me said, "oh, so we meet again." I was really taken off guard, had no clue who he was. I said nicely that you must have me mixed up with someone else. He told me, no I saw you at some sort of church event. I still maintained it was not me and I had never been to the church he was taking about. He eventually apologized but it did take a few minutes for me to convince him.
These are just a few of many people mistaking me for someone else. There is no doubt they would have all sworn on a stack of bibles in court it was me. My friend would have sworn too if he hadn't been face to face with the woman. They would have convinced a jury it was me, not by malice but by mistake.
It got so bad that I jokingly (but half serious) asked my parents if I had a twin they gave up for adoption.
Bottom line - I would have to have more than just eye witness to convict someone because I've been mistaken for someone else too many times to count.
IMO
costalpilot
Active Member
i think it made clear that something is radically wrong with the jury system in america.
Songline
If you sincerely believe there is a coverup of a sex crime against Caylee Anthony, you must speak out. If you have information that Casey used her child in this manner, you must speak out.
If there information in this regard - as Wendy Murphy said in her article - the state must have the courage to prosecute her. They will investigate if there is anything substantial and the way to make that happen is to get people demanding it. People in the know MUST speak out. This is not the time to be ambiguous.
logicalgirl
Peace Hawk
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2009
- Messages
- 16,024
- Reaction score
- 2
LOL - a "totality" of the culmination of events? I understand that - although I don't believe the jury understood the concept of totality. IMO
MidAtlanticNative
New Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 175
- Reaction score
- 1
LOL... You are rightbut but but.....
IT would not be the Anthony's who put money behind this case.
It would be a crowd that KC fell into - enough said.
Oh, OK - I see now what you meant.
tehcloser
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2008
- Messages
- 15,013
- Reaction score
- 41
Im not sure the jury understood the "concept" of "concept"........:fence:
I so agree w/you! I have come to realize that Judge Perry is not the judge that I thought him to be. I wonder what the sentiments are in the Orlando area? I wonder if there will be any repercussions for the way that he handled this case? I wonder if it will effect him getting reelected?
ThoughtFox
Expecting the Unexpected
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!
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!
cluciano63
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2010
- Messages
- 41,198
- Reaction score
- 27,312
This is just one case; I don't see why it determines that juries are tired of theories.
I just have to say that this is one of the best posts ever!
jon_burrows
New Member
I agree. JBP is not the judge I thought he was going to be either. I think he rushed to get a jury seated and some of them should have never been on there to begin with. This was definitely not a death penalty qualified jury. Come on, a lady who said she can't judge...puulease.
I also agree with JA that there wasn't anything more they could have done with that jury. I guess everyone can leave it up to their own interpretation but I think I know what he meant.
The only mistake that I believe the prosecution made was not making Cindy read her myspace page however, it would not have mattered with this jury.
IMO
Nonni Brenda
Georgia girl
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2009
- Messages
- 2,069
- Reaction score
- 31
Chewy, I respectfully disagree with your statement. If the jury had heard and understood the instructions given by Judge Perry, they would have known that Casey could have been found guilty of a lesser charge that did not carry a death penality. I fully believe that the jury was tired, they had been here 6 wks, were missing a major holiday, and wanted to settle it quickly. How could they have reviewed the thousands of pieces of evidence in the amount of time they were sequestered. Now they are saying there was no evidence. JA presented weeks of evidence. My feeling is that the jury did not take the time to look at that evidence. I know there was no "eye witness" evidence, but there was much good circumstantial evidence. 10 hrs was not enough time give to review the evidence that was there. Millions of people saw the same trial that the jury saw. The jury got in wrong. This is just my opinion.
The crux of the article is:
"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."
Not only is the author unable to consider circumstantial evidence, he must have a witness whom he deems reliable?? All crimes must be WITNESSED??
Wow! Did the Casey Anthony jury take turns reading this article to each other during deliberation?
This is truly terrifying if that is what a prospective juror believes -- but it will certainly solve the overcrowding in US prisons.
"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."
Not only is the author unable to consider circumstantial evidence, he must have a witness whom he deems reliable?? All crimes must be WITNESSED??
Wow! Did the Casey Anthony jury take turns reading this article to each other during deliberation?
This is truly terrifying if that is what a prospective juror believes -- but it will certainly solve the overcrowding in US prisons.
BBM No, I'm sure the jury didn't have any idea what happened to Caylee, and that in my opinion, was because the State didn't tell them a cohesive story with any evidence, circumstantial or otherwise. If I hadn't know from years of following this case, I would have been left in the outfield myself.
Circumstantial cases are fine, theoretical scenarios are not - who in their right mind would put anyone in jail on a story concocted by the State? Yes, that is how I see it, a concoction of unverifiable suppositions bolstered by questionalbe science, aided by liars on the witness stand.
A perfect storm. Yep, I'm starting to appreciate that phrase more and more.
My opinion only
Nonni Brenda
Georgia girl
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2009
- Messages
- 2,069
- Reaction score
- 31
In addition, eventhough many people think it was an accident, that is only speculation, based on JB's opening statement, which by the way is not to be considered evidence. Maybe the jury didn't have time to review that piece of instruction in the 10 hrs they gave to Caylee's justice. There was nothing, no evidence presented in the 6 wks of testimony to indicate it was an accident. Nada. Some of the jury members say the didn't want to speculate...but they did. Them not wanting to speculate is, IMO, an excuse to justify their wrong decision. And they let a murderer of a precious 2 yr old baby walk free.What a disgrace and shame to our justice system. I believe this jury will be remembered for generations for their "mistake" and injustice and disrespect for Caylee. JMO
jon_burrows
New Member
I was concerned the minute I heard very little to no note taking was going on. I could easily fill up several pages of notes during one lecture in college and this case hinged on whether or not a killer went free.
How could they not take notes every day? At least jot down a witness name and short summary of his findings to help them remember during deliberation. They knew going into this it was going to be a long trial.
Some of the jurors aren't too tired to make the media rounds over and over again. I think some of them have spent more time doing interviews than reviewing the evidence.
IMO
I have total respect for the jury and enough respect for other people's opinions to leave this thread while I'm still a posting member.
We may disagree on theoretics, and circumstances, but in the final analysis, Casey is free to walk, it's over, the fat lady sang.
Thanks for your comments Trident. I disagree with you but I enjoyed reading your posts and considering your point of view.
- Status