Verdict Suggests Juries are Tired of Theoretical Justice & Circumstancial Evidence

[Schu7]

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".

Did you take notice of the timing of those forced sidebars by JB? JB had great timing. The intent to sway the jury with them was obvious to me.

 

[niaa]

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.
MOO

Great example. Maybe if "reasonable doubt" had been explained to the jury by the judge with THIS example they would have got it.

This jury got it wrong. From what we're hearing, it sounds like a couple vocal leaders swayed the group. This makes me so sad and embarrassed to live in Florida. At least I don't live in Pinnellas County.

 

[Chewy]

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".

I didn't watch the trial itself I've gotten most of my information from the people here.

However I will say that if he DID this, this is how she got off. For me I KNOW she's guilty of something but I don't know exactly what in LEGAL terms. So it's confusing. We all have theories about what happened.

If JB was arguing points not being made by the Prosecution, that should have been objected to and shot down.

That's basically creating a reasonable doubt that is not part of the case.

I got the impression that the jury was angry that the state didn't make it simple and clear as far as what happened. But in reality they couldn't because they didn't know what happened.

I really wish they had not charged her with the DP. I know people are saying they aren't doing sentencing but if you have DP on there it suggests to the jury that you have a rock solid case. Which they did not.

SP was convicted on circumstantial evidence but there wasn't reasonable doubt that someone else just happened to dispose of Laci's body where SP had been "fishing" the day she went missing.

In this case you have two other adults in the house.


I also think that the reason JB accused George of molestation was to put him on the defense on the witness stand. That is manipulative and apparently it worked.

 

[ohiogirl]

You have to read the jury instructions to understand why the jury could not convict Casey on anything but the lying.

The jury instructions are specific to the crimes charged.

"If you find Caylee Marie Anthony was killed by Casey Marie Anthony, you will then consider the circumstances surrounding the killing in deciding if the killing was Murder in the First Degree or was Murder in the Second Degree or Manslaughter or Third Degree Felony Murderwhether the killing was excusable or resulted from justifiable use of deadly force."

For Agg. child abuse: "Casey Marie Anthony knowingly or willfully committed child abuse upon Caylee."

For Agg. Manslaughter: "Casey Marie Anthony’s act(s) caused the death of Caylee Marie Anthony."

The States biggest problem was they could not things directly to Casey but to the house. The house where George, Cindy and Casey were all liars. The few jurors who have spoken have said that George has no credibility. George, the only person who could put Casey as the last person to be with a living Caylee.

I'll agree with this. But, at the end of deliberations, it was 6 to 6 for the agg. manslaughter. Then the 6 for it were swayed by the other 6. They really didn't take the time to discuss this last charge and were evenly divided. The 6 for allowed themselves to change their votes based on expediency and the desire to be done. This jury was a HUGE WASTE.

 

[D96s]

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.

Great post. I agree completely. Just as LDB feared, common sense was lost in the retoric. The defense threw absolutely everything up against the wall, had witnesses perjure themselves and then blamed the State for doing that in their closing. They are a slimy, unethical bunch and they were lucky to get a jury that were tired and wanted to go home. This jury was dressed to go home before they were even excused to deliberate. I still remember Jean C's description of one of the jurors during testimony. She said that eveytime Baez talked she took notes, but when Aston got up she would shrug and look away disinterested. Huh? How can a juror do their job if they don't listen to evidence???

 

[robmom]

and also
"Somebody whom I deem reliable is going to have to testify that he saw the crime committed"

That will be hard since study after study shows that eyewitness testimony is notoriously some of the most unreliable testimony there is. So I wonder what the author would consider a reliable eyewitness? (There are 402,000 search results for unreliable eyewitness testimony on Yahoo. He may need to find some and read them).

 

[annalia]

and also
"Somebody whom I deem reliable is going to have to testify that he saw the crime committed"

That will be hard since study after study shows that eyewitness testimony is notoriously some of the most unreliable testimony there is. So I wonder what the author would consider a reliable eyewitness? (There are 402,000 search results for unreliable eyewitness testimony on Yahoo. He may need to find some and read them).

And how many crimes/murders against children are witnessed by third parties?? Or most murders/crimes for that matter?

That has to be one of the dumber statements to come from the jurors but if that is indicative of their thought process, they were incapable of putting together what was presented.
JMHO

 

[logicalgirl]

I believe a lot of intelligent people would have voted the same exact way, and some of them stated such on national TV.

Circumstantial evidence is fine IF it is strung together in a believable fashion which the State, in my opinion, did not. There was doubt over every piece of their "scientific" evidence, not to mention a lot of their "science" was brand new, never been used before. A trial of this magnitude is NOT the place to test brand-new science.

I am so tired of hearing the jurors being put down. None of us were sequestered for weeks, even missing a major holiday with friends and family.

Bravo to the jurors for doing their duty, I find no fault with them or their verdict!

Okay - taking a deep breath here before I respond. Sigh.

There it is right there. What went wrong with this jury. The jury was there to judge whether a child was murdered by her mother or not.

Is a month or two months so difficult to endure, and one national holiday with family and friends, in exchange for finding justice for a little girl who lost her life at the age of two and a half years? Are we really so self centered that the jury considered their time so important they were unwilling to make what was really - in a lifetime - a very small sacrifice? A . Small . Sacrifice!

Americans claim to have the greatest justice system in the world. But people are unwilling to make the sacrifice of a couple of months? This is a country who has lost more than 6000 troops overseas to fight a battle to protect the country. What about this sacrifice and the terrible loss to their families.

Doesn't it make the "sacrifice" of two months, and being sequestered and missing a national holiday seem kind of ....well....silly argument in defense of this jury?

In the totality of the picture, service in your armed forces to protect family, community and country are part of the same fabric as is service on a jury - to protect Justice in your country. Both should be respected and honoured, and viewed as a necessity to maintain the freedoms you have.

 

[Gracenote]

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 don't understand it either.

 

[jon_burrows]

I didn't watch the trial itself I've gotten most of my information from the people here.

However I will say that if he DID this, this is how she got off. For me I KNOW she's guilty of something but I don't know exactly what in LEGAL terms. So it's confusing. We all have theories about what happened.

If JB was arguing points not being made by the Prosecution, that should have been objected to and shot down.

That's basically creating a reasonable doubt that is not part of the case.

I got the impression that the jury was angry that the state didn't make it simple and clear as far as what happened. But in reality they couldn't because they didn't know what happened.

I really wish they had not charged her with the DP. I know people are saying they aren't doing sentencing but if you have DP on there it suggests to the jury that you have a rock solid case. Which they did not.

SP was convicted on circumstantial evidence but there wasn't reasonable doubt that someone else just happened to dispose of Laci's body where SP had been "fishing" the day she went missing.

In this case you have two other adults in the house.


I also think that the reason JB accused George of molestation was to put him on the defense on the witness stand. That is manipulative and apparently it worked.

BBM - ICA immediately admitted she was the last person to see Caylee when Zanny the Nanny took her. She wrote the entire Zanny the Nanny lie in a sworn statement to police that very night. She took them on a wild goose chase that landed them at Universal to supposedly pick up her work phone and gather other evidence so they could find Zanny (all lies). She told the same Zanny the Nanny lie which was recorded. The jury never even read her sworn statement that night during deliberation. Disgraceful.

IMO

 

[logicalgirl]

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

Here - let me help you out. I know what happened to Caylee - she's dead. She ended up in the trunk of her mother's car leaking decomp fluid and stinking up the car so bad that many persons. experts and the canine dogs testified to it.

And her mother drove her dead body around for 1 - 4 days while it decomposed.

Then Caylee's remains were thrown off the side of the road to rot like so much trash.

That's what happened to Caylee.

Who did this to Caylee? Well, through the process of opportunity, evidence, and who most profited by this crime, the decision is obvious and easy.

But then here's the thing. I believe Grand Juries do not come to a decision to recommend charges easily. I don't believe SA's spend three years of their lives interviewing hundreds of witnesses and spending Floridian taxpayer dollars on a "whim". And I don't believe police official, whether sheriff, Lead detective or FBI persons get on the stand and lie over and over again.
And I know that no scientist will state any fact as a certainty - it is not part of their makeup or profession.

I saw a jury who could have come to one of three decisions, decending from very serious involvement to some involvement. And I saw a jury who feels "horrible" about their decision and did not think to go back over the evidence to double check they were making the right decision.

Theory bored them. Like many posters here who have opinions - they got bored during the scientific evidence, which was what this case was all about. I love the internet, but to me it has turned us all in to one minute brains. We have no need to consider a question - just type in a question and there's your answer in less than two seconds. So why bother to exercise your brain at all?

Apparently this jury thought they were googling their decision. Wah, no one gave us the answer and we don't want to actually have to find it ourselves.

Pathetic.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

"As for the pundits and legal experts, let them celebrate the outcome. But don’t let them tell you your outrage is misplaced, and don’t let them scold you for analyzing the verdict and criticizing the process.

The judicial branch of our government demands every bit as much scrutiny as the legislative or executive branches. Like any institution, it is fallible and we alone are responsible for holding it accountable for its failures.

It failed Caylee Anthony.

I don’t need DNA evidence to tell me that."


http://www.ocala.com/article/20110710/COLUMNISTS/110709726/-1/news?p=1&tc=pg

A must read article

 

[donnam]

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.

But, why should pertinent REAL evidence even be allowed to be brought up on appeal? I just don't get it. If it is evidence it should be allowed in period. If it makes her guilty it is because she IS.

 

[Sistah Sleuth]

Here - let me help you out. I know what happened to Caylee - she's dead. She ended up in the trunk of her mother's car leaking decomp fluid and stinking up the car so bad that many persons. experts and the canine dogs testified to it.

And her mother drove her dead body around for 1 - 4 days while it decomposed.

Then Caylee's remains were thrown off the side of the road to rot like so much trash.

That's what happened to Caylee.

Who did this to Caylee? Well, through the process of opportunity, evidence, and who most profited by this crime, the decision is obvious and easy.

But then here's the thing. I believe Grand Juries do not come to a decision to recommend charges easily. I don't believe SA's spend three years of their lives interviewing hundreds of witnesses and spending Floridian taxpayer dollars on a "whim". And I don't believe police official, whether sheriff, Lead detective or FBI persons get on the stand and lie over and over again.
And I know that no scientist will state any fact as a certainty - it is not part of their makeup or profession.

I saw a jury who could have come to one of three decisions, decending from very serious involvement to some involvement. And I saw a jury who feels "horrible" about their decision and did not think to go back over the evidence to double check they were making the right decision.

Theory bored them. Like many posters here who have opinions - they got bored during the scientific evidence, which was what this case was all about. I love the internet, but to me it has turned us all in to one minute brains. We have no need to consider a question - just type in a question and there's your answer in less than two seconds. So why bother to exercise your brain at all?

Apparently this jury thought they were googling their decision. Wah, no one gave us the answer and we don't want to actually have to find it ourselves.

Pathetic.

Wow...that is deep! Pathetic is the word when we as a society become too damn lazy to even think!

 

[Sistah Sleuth]

I've been praying that behind the scenes, the FBI, CIA, or whatever branch of government is investigating this jury. First interviewing them one by one and then collectively. There is no doubt in my mind and spirit that this jury was corrupted by one or two jurors who bullied the deliberations into a not guilty verdict for their own self-interests. I believe juror #6 had a lot to do with it. They cared not about what happened to Caylee and cared even less about justice for her--they cared about financial gain from a high profile case.

It is obvious that something went wrong. We could have had a jury with Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles, Beethoven and Jose Feliciano who would have arrived at a guilty verdict. Hell, even Hellen Keller would have convicted Casey and remember she was deaf and blind!

 

[Italy]

Just as the author of this article must have a RELIABLE WITNESS to the crime, so must this Casey Anthony jury.

I don't buy they feel "horrible".
I don't buy they were crying after their verdict.
I don't buy they did their job and considered the evidence.
I don't buy that they couldn't find Casey Anthony guilty of child murder.

And to quote this group of ignoramuses - the evidence just isn't there to believe them.

There is however ample evidence to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony got away with murder thanks to these jurors -- even though there was not a "reliable witness" to the crime.

 

[Mulegirl]

Respectfully snipped...

Theory bored them. Like many posters here who have opinions - they got bored during the scientific evidence, which was what this case was all about. I love the internet, but to me it has turned us all in to one minute brains. We have no need to consider a question - just type in a question and there's your answer in less than two seconds. So why bother to exercise your brain at all?

Apparently this jury thought they were googling their decision. Wah, no one gave us the answer and we don't want to actually have to find it ourselves.

Pathetic.

FABULOUS post. Just wanted to add that another down side to the internet (and the technology-spurred nanosecond attention span of so many Americans now) has also exacerbated the ability to separate fact from fiction. Think "I read it on the internet, it must be true." The ability to discern reputable and reliable sources of information from bull has become too pervasive and seems to have added much to the lack of common sense in people.

Murder cases are all about science and forensics. If people cannot or are unwilling to at the very least attempt to follow that evidence, or ask for clarification during deliberations, then they should not be allowed on juries for such trials. MOO, but strongly felt, and based on the evidence (har).

 

[aeneas1]

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

and yet "theoretical scenarios" are exactly what convinced this jury to return a verdict of not guilty. "theoretical scenarios" such george is an incestuous pedophile (a dt claim backed by absolutely no evidence), that george covered up the crime (a dt claim backed by absolutely no evidence), and that caylee accidentally drowned (yet another dt claim backed by no evidence). so while "theoretical scenarios" are indeed not "fine", and not what a jury should hang their hats on, this jury did exactly that.

 

[Mulegirl]

"As for the pundits and legal experts, let them celebrate the outcome. But don’t let them tell you your outrage is misplaced, and don’t let them scold you for analyzing the verdict and criticizing the process.

The judicial branch of our government demands every bit as much scrutiny as the legislative or executive branches. Like any institution, it is fallible and we alone are responsible for holding it accountable for its failures.

It failed Caylee Anthony.

I don’t need DNA evidence to tell me that."


http://www.ocala.com/article/20110710/COLUMNISTS/110709726/-1/news?p=1&tc=pg

A must read article

Thank you! This is such a well-reasoned and well-written article. Definitely worth reading. Wow -- well-reasoned, what a concept. :crazy:

 

[Eye Wonder]

Okay - taking a deep breath here before I respond. Sigh.

There it is right there. What went wrong with this jury. The jury was there to judge whether a child was murdered by her mother or not.

Is a month or two months so difficult to endure, and one national holiday with family and friends, in exchange for finding justice for a little girl who lost her life at the age of two and a half years? Are we really so self centered that the jury considered their time so important they were unwilling to make what was really - in a lifetime - a very small sacrifice? A . Small . Sacrifice!

Americans claim to have the greatest justice system in the world. But people are unwilling to make the sacrifice of a couple of months? This is a country who has lost more than 6000 troops overseas to fight a battle to protect the country. What about this sacrifice and the terrible loss to their families.

Doesn't it make the "sacrifice" of two months, and being sequestered and missing a national holiday seem kind of ....well....silly argument in defense of this jury?

In the totality of the picture, service in your armed forces to protect family, community and country are part of the same fabric as is service on a jury - to protect Justice in your country. Both should be respected and honoured, and viewed as a necessity to maintain the freedoms you have.

:clap::clap::clap::goodpost: