Verdict Suggests Juries are Tired of Theoretical Justice & Circumstancial Evidence

[songline]

There were a few suspicious things from the get-go like WHO? was paying for ICA's defense & WHY?..It was reported it was a mysterious donor from CT..Also, some person claiming to be who they weren't but I don't recall the gist of that one..Other then that, which was a BIG deal at the time, I don't believe anything else nefarious coming to light.

I def don't buy into anything Wendy Murphy has to say..When she was on Fox last weekend & gave this scenario the host (?) & all the guests blew her off as :crazy: I did too at the time & haven't changed my mind one smidge since then.

eta..To clairfy, I'm not saying I don't think anyone can believe or even contemplate it IF that's what they chose to do..

That is smart thinking amysmom BBM
She did not meet some girl in jail who told her about him - :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: or any other BS story.
The public bought a lot of BS. A tone of Crapola. That is why I stopped posting on this case about 2 years ago.
I saw it took a real strange turn. A FAKE SHOW was produced.

 

[s.lash]

If they hadn't asked for the death penalty I think they would have convicted her. When ask for the death penalty you should have an airtight case. In this one it wasn't.

I've been wondering if this is the real reason behind the acquittal as well. If there had been a wider selection of lesser charges, might they have felt more confident coming to a guilty verdict?

 

[elfie]

"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?

Well, the author of the article admits that they didn't really even follow the whole trial. I still disagree with their premise, though, as I think the PT presented sufficient evidence for a conviction on the aggravated manslaughter charge.

I think the jury was individually and collectively tired of the entire ordeal to the extent that they were not willing to spend one more day (or whatever length of time it would have taken) to be involved in the penalty phase, so they settled on charges that would release them of the duty. Expediency was first and foremost in their minds rather than justice for Caylee whose voice has been silenced forever.

I completely agree with other posters who believe that by rendering a shocking verdict, they calculated that their fees for statements and to appear in the media would skyrocket, and that they spent the entire time during deliberation discussing these issues and these alone. It's a travesty.

 

[NocturnalLady]

The other thing that Baez was allowed to do is ask questions in a way that was testifying.

For example he asked Yuri 3x and the prosecution was sustained 3x why Melich didn't trace the "other" cell phones that George and Cindy had.

At that point even though Yuri said he didn't know about them, because they were hidden from the State, even though it was sustained that is dirty pool. I didn't hear Baez saying you know the cell phones I provided to the Anthonys. No that wasn't mentioned at all. This is where our system is broken Baez got away with murder asking leading questions.

The question should have been to Yuri, and were there any other cell phones held by the Anthony family. The answer would have been no.

Instead the jury hears there were. Baez was allowed to testify way too much in this trial.

I agree with this so much.

I think HHJP has a fantastic mind full of legal knowledge BUT he allowed himself to be far far too cautious in this case due to the fear of having to "do it all over again on appeal". In doing so he allowed the defense (and the defendant) to get away with murder. Baez was allowed to testify all through out the trial by asking the types of "questions" you detail above. He also was allowed to testify to the fact that there was "something wrong with Casey" mentally without ever having to prove it.

In addition I think HHJP erred greatly in rushing the jury selection. I think the prosecution ought to file a complaint really. I've never ever seen jury selection handled that way for a death penalty case, especially one so high profile that was expected to last weeks and weeks. I think HHJP let his worries about the state court finances weigh too much on him and he influenced the outcome of the case in a negative way due to factors that had nothing to do with Casey's actual guilt or innocence.

 

[NocturnalLady]

Just want to bring this over from the lightening thread as it seems to apply here as well:

There are Five things in this case, having to do with the jury, that might have been addressed but weren't.

They were unaware (or so it seems) that:

The prosecution was not required to argue to motive

The prosecution did not need to show the specific cause of death only that the death was deemed a homicide.

The judge did not Instruct them to Disregard the penalty attached to the charges.

They did not understand that the lesser included charges did not have a death penalty provision.

Most importantly, it seems that they did not follow the judge's admonishments.

Perhaps the lesson here would be to ask each juror individually if they accept and understand the following items and to go one step further to ask each one of them to explain that understanding. If there is any confusion then the judge (and only the judge) should make that clarification.

Have cases ever been overturned by a higher court because of either jury nullification or the exclusion of a judges instructions?

I say too - let the jurors talk. The more they do so the more obvious it is that there may be a case for jury nullification here.

There have been hints that they talked about the case to each other before deliberations - big no no. Also that they considered the punishment during the guilt or innocence phase - big no no.

 

[Velouria]

AGAIN – THEIS WAS NOT THE CASE – the real case is hidden, ugly, and scary.
So they brain washed you all... YES KC deserves jail...NO the case was not told.

Wendy Murphy has guts she is not crazy at all :nono:

It appears the "real" culprits have done a remarkably thorough job of hiding this ugly, scary case, because I can't find a single legitimate link to substantiate this theory. :waitasec:

(and by legitimate, I'm not talking about Wendy Murphy's opinion piece)

 

[NocturnalLady]

From all appearances it appears that this jury might have been discussing this trial before it was charged to them. And yet every day they came in and when asked if they heeded the directives of the judge they all said yes. No if they were discussing this case amongst themselves, or in groups of 4 or 5, that is against the court order. The reason for this rule is so that the jury isn't split up from all discussions, and then pushed by a larger group who have already made up their minds engroup, when it is time to deliberate.

They were sworn to follow the law about that particular order of the court. If this happened and not one of them sent a note to the judge through the court officer what might I think about this jury to allow this to happen. I can't say it happened I"m questioning based on what I have heard so far if indeed it did happen.

Now if it is proven they did in fact discuss the case with each other it may take us to the next question since they disregarded that order. And that might be, did they discuss it with family members or anyone else? That isn't a far stretch if it is proven they discussed it with each other.

During the trial Juror Number 3's mother said that yes she was getting calls from bookers.
OK so now the day after trial the entire extended family is in Disney World? HOW in the world was this arranged and coordinated that quickly?

They were not supposed to have any contact with the general public at all during this process.

These are reasonable questions to inquire about..... I want this jury to keep talking.

And therefore all the more reason that HHJP needs to release their names.

In my opinion yes, jury duty is not a choice BUT it is a civic duty and you should be expected to stand up publicly and take responsibility for the choices you have made as a juror. After all those choices affect the lives of everyone else who is a citizen of this country.

The TH's keep talking about how Casey is going to be "released back into the community". The image that puts into my mind is one of a wild, dangerous animal being dropped at random into an unsuspecting and unprepared public.

I think that if the jury knew that they would be called to account publicly for allowing that to happen they might have at the very least taken their job to deliberate more seriously. They would not have come back after 11 hours.

 

[NocturnalLady]

I'm not a fan of HHJP anymore. I think he got all the little things right, but the few crucial things wrong. I agree with the jury selection being rushed and of course some of them never should have been jurors on this case. JB was allowed to get away with so much - that opening statement should NEVER have been allowed. They lied and scammed their way through the trial after how many discovery violations, contempt findings, etc? Disgraceful.

I agree, the more I think about it the less impressed with HHJP I am. For instance - why bother to try to "rehabilitate" a juror who says they are against the DP??? You seriously think that someone can shift from a serious position like that just because of a few questions asked to them by the judge? I think HHJP greatly helped to throw away justice for Caylee for the sake of expediently seating a jury panel.

 

[time]

If they hadn't asked for the death penalty I think they would have convicted her. When ask for the death penalty you should have an airtight case. In this one it wasn't.

I just posted this article in another thread

In Casey Anthony's case, the law worked
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shapiro-caylee-anthony-20110709,0,4550760.story

I definitely think you should have a case where you can prove a murder occurred. That was their first problem. It's the prosecution that everyone should blame, not the jurors. No one can claim they know for a fact that Caylee was murdered. The evidence wasn't there.

 

[MustlyLurking]

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.

I think you have nailed it! The SA did not spend enough time on the basic story. The SA needed to include all of the details, because of the possibility that some jury members were critical thinkers. But, what SA should have done better is cover the simple story as you have stated it, because of the possibility that some jury members were not critical thinkers. SA laid out the detailed story with precision and accuracy, but should have returned to the basic story frequently. The SA did not anticipate a jury with no critical thinkers and no deductive reasoners.

In effect, the SA tried to create an image of what happened in the minds of the jury. They placed all of the dots of evidence on the image, and expected that the jury would connect the dots with reasonable inferences. However, the jury took a only quick look and determined that there were a lot of dots, but they were not connected. The jury decided that the SA failed to connect the dots, so the SA failed.

This leads to why I believe the jury failed. The SA and DT can make their cases, but ultimately it is the jury's responsibility to examine the evidence, make the reasonable inferences, and apply the law. I think they blew it on all of these responsibilities. I don't think they even understood what their responsibilities were.

The DT played to the jury on an emotional level. Almost everyone is capable of processing emotions, on some level. Much more effective approach when dealing with a jury of non-critical thinkers. DT was not particularly powerful or eloquent, but they connected with the emotions of the jury.

 

[MustlyLurking]

I just posted this article in another thread

In Casey Anthony's case, the law worked
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shapiro-caylee-anthony-20110709,0,4550760.story

I definitely think you should have a case where you can prove a murder occurred. That was their first problem. It's the prosecution that everyone should blame, not the jurors. No one can claim they know for a fact that Caylee was murdered. The evidence wasn't there.

Consider the source... By Robert L. Shapiro Don't forget he is a defense atty. Not exactly unbiased...

 

[MustlyLurking]

I'm not a fan of HHJP anymore. I think he got all the little things right, but the few crucial things wrong. I agree with the jury selection being rushed and of course some of them never should have been jurors on this case. JB was allowed to get away with so much - that opening statement should NEVER have been allowed. They lied and scammed their way through the trial after how many discovery violations, contempt findings, etc? Disgraceful.

I agree. During the trial, I perceived that HHJBP allowed the JB to violate the court in many ways. At the time, I thought he was letting JB have enough rope to hang himself with. Now, I think HHJBP should have held the line. The DT has the appellate process if they loose their case. The SA, however, gets one shot at a conviction. HHJBP did not keep the playing field level and it cost the SA their one chance.

I am puzzled that, with all of his years and experience, HHJBP did not see in advance how this might turn out.

 

[lovelabs]

Does anyone know how many cases that the Grand Jury has indicted people that went to trial and were acquitted?

Didn't HHJP read the Grand Jury Indictment to the court/jury at the start of trial. What would make them think that the Grand Jury was so off base.... more confusion for me I guess.. heavy heavy sigh.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I just posted this article in another thread

In Casey Anthony's case, the law worked
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shapiro-caylee-anthony-20110709,0,4550760.story

I definitely think you should have a case where you can prove a murder occurred. That was their first problem. It's the prosecution that everyone should blame, not the jurors. No one can claim they know for a fact that Caylee was murdered. The evidence wasn't there.

Duct tape = murder imo.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I agree. During the trial, I perceived that HHJBP allowed the JB to violate the court in many ways. At the time, I thought he was letting JB have enough rope to hang himself with. Now, I think HHJBP should have held the line. The DT has the appellate process if they loose their case. The SA, however, gets one shot at a conviction. HHJBP did not keep the playing field level and it cost the SA their one chance.

I am puzzled that, with all of his years and experience, HHJBP did not see in advance how this might turn out.

Seems like the SA and the public did not get a fair trial in this case.

 

[time]

Duct tape = murder imo.

I appreciate your opinion, but I don't see that duct tape evidence as being very solid. Many on here have actually outlined why.

 

[Baznme]

I think you have nailed it! The SA did not spend enough time on the basic story. The SA needed to include all of the details, because of the possibility that some jury members were critical thinkers. But, what SA should have done better is cover the simple story as you have stated it, because of the possibility that some jury members were not critical thinkers. SA laid out the detailed story with precision and accuracy, but should have returned to the basic story frequently. The SA did not anticipate a jury with no critical thinkers and no deductive reasoners.

In effect, the SA tried to create an image of what happened in the minds of the jury. They placed all of the dots of evidence on the image, and expected that the jury would connect the dots with reasonable inferences. However, the jury took a only quick look and determined that there were a lot of dots, but they were not connected. The jury decided that the SA failed to connect the dots, so the SA failed.

This leads to why I believe the jury failed. The SA and DT can make their cases, but ultimately it is the jury's responsibility to examine the evidence, make the reasonable inferences, and apply the law. I think they blew it on all of these responsibilities. I don't think they even understood what their responsibilities were.

The DT played to the jury on an emotional level. Almost everyone is capable of processing emotions, on some level. Much more effective approach when dealing with a jury of non-critical thinkers. DT was not particularly powerful or eloquent, but they connected with the emotions of the jury.

BBM - So true, every word.

Underlined - Jury was instructed NOT to address evidence or decision on "emotion".

 

[Chilly Willy]

I appreciate your opinion, but I don't see that duct tape evidence as being very solid. Many on here have actually outlined why.

It's really not a matter of one piece of evidence being solid, it's all the evidence put together. Have you EVER heard of a situation in which a child's body was disposed of in the manner Caylee's was without the child being murdered? Have you EVER heard of any mother going out partying immediately after the child's death without reporting it? Have you ever heard of a mother having a car that smell like death an contains chemical consistent with decomp and then her child's body is found in the woods stuffed into 3 bags with duct tape across her face?

 

[cluciano63]

It's really not a matter of one piece of evidence being solid, it's all the evidence put together. Have you EVER heard of a situation in which a child's body was disposed of in the manner Caylee's was without the child being murdered? Have you EVER heard of any mother going out partying immediately after the child's death without reporting it? Have you ever heard of a mother having a car that smell like death an contains chemical consistent with decomp and then her child's body is found in the woods stuffed into 3 bags with duct tape across her face?

Everything you say is true...but I have never in my life seen a family like this one and hope I never do again. Dysfunctional families everywhere should be angered by this family being called dysfunctional...they are in a "class" of their own. I can't think of anything they might not have done, actually.

 

[leophoenix]

Everything you say is true...but I have never in my life seen a family like this one and hope I never do again. Dysfunctional families everywhere should be angered by this family being called dysfunctional...they are in a "class" of their own. I can't think of anything they might not have done, actually.

I can point you to a family right now just like them except they have a son and they are family members of mine. Most the family disowned them. Their son has done 10X more than KC (except the murder) and his parents cover it up. He's a record producer btw and makes 150,000 per year. At least that is what his facebook says.
:floorlaugh: