For those who agree with the verdict...help me understand.

[beccalecca1]

If by attack, you are referring to my post for example,



Let me try an on-point response to that post and see if it can be moderation safe.



The answer to "why" is shown by your comment itself. It's full of obvious fallacies:

1. "I'm not a 'magical thinker'"
This is declaring so as though the simple declaration is proof by itself that one is not so. If one were so, would one know it or admit it? Yet, you are offering that as though it's prima facie evidence so that others should believe it. (Not saying you are or aren't such a thinker, but that the statement indicates specious reasoning.)
2. "If there was evidence of murder, why would I be here arguing the opposite?"
a) This is a completely circular argument. It assumes that which it needs to prove, that you wouldn't argue otherwise if there were in fact evidence.
b) It assumes that your belief alone about the evidence is sufficient proof for the state of the evidence, while ignoring the obvious counter of the vast amount of people who believe otherwise. If your belief that there is no evidence is proof there is no evidence, then what to make of the belief of others who believe there is evidence? Only your belief counts?
c) The statement also mistakes "evidence" for "proof." Every individual piece of information or evidence in a case can be used to support one theory or another or support multiple theories at once. To say there is no "evidence" for murder is trivially false. There are individual evidences that support murder and/or that support some other scenario, the pertinent question is whether all the evidence together can support or prove murder over and beyond any reasonable doubt from any other explanation for the evidence. (The lack of recognition of this framing is I believe the fundamental flaw in the thinking of the jurors.)

So, what should one make of the fact that you have made this clearly spurious statement (one of several) in the same thread you arguing that those who agree with the verdict are engaging in competent analysis of the evidence? Do you think it lends credence to the (often claimed in this thread) reasonableness and thoughtfulness of the "not guilty" view? It doesn't prove others aren't reasonable, but it doesn't help the overall case, as others have said they agree with you on much and see you as a good role model for that view.

I can see why the kind of arguments I have just made can yield the reaction that they are an "attack" but it's an attack on arguments not the persons themselves, other than perhaps, and necessarily so, their rational performance as to this specific topic. But if you can't attack arguments, there can be no discussion unless everyone agreed.

Not everyone is a competent critical thinker on every topic, but not being a good critical thinker doesn't make someone dumb are deficient. One can be very successful in life and competent in various intellectual endeavors and still fail at proper critical thinking. Some are even good critical thinkers in many areas but fail in specific areas (usually involving an emotional or ideological factor). It's a specific skill that has to be learned and practiced, and whose methods go counter to many of our natural cognitive instincts. It's a skill that is not taught very well in schools. This is why people commonly believe all sorts of improbable and false beliefs, why they get conned by emails from Nigeria, why they believe in any number of grand conspiracy theories (including I would say "the George did it" conspiracy).

This is not meant to be harsh or insulting, but trying to give a view of the situation here as openly as possible.

As I stated in that post, I wasn't specifically referring to anyone's post, just a general thought in my mind.

But, since you did respond, I have to ask you: Why would you say the response needed to be censored?

And, working in the medical field, critical thinking skills are a necessity. Just because I think George played a part in it, does not in any way mean I lack critical thinking skills.

 

[jrb0124]

This is all besides the point and a strawman.



That makes no sense. The "best" verdict should be their goal. They shouldn't be thinking, we're just a bunch of average joes and so shouldn't think we can do the best job possible.



You mean this can't go both ways or from either view?

And are you saying the evidence not submitted in trial adds more credence to guilt?



Egregious strawman which would have to ignore about everything I've said.



Never said that's what makes it wrong. I've said the exact opposite in fact. Try responding to the words I wrote.



Yet another circular argument from you, that assumes the State didn't adequately prove the case and that there was no incompetence or dereliction from the jurors.

Sorry, I responded specifically to everything you wrote - clearly, with no strawmen, and non circular arguments. That you say I didn't doesn't make it so. The fact remains that only a jury can render the "correct" verdict, because only a jury is empowered to do so. That you or 99.9% of the population disagree with it, doesn't make it incorrect or wrong.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

You got that right.

How did Ashton's excuse for not calling him as a State witness go again? "Mr. Kronk can spin a good tale so to speak".

Really? kind of like Casey Anthony "can spin a good tale"?

However, there was nothing at the recovery scene that indicated any "keep away" game was being played with the remains. The dispersal pattern of the bones indicated it was placed their before decomposition and disarticulation. The foliage pattern also indicated it had long been there in the same state undisturbed. The duct tape was also too badly degraded to think it was placed their recently (even the jury foreman acknowledge this). Kronk would have to be greatest supergenius in the world in forensics, art and landscape design to have faked all that.

Again, you have to look at the TOTALITY of the evidence.

 

[WillChgo]

I am not being evasive, I just think you are missing my point.

...

Casey Anthony may be guilty of everything she was charged with, but that does not make the verdict "wrong". The jurors have even said they do not believe she is innocent and that it made them sick to their stomachs, but the evidence and jury instructions compelled them to vote not guilty.

For the juror its not "do I think she did it?", its "did the State prove she did it?". The answer to that is NO.

It is your opinion that the State did not prove the case. Legally that is true as that is what the jury believed. It is also true that the legally the State did not prove the case in the OJ case. Does that make the jury verdict "correct"?

I disagree with your opinion and with the jury's decision. IMO the State proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury foreman took Baez's opening statement as evidence. He clearly liked the defense more than the prosecution and IMO relied on emotions rather than evidence for his vote.

He allowed in the jury deliberations wild speculations not in evidence (e.g., GA killed Caylee) and incorrect did not discuss evidence that support Casey's guilt (her behavior).

IMO the state proved beyond any doubt that a body was in Casey's trunk. His judgment that this was not proven IMO was wrong.

Given the foreman's and other jurors' interview, there is little evidence that they carefully examined the evidence. Consequently it is incorrect to state as a FACT rather than as your opinion that the State did not prove their case.

 

[beccalecca1]

Jurors are jurors for a reason...they are supposed to be a regular group of people, listening to the powers of the state and/or government and deciding if those powers have proven the charges made against a particular defendant. They are not meant to be legal eagles, crime watchers, or even college-educated. I feel pretty certain that if this same group of 12 had given a guilty verdict, no one would be questioning their IQ's or wondering how they came to their verdict so quickly. And there were plenty of negative comments and insults towards the jury long before they started talking, so it is not just because of their reasons.

I guess I am borderline moronic, as I think they made the right choice, from the charges they were given.

After they came back with a not guilty verdict, I just had to watch NG to see what she had to say (because IMO, she was the bandwagon for a lot of "Hate Casey" people). A caller asked if they should not making jurors certified in order to listen to testimonies and evidence. Certified? Like, they have to take a course in how to be the correct juror. REALLY?? What a way to insult your personal rights and constitution!

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Sorry, I responded specifically to everything you wrote - clearly, with no strawmen, and non circular arguments. That you say I didn't doesn't make it so.

It's not a strawman because I say so (which is another strawman from you); it's a strawman because the comments are implying I said something I didn't. You can easily prove they aren't strawman by showing where I said the things you have implied. Do you think saying it's not a strawman is good enough when it comes from you? Just show me where, for example, where I ever said that my belief about the verdict is final proof about what the verdict should be.

The fact remains that only a jury can render the "correct" verdict, because only a jury is empowered to do so.

You're equivocating between "correct" and "most reasonable according to the evidence."

That you or 99.9% of the population disagree with it, doesn't make it incorrect or wrong.

This is a repeat strawman.

 

[beccalecca1]

Wait a second. JA was arrogant but not the DT?

I support the prosecution's case and I think JA was very good act asking the most pertinent questions but I will agree JA came off bad at times when questioning defense witnesses. Personally, I think it backfires to be so aggro. It gives the impression the witness worries you. Many lawyers do act that way though, so maybe they think it helps somehow.

But, holy moses boutrous ghali, how can anyone say that about JA as though the DT was absent any behavioral problems? That's just blind partisan cheerleading.



Did you not notice JB frequently objecting and standing and making faces, often a smirking smile?



CM was the rudest one of them all. When one poor CSI was answering questions, she would look at the jury as it seems they are all advised to do, but CM didn't like it and yelled to her "I'm over here." He was lecturing witnesses as though he was their a**hole dad.



Nobody made Jose look like a joke more than Jose himself.



Of course, a good juror would try to be conscious to discount any personal opinions of the attorneys. Their behavior and words are not evidence. The most you should take from them is some input on how to put all the evidence together.

I don't think JB acted improper towards the state's witnesses, or when they were being questioned by the state. BUT, I do agree, CM shouldn't have been questioning anyone. If he wasn't being rude/loud/obnoxious to the witnesses, he couldn't get his facts straight to the question. I felt like he was always trying to get the smoking gun, but the gun fizzled out real quick when he began to speak (ie. Roy making that 911 call, pulling out the record, LDB having to show him that it was the non-emergency line also.)

 

[jrb0124]

It is your opinion that the State did not prove the case. Legally that is true as that is what the jury believed. It is also true that the legally the State did not prove the case in the OJ case. Does that make the jury verdict "correct"?

I disagree with your opinion and with the jury's decision. IMO the State proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

For you and also Smelly Squirrel:

It is the jurors who decide which testimony and evidence to lend credence to and how much.

They are the final arbitors of: when GA was lying and what about, or which ME made more sens, or how reliable Dr. Vass's results are etc...

How can you ever objectively say "the jury got it wrong"? Got what wrong? that GA was telling the truth about X and lying about Y? Think about it...
They are restricted to the evidence and testimony presented. The State's big picture probably made sense to you long ago right? Yet, you expect the jury to form the same big picture while also hearing credible counter-evidence and interpretation from the defense at the same time?

Remember how despised the Anthony's were on here? then after CA testifies and breaks down she receives mucho support...same with GA. Then next week she's back in the doghouse. How the H--- is a juror suppossed to interpret all of this when even we (the seasoned case followers) didn't see some of it coming?

 

[pcrum12]

Exactly, I don't know what I could have been thinking.

And I can certainly see why the chloroform computer evidence didn't make any sense ESPECIALLY SINCE THERE NEVER WAS A SEARCH FOR CHLOROPHYL.

And I can see why Vass was so confusing and they couldn't understand his DRAWING with a peak of chloroform that looked like a mountain. I mean if they cannot understand the jury instructions, I can imagine the peaks would be quite difficult.

And why even take into account the FBI forensic scientist who said he found chloroform on the rug even after it had been sent to him in AN UNSEALED cardboard box (and chloroform is KNOWN TO DISSIPATE QUICKLY).

And then there being no DNA is quite the culprit also - EVEN THOUGH HEAT AND WATER ARE DNA'S ENEMIES. and Caylee was underwater for some four months or so. So I can understand the jury getting all this evidence confused. I mean Dr. Kenney Baden said there should have been DNA or skin tissue attached to the tape and he should know - he is only about 500 years old and his colleague Spitz, 506 years old, who BROKE THE SKULL.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, absolutely. Got it. Right.

We get it! You would have voted GUILTY! However, this threads topic is for those that agree with the verdict...help us understand. It's clear that you are not here to constructively try to understand those of us that agree with the verdict. It's one thing to point out your view but if you don't want to understand why we believe in the NG verdict, why are you on this thread? It appears from your above post that your motive is to insult. JMOO

 

[jrb0124]

premised on the absurd assumption that 12 people can't come up with a wrong verdict, as though every verdict ever decided has been decided correctly.

Just show me where, for example, where I ever said that my belief about the verdict is final proof about what the verdict should be.

You're equivocating between "correct" and "most reasonable according to the evidence."

I re-quoted your post that started this entire exchange.

 

[MarthaM]

How can you ever objectively say "the jury got it wrong"? Got what wrong?

I think that's so important to repeat. NO jury ever gets it wrong. No jury ever gets it right, either. Their verdict is what it is, and it was the right verdict for that particular jury to reach. Every verdict is that, in every case.

When I say that the jury got this one right, I'm really saying that I agree with their verdicts. And when I hear/read others say that they got it wrong, I translate that to 'I don't agree with that verdict'.

There are no right or wrong verdicts.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

As I stated in that post, I wasn't specifically referring to anyone's post, just a general thought in my mind.

OK.

But, since you did respond, I have to ask you: Why would you say the response needed to be censored?

I once said the people who agree with the jury don't understand reasonable doubt and it was edited. I would be approaching a similar sentiment in a response.

And, working in the medical field, critical thinking skills are a necessity. Just because I think George played a part in it, does not in any way mean I lack critical thinking skills.

Perhaps, but your 'magical thinker' post does indicate spurious reasoning as I explained.

 

[jrb0124]

OK, on the "small minority." Still, where did you get that poll data from?

I posted a link to both in the "Jury Support Thread"...you might have to go to page 2 or 3 of the thread list though, as you can guess that thread doesn't get too much traffic :shush:

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I re-quoted your post that started this entire exchange.

And? Where are the exact comments from me that would confirm you didn't make any strawmen?

 

[Hot Dogs]

However, there was nothing at the recovery scene that indicated any "keep away" game was being played with the remains. The dispersal pattern of the bones indicated it was placed their before decomposition and disarticulation. The foliage pattern also indicated it had long been there in the same state undisturbed. The duct tape was also too badly degraded to think it was placed their recently (even the jury foreman acknowledge this). Kronk would have to be greatest supergenius in the world in forensics, art and landscape design to have faked all that.

Again, you have to look at the TOTALITY of the evidence.

It is possible that the body was moved and maybe even more than once. It doesn't have to be Kronk either.

There is a time when the body could no longer be moved to the result of the status and dispersion found on December 10th. But it could have been moved (especially while still in the canvas bag) in mid-June to early-August.

The very first dump site may not have been the swampy woods, and it could also have been moved from one part of the woods to another. It's even possible that the skull was moved independently of the rest of the remains.

 

[WillChgo]

For you and also Smelly Squirrel:

It is the jurors who decide which testimony and evidence to lend credence to and how much.

They are the final arbitors of: when GA was lying and what about, or which ME made more sens, or how reliable Dr. Vass's results are etc...

How can you ever objectively say "the jury got it wrong"?

...

I think you are not understanding what Smelly Squirrel and I are trying to say. Of course, the jury is the legal arbiter of what to believe and not to believe.

That is not the point.

The question is whether they reached the right judgment based on all the evidence presented. IMO they did not the same way that IMO the OJ jury reached the "wrong" decision. In your opinion the jury reached the right decision in the Casey Anthony case. We disagree. That does not mean that your opinion of the validity and correctness of the jury's verdict make that opinion a fact.

Do you believe the OJ jury made the "right" decision? I think that is a legitimate question to ask and that a legitimate answer is that the OJ jury got it wrong.

 

[pcrum12]

Ok so all people in FL who have a pool and a 2-3 year old who loves pools are golden.

They can kill their child and dump the child in the woods because "evidence" says they COULD have drowned.

When the State has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt their case and there is reasonable inference that a pool drowning could have happened. Yes.

 

[sacrablue]

The found position of the skull was rather odd. It was upright on the ground. It couldn't have started out that way. When the skull was still attached to the vertebrae it could not have been positioned upright. The skull would be laying on one of it's sides (l, r, front or back). After the skull detached from the neck it somehow ended up sitting upright.

There was debris material adhering to one side of the skull cavity suggesting that it was laying on its side during the very late stages of decomposition (when there is no longer any brain material left). Then it switches to an upright position. I think that is probably unusual.

Ok but the point was the duct tape held the jaw in place no matter what provoked the final resting place of the skull.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I posted a link to both in the "Jury Support Thread"...you might have to go to page 2 or 3 of the thread list though, as you can guess that thread doesn't get too much traffic :shush:

Alright, I found it. it was an InsiderAdvantage poll not Gallup or USA Today.

Southern Political Report

 

[beccalecca1]

OK.



I once said the people who agree with the jury don't understand reasonable doubt and it was edited. I would be approaching a similar sentiment in a response.



Perhaps, but your 'magical thinker' post does indicate spurious reasoning as I explained.

My post of not being a 'magical thinker' was my way of lightening the mood in here, since it's frequently tense.

It was also my way of saying that I have sat through the WHOLE trial, looked at every bit of testimony/evidence/behaviors/etc with a critical mind. I searched and searched for something to jump out at me, and unfortunately I didn't find one. Because I didn't find one, doesn't mean that I lack common sense or logic (as other posters had said about the jury).

Granted, maybe the 'magical thinker' post was in bad taste, but I didn't realize I'd have every line of my posts analyzed and re-analyzed. I'm really not that complicated, truly. I do my best to say it how I mean it.