Verdict Suggests Juries are Tired of Theoretical Justice & Circumstancial Evidence

[songline]

I suppose it could be interpreted different ways but, IMO, the lack of credibility displayed by the Anthony family on the stand only proves that Casey, like most murderers, came from a family that wasn't ......let's say 'typical.'

That too. ITA.

But most of that was also a show.
IMHO the entire case was redirected away from the truth
of what actually happened to poor Caylee.

 

[nursebeeme]

"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?

bumping up the opening post

we are getting a little off topic
:seeya:

 

[AnaTeresa]

Ah - but who pays that "professional" jury? Frankly, I think there's just as much room, if not more, for jury tampering when we're making it a profession rather than using our peers.

How many people would be questioning this jury or their actions if the verdict had gone the other way? This is what frustrates me the most about a lot of the criticism being thrown at the jury. To me, it's clear this criticism stems from the verdict being "wrong" than any broad sort of critique of the jury system. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[coup de grace]

I'm sorry I haven't read through this whole thread, but it makes me sick how this jury so blantantly didn't understand what circumstantial evidence is. Something is wrong here per Jose Baez, yes siree with the jury as well. They needed much more instruction on the law for one before deliberating.

If you listen to prosecutors such as Marcia Clark etc. circumstantial evidence is used in many cases and is preferred by her over eye witness testimony as it paints a picture. The whole CSI mentality is even challenged by people writing those shows as they know many cases don't tie up perfectly with bombshell physical evidence. The high profile nature of this case let Casey in essence get away with murder and it's a crying shame. Our society is being dumb downed a little more each day!

 

[Velouria]

Of course it is. But you were saying things like "it's obvious to me" and there's a "dark" side to this case that we don't know about and none of us knew what you were getting at. That's baiting.

I also saw you imply in another thread that George had some Mafia connection that had something to do with this case. But you didn't explain why you thought that or provide a link to your source. That's baiting.

BBM

Huh? :waitasec:

Yeah, I'd love to hear an explanation of that one, too. opcorn:

IMO, if there was any credence to that rumor, then you can rest assured the DT would have been all over it.

 

[nursebeeme]

"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?

this is the topic of this thread... if you wish to discuss personal theories please go here:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6884247#post6884247"]Theories On What Happened to Caylee Part #8 - Page 17 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[Eileen730]

How do you suggest he could have made it clearer and easier to understand? Trim it down? Use different wording?He was probably limited to a great degree by the fact of leaving things open to an appeal if there had been a conviction.

He could have gotten that huge tablet JB had and broke it down for them nice and simple like we saw it done... saw it in black and white what the charges were and what the penalty was simple
Not the monotonous speech given i tuned him out myself.

This jury never even asked to see any evidence.
They left their notebooks on their chairs not that they took many notes, that alone should have told us something... they had their minds made up before they entered that room.. JMO

 

[Italy]

I do....
and the baby started to talk.

Wow - we can only hope that, in addition to everything else, this did not happen. If that is true however, we must all fervently hope the truth is revealed.

Without surmising as to other things however, I still believe there was ample evidence for Felony Murder on the part of Casey Anthony.

 

[Trident]

I stopped reading the article after that ***** said he would have voted the exact same way.

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!

 

[songline]

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 evidence.

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!

Hi Trident :seeya:
I totally agree - the jurors are not at fault.

 

[liltexans]

No it is not baiting.
NONE OF US DO KNOW the real full story, but some of us were on this case very early on and left - (I walked away for 2 years) because everything that was going on was a circus designed to stir away from the case.
This case had other sinister payers that we cannot talk about.
THE REAL CASE WAS NOT PRESENTED IMHO
but please do read this.
http://eassurvey.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/casey-anthony-trial-child-abuse-connection/

If you know that we can't talk about something here then you should not even imply it here or bring it up here. I stand by my previous posts.

 

[Eileen730]

Ah - but who pays that "professional" jury? Frankly, I think there's just as much room, if not more, for jury tampering when we're making it a profession rather than using our peers.

How many people would be questioning this jury or their actions if the verdict had gone the other way? This is what frustrates me the most about a lot of the criticism being thrown at the jury. To me, it's clear this criticism stems from the verdict being "wrong" than any broad sort of critique of the jury system. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We dont need professional juries but we need to keep them apart i think they spent to much time at bbq's dinners fireworks specials Etc Etc i think the jury forgot why they were there because they were treated like celebrities and that was wrong they had a job to do and if you think for one min they didnt talk to each other you are wrong ...

 

[logicalgirl]

bbm

In my opinion the state did not "throw the case"

What DID happen was the Anthony family. They have been happening since the start of this whole thing.

Did their lies perhaps feed reasonable doubt in the jurors: to me it seems that way.

Did the jury give any weight to the scientific evidence: well 10 hours and 40 minutes after they got the case they were ready to accept anything BUT the scientific proof so that is a resounding NO to me:twocents:

Sabotage by Anthony is what happened here.

I do agree that what we have is not justice but a legal system.

I also think it works most of the time.

Did it work this time? No:twocents:

i really really wish we could put the blame for this result on the shoulders of the Anthony's for this verdict - I really wish we could. And I understand you can. I agree their combined testimony - CA's outright and proven lies, GA's anger and attitude, and whatever the heck Lee was doing - may have an influence.

But I can't. I can't explain why the jury chose Dr. Spitz over Dr. G., ignored the evidence of the canines, the variety of police, Dr. Vass, Dr. Haskell, and the others and chose to go with Baez and this unproven theories and theatrics that made no logical sense and were not based on fact. I mean seriously - someone actually believed Dr. Spitz? No rational person did.

No, I lay the blame right at the feet of the jury - who chose not to examine the evidence, not to deliberate, not to ask questions, and not to try to put the evidence together to be considered in totality. This was a jury who wanted the easy way out...and took it.

I've given up trying to understand what brought them to their decision. I've listened to the jurors who have spoken to date, and all it has done is convinced me even more that they abandoned all sense of reason, and all sense of duty to country and the legal system at the door when they walked into the jury room.

 

[coup de grace]

Do you think Casey turned Caylee into a sex slave?

Apparently Wendy Murphy - lawyer and child advocate - thinks that http://eassurvey.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/casey-anthony-trial-child-abuse-connection/

That is chillingingly creepy and the first I've heard of anything like it!

 

[Nikki 01]

The evidence to me that it was an accident is that she did not drown in the pool.

To me Casey had a perfect set up with that. The pool ladder having to be up and concerns about a small child near a pool. Pool drownings happen every summer.

The fact that she did not drown in the pool is evidence that Casey didn't murder her deliberately. Especially not premeditated murder. Who would bind and duct tape a child and make homemade chloroform in order to kill their child when a much easier situation is literally sitting in your back yard.

No offense, but this is completely illogical. You can't say just because she didn't choose one method or murder proves she didn't intend to murder her.

Chloroforming her and duct taping her mouth would be a lot easier than drowning her. She could have easily knocked her out with the chloroform, then duct taped her mouth, and placed her in the trunk. She could have then gone on about her day without a second thought. Drowning a child would be longer and messier. Also even some child killers can't bring themselves to look their child in the eye and kill them in such a violent manner. By chloroforming and duct taping her she could kill her without having to watch her struggle. By placing her in the trunk it would have been out of sight, out of mind.

So it's a bit of a stretch to say the fact that she didn't prove one method proves she didn't intentionally kill her at all.

 

[cluciano63]

The state objected to juror #4 but was shot down by JP..There were others too they either didn't want & had to take or did want but didn't get..The same goes for the defense too so I'm not sure what could've made a diff.

I know, but I have read some posts that seemed to suggest this was a defense jury from the start...whereas I think it was the judge who set the tone and the pace of jury selection. I still don't understand why it was ever determined that this trial should be a "rush-job"-was it strictly financial?

 

[Steft50]

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

http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/F...ex_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?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

The problem with "being tired of theorectical justice and circumstantial evidence" is that's pretty much all there is in most cases. Direct evidence is eye witness, video showing the crime as it's committed, suspect confession and I think thats it. There is nothing else. Without one of those every case is a theorectical case based on the circumstantial evidence available. What should we do as a society? Not prosecute unless there is direct evidence (one of the three mentioned above)? That is the only alternative I can see to this so called problem of "theorectical justice and circumstantial evidence".

 

[Italy]

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 evidence.

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!

I completely disagree with you and I find it offensive that you would use "...even missing a major holiday with friends and family" as a justification. I think the proper outcome is considerably more important than missing a barbeque and fireworks.

I think you will agree that the consensus (including legal scholars) is that the jury rendered an improper verdict. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

 

[Trident]

No it is not baiting. (I should not be responding to that at all)
NONE OF US DO KNOW the real full story, but some of us were on this case very early on and left - (I walked away for 2 years) because everything that was going on was a circus designed to stir away from the case.
This case had other sinister payers that we cannot talk about.
THE REAL CASE WAS NOT PRESENTED IMHO
but please do read this.
http://eassurvey.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/casey-anthony-trial-child-abuse-connection/

ITA with you. In the Tim Miller thread, I said, do not sue the As because of bad vibes - I really meant bad JUJU, very bad, destructive.

My opinion only

 

[songline]

BBM

Huh? :waitasec:

Yeah, I'd love to hear an explanation of that one, too. opcorn:

IMO, if there was any credence to that rumor, then you can rest assured the DT would have been all over it.

some douments were sealed. MUST be some reason. THERE IS!
<modsnip>..

You can start here.
http://eassurvey.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/casey-anthony-trial-child-abuse-connection/