Sidebar Discussion #5

[jon_burrows]

As we all know hindsight is 20/20 but I've been giving this matter much thought about Judge Perry and the prosecution for the last few days, especially after reading Jeff's book and I've come to the conclusion that there were many things that could have been done differently but I'm not a lawyer and I'm not a judge so it doesn't really matter in the great scheme of things. However, the single biggest mistake that I felt the prosecution made was not introducing the evidence of cell phone pings, text messages, computer activity, etc. for 6/16. I seriously doubt this jury would have paid a bit of attention to it but I think if more had been presented about the @#$##$%'s activities that day, it might have helped a bit. That said though, honestly I doubt this jury would have been capable of understanding anything the prosecution presented even if they had a step by step video of her actually murdering Caylee. It's as sickening to me today as it was the day the verdict was read.

The jury foreman was asked by Greta if he thought CA lied about the computer searches. It was a simple yes or no question. I had to read his answer about five times and I've come to the conclusion that he did not know. He also said something about the prosecution presenting standard stuff but the DT really caught his attention (something to that affect). There were no leaders on this jury and the one that did take charge was an idiot.

Two people voted for first degree murder. I would like to know what made them change their vote.

IMO

 

[Spice]

Yes but was this a fair trial ? A sleazy lawyer. A judge rushing things along to save money, bending over backwards to avoid appeals. A jury that just wanted to get home.

Sigh....:wink: I know it is frustrating and infuriating. I have no words for that jury, I refuse to bash Judge Perry for dealing with a monster of a trial that was sucking Florida tax payers dry for YEARS during a horrible recession, and again he was not "bending over backwards" to avoid appeals. It is at the very essence of his job to protect our constitution, the constitution of the state of Florida, and the defendants constitutional and due process rights. This is why the victim tends to get lost in the mix and defense teams seem to get away with (and they did!) a ton of tomfoolery at trial. This goes on across our nation every single day, this case is not the first and won't be the last like it. We just got to see it play out because of the television cameras. Oj's trial had just as much if not more smarm, lies, and games played by the defense.

Our system is defendant centered not victim centered. (Harsh but true) It is there to make sure that innocent people are not convicted of crimes they did not commit (and MANY have been) and defense teams are smarmy and strategic in their ways. They take advantage of the fact that our system leans toward protecting the innocent, which until that verdict is in, is their client. Presumption of innocence is serious (just in case) and the state will always be playing the game with one hand behind their back while the defense puts on a show of smoke and mirrors.

Most of the time, the system works exactly the way it should, but like all things, it is imperfect. It by its very nature ensures that some guilty people will walk free to make sure that innocents are not being thrown in prison or dying by lethal injection. One innocent person rotting in jail, or god forbid, receiving the death penalty is too much. Some would say that one murderer walking free is too much. It depends on how you feel about it and which stance you take on those issues I guess.

As much as I HATE this verdict with all of my heart, I respect our system. I know that I wouldn't want to be accused of a crime and tried in China. I would want to be tried here, especially if I were innocent. So yes, she received a fair trial, maybe even a little too fair. That is the American Justice System. ( It was also to her great advantage that she is young, white, and "attractive." ) Gack!

That jury was the bottom of the barrel and that is not Judge Perry's fault, I hope those "jurors" can sleep at night, because their blatant apathy and ineptness is to blame in this travesty. 100%

 

[LambChop]

The jury foreman was asked by Greta if he thought CA lied about the computer searches. It was a simple yes or no question. I had to read his answer about five times and I've come to the conclusion that he did not know. He also said something about the prosecution presenting standard stuff but the DT really caught his attention (something to that affect). There were no leaders on this jury and the one that did take charge was an idiot.

Two people voted for first degree murder. I would like to know what made them change their vote.

IMO

Intimidation.

 

[Spice]

Two people voted for first degree murder. I would like to know what made them change their vote.

IMO

Apathy, intimidation, a weak moral constitution, laziness, and selfishness to name a few. I would of hung that jury, no matter HOW long it took.

 

[wonders]

I just have a couple of quick questions this morning - are we ever going to understand and get over this verdict?

As for me. No.

 

[ZsaZsa]

The jury foreman was asked by Greta if he thought CA lied about the computer searches. It was a simple yes or no question. I had to read his answer about five times and I've come to the conclusion that he did not know. He also said something about the prosecution presenting standard stuff but the DT really caught his attention (something to that affect). There were no leaders on this jury and the one that did take charge was an idiot.

Two people voted for first degree murder. I would like to know what made them change their vote.

IMO

Well, considering what a short time they were back there, I'd say they shrugged their shoulders and gave up...

 

[Spice]

Well, considering what a short time they were back there, I'd say they shrugged their shoulders and gave up...

I don't think they ever cared to begin with and felt they were doing the courts a favor, instead of doing their freaking civic duty, which is what it was. A sacrifice to be sequestered yes, but their duty nontheless. To this day I cannot believe that there was not even ONE person out of all twelve with a half of a brain, sense of justice, common sense, guts, or even heart to stick to their guns and hang the jury.

Nope. They didn't care. Not even a little bit.

 

[Lanie]

Well, considering what a short time they were back there, I'd say they shrugged their shoulders and gave up...

Well, I think you're giving them too much credit. I don't think a single one of them had any interest in even devoting the energy it would take to shrug a shoulder to this case.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Judge Strickland, who denied the Prosecution's request for the gag order, did not believe that the media storm around Caylee's death would die down with a gag order in place.

He also mentions that the "Legal Standard" for issuing the gag order had not been met. In other words, whatever guideline and legal parameters that would allow him to warrant the gag order (I don't know what they are specifically regarding the sunshine laws) did not exist.

We don't know what the standards are that he had to follow though, but I guess there wasn't enough to legally warrant a gag order which would render the sunshine laws null and void. They must have very specific legal parameters to guarantee the government transparency that the sunshine laws provide.

Strickland also says this:



http://articles.cnn.com/2008-11-26/..._1_cindy-anthony-caylee-gag-order?_s=PM:CRIME

I guess that it was his opinion that no matter what, the media ***storm surrounding this case would continue unabated over the years and would just be an inescapable fact.

I'm all for government transparency, so I am torn on this one, this seems to be more about the sunshine laws and the intense media coverage that created a perfect storm. In other words, a state law and and out of control media are the factors here, not really the system as a whole.

I think the problem lies in the assumption that it is a good thing to have people who are uninformed about the case. Who says knowledge beforehand = inability to think critically and decide fairly? They could still vet the jurors effectively even if they watched the news or read the docs imo.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Sigh....:wink: I know it is frustrating and infuriating. I have no words for that jury, I refuse to bash Judge Perry for dealing with a monster of a trial that was sucking Florida tax payers dry for YEARS during a horrible recession, and again he was not "bending over backwards" to avoid appeals. It is at the very essence of his job to protect our constitution, the constitution of the state of Florida, and the defendants constitutional and due process rights. This is why the victim tends to get lost in the mix and defense teams seem to get away with (and they did!) a ton of tomfoolery at trial. This goes on across our nation every single day, this case is not the first and won't be the last like it. We just got to see it play out because of the television cameras. Oj's trial had just as much if not more smarm, lies, and games played by the defense.

Our system is defendant centered not victim centered. (Harsh but true) It is there to make sure that innocent people are not convicted of crimes they did not commit (and MANY have been) and defense teams are smarmy and strategic in their ways. They take advantage of the fact that our system leans toward protecting the innocent, which until that verdict is in, is their client. Presumption of innocence is serious (just in case) and the state will always be playing the game with one hand behind their back while the defense puts on a show of smoke and mirrors.

Most of the time, the system works exactly the way it should, but like all things, it is imperfect. It by its very nature ensures that some guilty people will walk free to make sure that innocents are not being thrown in prison or dying by lethal injection. One innocent person rotting in jail, or god forbid, receiving the death penalty is too much. Some would say that one murderer walking free is too much. It depends on how you feel about it and which stance you take on those issues I guess.

As much as I HATE this verdict with all of my heart, I respect our system. I know that I wouldn't want to be accused of a crime and tried in China. I would want to be tried here, especially if I were innocent. So yes, she received a fair trial, maybe even a little too fair. That is the American Justice System.

That jury was the bottom of the barrel and that is not Judge Perry's fault, I hope those "jurors" can sleep at night, because their blatant apathy and ineptness is to blame in this travesty. 100%

Oh my it certainly was his fault. As were the bizarre cast of characters the DT drug out to testify...

 

[Prentiss]

I just have a couple of quick questions this morning - are we ever going to understand and get over this verdict?

I will never understand.

No, I will never get over it

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk

 

[TotallyObsessed]

Sigh....:wink: I know it is frustrating and infuriating. I have no words for that jury, I refuse to bash Judge Perry for dealing with a monster of a trial that was sucking Florida tax payers dry for YEARS during a horrible recession, and again he was not "bending over backwards" to avoid appeals. It is at the very essence of his job to protect our constitution, the constitution of the state of Florida, and the defendants constitutional and due process rights. This is why the victim tends to get lost in the mix and defense teams seem to get away with (and they did!) a ton of tomfoolery at trial. This goes on across our nation every single day, this case is not the first and won't be the last like it. We just got to see it play out because of the television cameras. Oj's trial had just as much if not more smarm, lies, and games played by the defense.

Our system is defendant centered not victim centered. (Harsh but true) It is there to make sure that innocent people are not convicted of crimes they did not commit (and MANY have been) and defense teams are smarmy and strategic in their ways. They take advantage of the fact that our system leans toward protecting the innocent, which until that verdict is in, is their client. Presumption of innocence is serious (just in case) and the state will always be playing the game with one hand behind their back while the defense puts on a show of smoke and mirrors.

Most of the time, the system works exactly the way it should, but like all things, it is imperfect. It by its very nature ensures that some guilty people will walk free to make sure that innocents are not being thrown in prison or dying by lethal injection. One innocent person rotting in jail, or god forbid, receiving the death penalty is too much. Some would say that one murderer walking free is too much. It depends on how you feel about it and which stance you take on those issues I guess.

As much as I HATE this verdict with all of my heart, I respect our system. I know that I wouldn't want to be accused of a crime and tried in China. I would want to be tried here, especially if I were innocent. So yes, she received a fair trial, maybe even a little too fair. That is the American Justice System.

That jury was the bottom of the barrel and that is not Judge Perry's fault, I hope those "jurors" can sleep at night, because their blatant apathy and ineptness is to blame in this travesty. 100%

BRAVO....very, very well stated. :clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[Spice]

I think the problem lies in the assumption that it is a good thing to have people who are uninformed about the case. Who says knowledge beforehand = inability to think critically and decide fairly? They could still vet the jurors effectively even if they watched the news or read the docs imo.

Bias! They seek to find a "fair and impartial" jury, and in this case they could not even find one with a pulse. lol!

Even the most well rounded of us make judgements by nature, it is how we are wired as people. There are few people that can put aside emotion, racial prejudice, gender bias, etc in their decisions. I know I cant always do it. It takes discipline, humility, and a ton of self awareness.

Even people that are aware of their bias' have to know how recognize them, put them in check, and process information impartially. It is a very difficult thing to do and I am of the opinion that most people are not very good at it. Just the comments I hear and read every day in life, (about a variety of issues) online, on forums, on fb are full of unfair judgements and bias'.

Now bring an accused baby killer into the mix and see how fair and impartial people can be, especially if they have been exposed ad nauseum to all of the evidence and facts (that may or may not be admitted into trial) that point the finger at her. Most people would be going into it with a predisposed notion and inability to see her as anything but guilty. Look at all of the potential jurors that were excused during selection because they looked her in the face and said "I think she is guilty, I think she killed her daughter, she is guilty" There was an entire afternoon of that one day during jury selection.

I would have said they the same thing if I was being considered, there is NO WAY that I would have been able to consider anything other than "Guilty as Sin."

 

[Spice]

Oh my it certainly was his fault. As were the bizarre cast of characters the DT drug out to testify...

Again, that is the way our SYSTEM is set up and Judge Perry is in charge of upholding and overseeing that system. People are angry and shooting the messenger.

How could jury selection be his fault? What were we left with to choose from after three years of intense media attention and five billion pages of documents dumped ?

How is that his fault? They were left with the bottom of the barrel. People that didn't even pick up a newspaper to read about what was going on in the world and the communities around them. Lazy, apathetic, people.

The jury is not supposed to be selected to hang her, it is selected to be fair and impartial to BOTH SIDES, which is why they both have a certain amount of strikes. They had to find 16 people with no knowledge of the case, that made enough money and had enough resources to be away from their jobs and families for at least a couple of months, and under severe budget constraints, while inconveniencing and borrowing a courtroom in another country. Not an easy task.

We will have to agree to disagree on this one. jmo.

 

[LambChop]

Oh my it certainly was his fault. As were the bizarre cast of characters the DT drug out to testify...

As if he could tell DT not to use those experts. It was up to the jury to decide whether or not the experts were a motley crew. Most of the credible witnesses DT put on the stand ended up agreeing with the prosecution. Common sense should have prevailed with this jury but apparently went out on the windowsill with the hawk because they sure did not use theirs. The judge did not put on the case, the attorney's did. Judge Perry was obligated to follow the law, which he did. If he had held a gun to these juror's heads to follow his instructions to the letter they still would ignored his instructions and voted as they did. jmo

 

[2goldfish]

Apathy, intimidation, a weak moral constitution, laziness, and selfishness to name a few. I would of hung that jury, no matter HOW long it took.

we'd still be there today if the other 11 hadnt hung me up from the rafters by now. I am STUB.BORN. ask any member of my family and I am allergic to stupid.

but you see, people like me would have never been on that jury. they can tell the thinkers by the first 10 words they speak ... I sat here with WS all through jury selection and I sat watching the smart ones go, go, go. I still told myself, never in a million years, NEVER are there 12 people that stupid on the PLANET.

well, I was wrong. so to the poster upthread who asked will we ever get over this? nope. for lots of reasons, caylee herself being the main one - and the knowledge I have now that 12 people that stupid really. do. exist.

 

[Spice]

As if he could tell DT not to use those experts. It was up to the jury to decide whether or not the experts were a motley crew. Most of the credible witnesses DT put on the stand ended up agreeing with the prosecution. Common sense should have prevailed with this jury but apparently went out on the windowsill with the hawk because they sure did not use theirs. The judge did not put on the case, the attorney's did. Judge Perry was obligated to follow the law, which he did. If he had held a gun to these juror's heads to follow his instructions to the letter they still would ignored his instructions and voted as they did. jmo

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[Lanie]

Bias! They seek to find a "fair and impartial" jury, and in this case they could not even find one with a pulse. lol!

Even the most well rounded of us make judgements by nature, it is how we are wired as people. There are few people that can put aside emotion, racial prejudice, gender bias, etc in their decisions. I know I cant always do it. It takes discipline, humility, and a ton of self awareness.

Even people that are aware of their bias' have to know how recognize them, put them in check, and process information impartially. It is a very difficult thing to do and I am of the opinion that most people are not very good at it. Just the comments I read every day online, on forums, on fb are full of unfair judgements and bias'.

Now bring an accused baby killer into the mix and see how fair and impartial people can be, especially if they have been exposed ad nauseum to all of the evidence and facts (that may or may not be admitted into trial) that point the finger at her. Most people would be going into it with a predisposed notion and inability to see her as anything but guilty. Look at all of the potential jurors that were excused during selection because they looked her in the face and said "I think she is guilty, I think she killed her daughter, she is guilty" There was an entire afternoon of that one day during jury selection.

I would have said they the same thing if I was being considered, there is NO WAY that I would have been able to consider anything other than "Guilty as Sin."

I really believe I could have gone into this as a juror with an open mind, unbiased, etc. What I would have had a problem with, especially given the length of the trial, is keeping track of and only focusing on what was brought out in trial, which, IMO, would make me a bad juror for this case. I just had way too much prior knowledge of stuff that IMO should have been admitted but wasn't.

 

[Lanie]

we'd still be there today if the other 11 hadnt hung me up from the rafters by now. I am STUB.BORN. ask any member of my family and I am allergic to stupid.

but you see, people like me would have never been on that jury. they can tell the thinkers by the first 10 words they speak ... I sat here with WS all through jury selection and I sat watching the smart ones go, go, go. I still told myself, never in a million years, NEVER are there 12 people that stupid on the PLANET.

well, I was wrong. so to the poster upthread who asked will we ever get over this? nope. for lots of reasons, caylee herself being the main one - and the knowledge I have now that 12 people that stupid really. do. exist.

BBM
And unfortunately they exist in the county my family if from, and where I go often to visit. I'm just grateful I don't know any of them personally.

 

[Spice]

I really believe I could have gone into this as a juror with an open mind, unbiased, etc. What I would have had a problem with, especially given the length of the trial, is keeping track of and only focusing on what was brought out in trial, which, IMO, would make me a bad juror for this case. I just had way too much prior knowledge of stuff that IMO should have been admitted but wasn't.

BBM. You are a more objective and disciplined person than me and a slew of others out there. That is for sure. I could never have been able to vote for anything other than guilty.

My hat is off to you.