1154 users online (248 members and 906 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 28 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 409
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    7,504

    Verdict Suggests Juries are Tired of Theoretical Justice & Circumstancial Evidence

    "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?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    906
    Very interesting article. Thanks for sharing the link.
    It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society. - Krishnamurti

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    277
    I heard someone say on one of the talk shows that jurors should have to have enough education to understand the scientific data and that this jury couldn't put two and two together.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    15,410
    http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/cir...tial-evidence/

    Circumstanctial Evidence:

    Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence which creates an inference from which a main fact may be inferred. For example, circumstantial evidence of a murder is not based on first-hand eyewitness accounts, but may consist of threats made, fingerprints at the crime scene, or the presence of the accused in the vicinity of the crime.

    Direct evidence, such as eyewitness testimony, is generally considered more powerful, but successful criminal prosecutions often rely largely on circmstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. When circumstantial evidence is cumulative, the weakness of such circumstntial evidence is strengthened.

    -----------------------------------------------

    B&BBM: Too bad "someone" didn't "videotape" what happened to Caylee because it was obviously needed to prove to the "jury" that FCA was the murderess ... then "MAYBE" the "jury" would have believed it !

    And ... the "cumulative evidence" against FCA was HUGE ! HUGE ! ! !


    Last edited by dog.gone.cute; 07-09-2011 at 06:43 AM.
    JMSSO = Just My Super Secret Opinion

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    15,410
    Quote Originally Posted by ks1 View Post
    I heard someone say on one of the talk shows that jurors should have to have enough education to understand the scientific data and that this jury couldn't put two and two together.

    BBM:

    Yes ... it was VERY OBVIOUS this jury did not know that 2 + 2 = 4 !

    The jury obviously relied on Jose's "math", "spelling skills", "lack of knowledge of the law and legal skills", as well as his LIES, to reach with their verdict !


    JMSSO = Just My Super Secret Opinion

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    6,379
    Quote Originally Posted by ks1 View Post
    I heard someone say on one of the talk shows that jurors should have to have enough education to understand the scientific data and that this jury couldn't put two and two together.
    If they did not understand they could have asked questions as they certainly had the option of that.
    Fact is their minds were made up when they walked into deliberations.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    519
    The jury, in trying to defend itself from their ridiculous and patently wrong conclusion, is forgetting one important thing: WE SAW THE TRIAL ALSO.

    We know it was a circumstantial case - we know there was more than sufficient evidence to convict. We paid attention to the evidence. We got it - they clearly did not.

    But we can protest with our dollars. Please let us make sure these jurors do not cash in on this travesty.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    42
    I stopped reading the article after that ***** said he would have voted the exact same way.
    Last edited by SoSueMe; 07-09-2011 at 08:57 AM. Reason: Name Calling

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    168
    Quote Originally Posted by dog.gone.cute View Post
    http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/cir...tial-evidence/

    Circumstanctial Evidence:

    Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence which creates an inference from which a main fact may be inferred. For example, circumstantial evidence of a murder is not based on first-hand eyewitness accounts, but may consist of threats made, fingerprints at the crime scene, or the presence of the accused in the vicinity of the crime.

    Direct evidence, such as eyewitness testimony, is generally considered more powerful, but successful criminal prosecutions often rely largely on circmstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. When circumstantial evidence is cumulative, the weakness of such circumstntial evidence is strengthened.

    -----------------------------------------------

    B&BBM: Too bad "someone" didn't "videotape" what happened to Caylee because it was obviously needed to prove to the "jury" that FCA was the murderess ... then "MAYBE" the "jury" would have believed it !

    And ... the "cumulative evidence" against FCA was HUGE ! HUGE ! ! !


    For an example that will curl your hair, read about the 1988 Mel Ignatow murder in Louisville, KY... photos, an accomplice, AND chloroform, but he was aquitted before the evidence was discovered. (I don't know if you will need to copy and paste this link to Wikipedia... sorry I'm not very tech savy.)
    [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Ignatow"]Mel Ignatow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
    "Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect." Steven Wright

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,041
    I am more perplexed than I am angry.

    Maybe being inside the courtroom as in 'Judge Judy', or watching real life courtrooms 'in session' has seriously diluted our RESPECT for the courtroom, judge and the system that it represents.

    I hear lots of people say that the jurors took their responsibility seriously, except I don't think they did. They ignored judges instructions about motive and COD, used their time supporting a complex and outrageous theory (As in the plot of a CSI or Law and Order episode).
    I'd have no problem accepting a verdict that was contrary to my belief, IF I felt that they just read the evidence and testimony differently to me. However I am really struggling with some of the excuses (disguised as reasoning) that the jurors are offering in explanation.

    I recall a day when if one was stopped by LE, you put on your 'yes sir' voice and were respectful to the uniform. On the way to court, you hid your head in shame.

    Today, when stopped we call 1-800-lawyerPlease, and watch as the lawyer is disrespectful to the LEO and the rules he has sworn to uphold, and on the way into court we wave to the crowds and smile for our pics.

    This is part of a steady decline. Instead of TV interviews, I'd like to see some serious studies of the jury system and how it works or fails in legal schools right now.

    Sorry for being so long - I'm still confuzzled


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    In the mists of Avalon...
    Posts
    260
    Quote Originally Posted by NSS View Post
    I am more perplexed than I am angry.

    Maybe being inside the courtroom as in 'Judge Judy', or watching real life courtrooms 'in session' has seriously diluted our RESPECT for the courtroom, judge and the system that it represents.

    I hear lots of people say that the jurors took their responsibility seriously, except I don't think they did. They ignored judges instructions about motive and COD, used their time supporting a complex and outrageous theory (As in the plot of a CSI or Law and Order episode).
    I'd have no problem accepting a verdict that was contrary to my belief, IF I felt that they just read the evidence and testimony differently to me. However I am really struggling with some of the excuses (disguised as reasoning) that the jurors are offering in explanation.

    I recall a day when if one was stopped by LE, you put on your 'yes sir' voice and were respectful to the uniform. On the way to court, you hid your head in shame.

    Today, when stopped we call 1-800-lawyerPlease, and watch as the lawyer is disrespectful to the LEO and the rules he has sworn to uphold, and on the way into court we wave to the crowds and smile for our pics.

    This is part of a steady decline. Instead of TV interviews, I'd like to see some serious studies of the jury system and how it works or fails in legal schools right now.

    Sorry for being so long - I'm still confuzzled
    ITA!!!

    Great post!


    Thanks just wasn't enough...
    There is a crack in everything.
    That's how the light gets in.

    ~ Leonard Cohen~


    K.I.S.S. became an acronym for very good reasons, IMO.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    6,379
    Quote Originally Posted by NSS View Post
    I am more perplexed than I am angry.

    Maybe being inside the courtroom as in 'Judge Judy', or watching real life courtrooms 'in session' has seriously diluted our RESPECT for the courtroom, judge and the system that it represents.

    I hear lots of people say that the jurors took their responsibility seriously, except I don't think they did. They ignored judges instructions about motive and COD, used their time supporting a complex and outrageous theory (As in the plot of a CSI or Law and Order episode).
    I'd have no problem accepting a verdict that was contrary to my belief, IF I felt that they just read the evidence and testimony differently to me. However I am really struggling with some of the excuses (disguised as reasoning) that the jurors are offering in explanation.

    I recall a day when if one was stopped by LE, you put on your 'yes sir' voice and were respectful to the uniform. On the way to court, you hid your head in shame.

    Today, when stopped we call 1-800-lawyerPlease, and watch as the lawyer is disrespectful to the LEO and the rules he has sworn to uphold, and on the way into court we wave to the crowds and smile for our pics.

    This is part of a steady decline. Instead of TV interviews, I'd like to see some serious studies of the jury system and how it works or fails in legal schools right now.

    Sorry for being so long - I'm still confuzzled
    I so agree and people seem to get away with murder.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    CT/NC
    Posts
    21,160
    I think it is disturbing that a jury thinks it is okay to lie. That the fact that KC lied should be put aside and not considered. That lying somehow is not a red flag that the person may actually be guilty of the crime for which they are charged.

    This jury claimed there was no evidence, no motive given but yet a 7 year old asked these questions: Why was her face taped? How could she breathe like that? (manner of death) And, why was she thrown in the trash? Didn't her mommy want her anymore? (motive). Yes, as much as you try to protect children from hearing these details they have heard them and want to know why. They also see the truth for what it is...

    I always have had faith in the jury system but this one baffles the heck out of me. They almost did not care. jmo

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    519
    I agree - what is great though is that the public is raining down on this jury. Thanks to having this trial televised we know the jury completely blew it and people are really speaking out and boycotting any efforts to pay them.

    This jury is not getting a pass and are being called out on the fact that they did not do what they swore they would do - consider the evidence and render a fair verdict.

    Just like the evidence was there to convict little Miss Casey Anthony, the facts are there for calling out this jury - both on the evidence in the trial and their own statements post trial.

    It is our responsibility to speak out on this. It is truly an outrage and I suspect it was done out of ignorance, laziness and financial motive.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    519
    Quote Originally Posted by LambChop View Post
    I think it is disturbing that a jury thinks it is okay to lie. That the fact that KC lied should be put aside and not considered. That lying somehow is not a red flag that the person may actually be guilty of the crime for which they are charged.

    This jury claimed there was no evidence, no motive given but yet a 7 year old asked these questions: Why was her face taped? How could she breathe like that? (manner of death) And, why was she thrown in the trash? Didn't her mommy want her anymore? (motive). Yes, as much as you try to protect children from hearing these details they have heard them and want to know why. They also see the truth for what it is...

    I always have had faith in the jury system but this one baffles the heck out of me. They almost did not care. jmo
    Lambchop - you nailed it. I LOVE the comments from your 7 year old. Very very perceptive. Thanks for posting.

Page 1 of 28 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-27-2012, 04:18 PM
  2. Could a NG verdict forever change our system of justice?
    By USARDOG in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 05-30-2011, 01:49 AM
  3. Post verdict discussion of evidence
    By sunshine05 in forum Nancy Cooper
    Replies: 247
    Last Post: 05-22-2011, 08:07 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-25-2007, 07:57 PM