How the defense team used social media to their advantage

[grammieto5]

I haven't read all the way through this thread, (sounds really interesting) I say who cares, so what, the whole world knows the truth, the whole world knows who murdered Caylee! I believe in KARMA. This only shows that some people don't have enough confidence in themselves to do their job honestly.


This also shows why JB was never prepared. He was waiting to be told what to do, how to do it, what to say and how to say it.

[Yellow Rose]

Dang, I must be more naive than I thought! I would NEVER have suspected the DT or the PT of using websites such as this to form theories to present in a court of law.

[mydailyopinions]

Certainly we helped. We helped to prove that this defense team couldn't defend their client. It took going to social media to figure out how to get to the jurors because the defense team couldn't get an ounce of truth out of their client as to what happened to Caylee.

And the same way we helped with that, we are also helping to prove that these jurors did not believe in Casey's innocence, but that they couldn't follow the law in their deliberations.

This jury consultant can brag all day long about how social media helped the case, but I see it differently, he's another one coming forward basically proving his idiocy. JMHO

[Oakley]

This makes me sick at heart, to think anything I said might've been used to benefit the defense. I will never participate in lending my opinion on-line to an active trial or investigation again. Ugh.

I only hope the witness tampering investigation is successful, and as far as that goes,

[Oakley]

Originally Posted by stmarysmead

For instance, when the blogs started attacking George Anthony, Singer and her team took notice and encouraged the defense to beef up their attacks on the defendant's father.

"We had to know how much to blame George," she said.

This sounds like they used this research to decide who to vilify. If they were telling the truth...or even Casey's version of the truth...there would be no difference in "how much to blame George."

The truth is the truth. This was a sham defense. They perpetrated a fraud IMO.

BBM Since this was the first case and trial I ever followed in it's entirety, I am shocked. I thought our justice system was based on truth, honesty, and ethics. Silly me. How naive I must be. I feel so horribly used and jaded from this.

ETA: Wonder if it has always been this way or is this just another (sad) symptom of our sick world.

[grammieto5]

Remember Whoopi Goldberg's charater in The Color Purple, when she points her finger at Danny Glover's charter and says "until you do right by me .........? Anyone involved with this case who did not do right by Caylee is going to get a visit from
KARMA :-)

[cluciano63]

Originally Posted by MissJames

This wasn't about defending an innocent person,it was about getting a NG at all costs. Surprise,surprise.

That is kind of what defense attorneys do; they don't have to worry about innocence or guilt, they only have to force the state to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

[crucibelle]

Originally Posted by Oakley

BBM Since this was the first case and trial I ever followed in it's entirety, I am shocked. I thought our justice system was based on truth, honesty, and ethics. Silly me. How naive I must be. I feel so horribly used and jaded from this.

ETA: Wonder if it has always been this way or is this just another (sad) symptom of our sick world.

IMO, it's always been this way to some small extent, but certainly, it is getting worse. This world is sick, indeed, and getting sicker by the day. Our society has been rewarding criminal and dishonest behaviour for quite some time now... the Casey Anthony trial is but a blatant 'slap in the face' example of such.

[Nietzsche1988]

Who paid for these consultants? (I don't know if this came up in another response). It seems this arrangement should be exposed, and the $ source revealed. The jury is to be shielded from influence from outside news sources, but it's ok for the defense strategy to be updated and cultivated daily to reflect ongoing market research as to what seems to be playing well or badly in website discussions? I wonder if Casey herself was giving her defense suggestions about websites to probe....or am I giving her too much credit. Is this the wave of the future in jury trials?

[crucibelle]

Originally Posted by Nietzsche1988

Who paid for these consultants? (I don't know if this came up in another response). It seems this arrangement should be exposed, and the $ source revealed. The jury is to be shielded from influence from outside news sources, but it's ok for the defense strategy to be updated and cultivated daily to reflect ongoing market research as to what seems to be playing well or badly in website discussions? I wonder if Casey herself was giving her defense suggestions about websites to probe....or am I giving her too much credit. Is this the wave of the future in jury trials?

On the site that was linked in the OP, it said that the jury consultants worked pro bono.

[Purple Iris]

This does not surprise me in the least - not one bit.

A few months ago, I'm sure a lot of the members will remember Baez and Cheney having a hissy-fit and filing a motion {?}, requesting that they be able to move their tables against the wall; because:
People could SEE and READ what they had up on their laptops.
In fact, we thought at that time they actually had "WebSlueths" up on the day in question that they were ranting about.

But, who'd have thought they would have taken it this far?
Though, again, it doesn't surprise me.
All of them had their heads in their laps or under the table, and how many times did Baez ask for a minute while hammering away on a witness, walk over to the defense table, whisper and either go back at it, or, sit down?

I also thought that he was getting up to the minute advice from Andrea Lyon at the time as well.

[logicalgirl]

Originally Posted by mydailyopinions

Certainly we helped. We helped to prove that this defense team couldn't defend their client. It took going to social media to figure out how to get to the jurors because the defense team couldn't get an ounce of truth out of their client as to what happened to Caylee.

And the same way we helped with that, we are also helping to prove that these jurors did not believe in Casey's innocence, but that they couldn't follow the law in their deliberations.

This jury consultant can brag all day long about how social media helped the case, but I see it differently, he's another one coming forward basically proving his idiocy. JMHO

In the end it didn't matter - because this jury didn't take the time to understand what reasonable doubt meant, that circumstantial evidence is indeed evidence and also lacked the ability to look at the big picture and use some common sense to link the evidence together.

If George didn't kill her and the baby didn't drowned then who put the child in three bags from the A's garage, placed her in the trunk of ICA;s car and drove around with her in the car for 1 - 4 days?

So much of the jury's deliberations just make no sense at all. Just none - so there is not point flogging ourselves for discussing the evidence in this case and feeling we are to blame.

I just listened to juror#3's latest video with cnn (yes, Jennifer again) and here she says the jury didn't buy the sexual abuse or the drowning at all. Just that the state didn't offer any evidence the defense didn't counter and it could have gone either way....

[cluciano63]

They are probably not the first defense team to use social media in this way, although probably on a smaller, more local scale, such as comments in newspaper articles. And they certainly won't be the last. It is not that different from watching the news or HLN after court each night and seeing what callers are saying about the case.

[Yellow Rose]

I can't remember but didn't the PT show the video when "accidental drowning" was brought up and Casey said "Surprise, Surprise?" It's too bad the jurors didn't look at their notes. Why would she have said that and spent three years in jail if it was an accident? It still gets me to this day......

[Nietzsche1988]

Originally Posted by crucibelle

On the site that was linked in the OP, it said that the jury consultants worked pro bono.

I wonder if this is strictly true, and that they aren't being paid in some manner, perhaps it was included in a higher initial fee for their work in selecting the jury.

[Marple]

I thought everybody knew the DT was most likely reading here and at other sites. That's what I would do if I were defending or prosecuting a client. Social media is very important. In fact, I recall some posts that seemed suspicious to me and still do but far be it from me to call shenanigans!

[cluciano63]

Originally Posted by Nietzsche1988

I wonder if this is strictly true, and that they aren't being paid in some manner, perhaps it was included in a higher initial fee for their work in selecting the jury.

It could be pro bono; that is one thing about death penalty cases, people will sign on pro bono if they are anti-DP or just to take part in a DP case.

[Quiche]

Posters didn't do anything wrong, fhs, sociopaths and liars take fodder from wherever they will to incorporate into lies. For instance, One Tree Hill isn't responsible for the nanny story, either. KC has spread her talent for disregard to a large group of professionals. pfft

This whole case was an underhanded con. mo

I'm sorry Caylee.

[Marple]

Originally Posted by Quiche

Posters didn't do anything wrong, fhs, sociopaths and liars take fodder from wherever they will to incorporate into lies. For instance, One Tree Hill isn't responsible for the nanny story, either. KC has spread her talent for disregard to a large group of professionals. pfft

This whole case was an underhanded con. mo

I'm sorry Caylee.

So true. But I have to say I gasped when I first heard the name "Juliette Lewis" in her interview. I mean, pretty stupid to name the star of Natural Born Killers. I kept waiting for her to mention her other friend, Charlie Manson.

[grammieto5]

Originally Posted by crucibelle

On the site that was linked in the OP, it said that the jury consultants worked pro bono.

The same as FCA attorneys?



The F in FCA does not stand for free :-)

[Linda7NJ]

It just reinforced my belief that most people aren't very bright, basically behave like sheep and love a good conspiracy theory.

[krkrjx]

Had the jury decided there was reasonable doubt about premeditation, I would not have that much of a problem with them voting not guilty on the Murder 1 charge.

Had the jury decided there was reasonable doubt about child abuse, I might be convinced to see it their way on that charge. My own opinion is that 31 days of not reporting is in and of itself, child abuse, but maybe that's just me. However, I would be willing to listen to the jurors' take on this.

What I cannot understand, and never will understand, and thus never will ACCEPT, is the finding of not guilty on all three charges. One, or two, maybe--but not all three. It is obvious by the evidence that Casey is responsible for Caylee's death. That it could have been an accident is just absolutely ridiculous!!

No way did any blogger or poster here or anywhere else play a part in the jury considering this could have been an accident, or that George murdered Caylee. I just won't buy that. One does not lie to the nth degree about an accident. One does not hide the body of an accident victim, and one does not duct tape and triple-bag an accident victim.

It doesn't happen, people! Ever!

The jury is no-good. They had ulterior motives. That is the only plausible answer to this fiasco! Casey is not innocent and even the jurors admit that. So how is she found not guilty on ALL THREE charges?

I don't want to hear how wonderful our justice system is. I don't want to hear how fair and impartial our courts are. I do not want to hear about how it is better to let a guilty person go free than it is to convict an innocent person.

The verdict made me sick to my stomach, and no one will ever convince me that the jurors did not have an agenda for this egregious verdict. And certainly, WSers and others are not responsible for the outrageous DT case and the even more outrageous jury verdict.

[Shelby1]

Forgive me, I'm very non-educated about how a site such as this wonderful one is run.

Let's say it was a closed, member only site. How would a moderator know if, for example, Jose Baez himself joined the site?

[rbrnmw2]

Originally Posted by Clock's Tickin

I actually worry that we gave the defense more than that. I don't think KC came up with the pool story at all. I think the defense monitored this and other sites and built the whole scenerio from what public opinion could plausibly stomach. Everything JB said in opening was discussed here-the words he used had been debated here-I think they pooled together an idea that they'd already seen played out on forums and knew it gave them an edge with this carefully chosen jury.

I think they are still reading and posting in various social forays to help make MCA look like she's a human and we should give her a chance

[rbrnmw2]

Originally Posted by grammieto5

The same as FCA attorneys?



The F in FCA does not stand for free :-)

and M in MCA doesn't stand for Miss