The IDI Chickens have come home to roost

[Kimster]

I've removed a few posts where they were negatively directed at another person rather than the posting information.

Play nice.

 

[Peepers]

I have said here in the past, the Grand Jury met and did not indict the R's, I dont think it was a conspiracy. I also can see why the jury in the CA case did not find her guilty. I watched the trial every day and there was pieces missing and I can see why the jury came up with their verdict. Doesnt mean I dont think she killed her child, doesnt even mean the jury thunks she did not kill her child. But we have to have pretty high standards to convict someone, and I think in the end, its better that way. i personally think the R's were involved but I dont know that for a fact and there is a chance they werent (simply because we were not there and dont know), a small chance, but a chance nonetheless. I get what Dave is saying..you cant have it both ways.

 

[cynic]

IDI have preached to hell and back that a circumstantial case can't win in court anymore in the era of modern technology. They've argued that again and again.

This is the result: child-killers walking free, maybe to kill again. The jury in the Casey Anthony case believed the nonsense IDI gives us on a daily basis: that circumstantial evidence is not real evidence. This is the CSI Effect with a vengeance. This is the LOGICAL, INEVITABLE result of IDI arguments.

I agree that the jury could not grasp the fact that logically and beyond a reasonable doubt the circumstances of the case pointed only to Casey as being responsible for Caylee’s death.
Yes it did require some of “connecting of the dots,” but this case had more evidence than the Scott Peterson case.
Perhaps all the jurors and alternates in the Anthony trial should start a “Free Scott Peterson” petition since I’m sure that they can’t possibly comprehend why he is where Casey also should be right now, death row

The following is a from a very good article on the Scott Peterson case and circumstantial evidence:

Circumstantial Evidence: The Scott Peterson Trial
When the Facts Cannot Be Proven Directly
By Charles Montaldo, About.com Guide

The trial of Scott Peterson for the murders of his wife Laci and their unborn child Conner is a classic example of a prosecution based almost solely on circumstantial evidence, rather than direct evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence which may allow a judge or jury to deduce a certain fact from other facts which can be proven. In some cases, there can be some evidence that can not be proven directly, such as with an eye-witness.

In these cases, the prosecution will attempt to provide evidence of the circumstances from which the jury can logically deduct, or reasonably infer, the fact that cannot be proven directly. The prosecutor believes the fact can be proven by the evidence of the circumstances or "circumstantial" evidence.

In other words, in these cases it is up to the prosecutors to show through a set of circumstances that their theory of what took place is the only logical deduction -- that the circumstances can be explained by no other theory.

Conversely, in circumstantial evidence cases, it is the job of the defense to show that the same circumstances could be explained by an alternative theory. In order to avoid a conviction, all a defense attorney has to do is put enough doubt into one juror's mind that the prosecution's explanation of the circumstances is flawed.


No Direct Evidence in Peterson Case
In the Scott Peterson trial, there is very little, if any, direct evidence connecting Peterson to the murder of his wife and unborn child. Therefore, the prosecution is attempting to show that the circumstances surrounding her death and the disposal of her body can be linked to only her husband.
But defense attorney Mark Geragos has apparently made great progress in shooting down or offering other explanations for the same evidence. For example, in the sixth week of the trial -- which is expected to last for months -- Geragos was able to debunk two key pieces of evidence that support the prosecution theory that the fertilizer salesman dumped his wife's body in San Francisco Bay.

The two pieces of evidence were homemade anchors Peterson allegedly used to sink the body of his wife and a hair from his boat that is consistent with her DNA. Under cross-examination, Geragos was able to get police investigator Henry "Dodge" Hendee to acknowledged to jurors that the prosecution's own expert witness had determined that a water pitcher found in Scott's warehouse could not have been used to make a cement boat anchor found in his boat.


Alternative Theories for the Same Circumstances
Earlier, photos presented by Hendee and questions from prosecutors tried to give the jury the impression that Peterson had used the water pitcher to mold five boat anchors -- four of which were missing.
One of the few pieces of evidence the prosecution does have is a six-inch dark hair found on a pair of pliers in Peterson's boat. Geragos showed Hendee two police photos taken in the warehouse, one showing a camouflage jacket in a duffle bag and another, showing it resting inside the boat.

Under Geragos' questioning, Hendee said the hair and pliers were collected as evidence after a crime scene technician took the second photo (with the jacket in the boat). The line of questioning from Geragos boosts the defense theory that the hair may have been transferred from Laci Peterson's head to her husband's coat to pliers in the boat without her ever being inside the boat.

As with all circumstantial evidences cases, as the Scott Peterson trial progresses, Geragos will continue to offer alternative explanations for each piece of the prosecution's case, in hopes of placing a reasonable doubt in at least one juror's mind.
http://crime.about.com/od/current/a/scott040718.htm

 

[txsvicki]

A little off topic, but I've been wanting to ask or mention the hair found in Scott's pliers. Wonder if they will try to test it for the death band to use in his appeals? As far as the Ramsey case compared to Casey. Maybe someday dna testing will advance to the point of ruling out any mixing as well hair band and air sampling advancing and being accepted.

 

[Roy23]

I agree that the jury could not grasp the fact that logically and beyond a reasonable doubt the circumstances of the case pointed only to Casey as being responsible for Caylee’s death.
Yes it did require some of “connecting of the dots,” but this case had more evidence than the Scott Peterson case.
Perhaps all the jurors and alternates in the Anthony trial should start a “Free Scott Peterson” petition since I’m sure that they can’t possibly comprehend why he is where Casey also should be right now, death row

The following is a from a very good article on the Scott Peterson case and circumstantial evidence:

Circumstantial Evidence: The Scott Peterson Trial
When the Facts Cannot Be Proven Directly
By Charles Montaldo, About.com Guide

The trial of Scott Peterson for the murders of his wife Laci and their unborn child Conner is a classic example of a prosecution based almost solely on circumstantial evidence, rather than direct evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence which may allow a judge or jury to deduce a certain fact from other facts which can be proven. In some cases, there can be some evidence that can not be proven directly, such as with an eye-witness.

In these cases, the prosecution will attempt to provide evidence of the circumstances from which the jury can logically deduct, or reasonably infer, the fact that cannot be proven directly. The prosecutor believes the fact can be proven by the evidence of the circumstances or "circumstantial" evidence.

In other words, in these cases it is up to the prosecutors to show through a set of circumstances that their theory of what took place is the only logical deduction -- that the circumstances can be explained by no other theory.

Conversely, in circumstantial evidence cases, it is the job of the defense to show that the same circumstances could be explained by an alternative theory. In order to avoid a conviction, all a defense attorney has to do is put enough doubt into one juror's mind that the prosecution's explanation of the circumstances is flawed.


No Direct Evidence in Peterson Case
In the Scott Peterson trial, there is very little, if any, direct evidence connecting Peterson to the murder of his wife and unborn child. Therefore, the prosecution is attempting to show that the circumstances surrounding her death and the disposal of her body can be linked to only her husband.
But defense attorney Mark Geragos has apparently made great progress in shooting down or offering other explanations for the same evidence. For example, in the sixth week of the trial -- which is expected to last for months -- Geragos was able to debunk two key pieces of evidence that support the prosecution theory that the fertilizer salesman dumped his wife's body in San Francisco Bay.

The two pieces of evidence were homemade anchors Peterson allegedly used to sink the body of his wife and a hair from his boat that is consistent with her DNA. Under cross-examination, Geragos was able to get police investigator Henry "Dodge" Hendee to acknowledged to jurors that the prosecution's own expert witness had determined that a water pitcher found in Scott's warehouse could not have been used to make a cement boat anchor found in his boat.


Alternative Theories for the Same Circumstances
Earlier, photos presented by Hendee and questions from prosecutors tried to give the jury the impression that Peterson had used the water pitcher to mold five boat anchors -- four of which were missing.
One of the few pieces of evidence the prosecution does have is a six-inch dark hair found on a pair of pliers in Peterson's boat. Geragos showed Hendee two police photos taken in the warehouse, one showing a camouflage jacket in a duffle bag and another, showing it resting inside the boat.

Under Geragos' questioning, Hendee said the hair and pliers were collected as evidence after a crime scene technician took the second photo (with the jacket in the boat). The line of questioning from Geragos boosts the defense theory that the hair may have been transferred from Laci Peterson's head to her husband's coat to pliers in the boat without her ever being inside the boat.

As with all circumstantial evidences cases, as the Scott Peterson trial progresses, Geragos will continue to offer alternative explanations for each piece of the prosecution's case, in hopes of placing a reasonable doubt in at least one juror's mind.
http://crime.about.com/od/current/a/scott040718.htm

Great Post and I agree.

In hindsight, I wonder if they would have prosecuted the case with less premeditation evidence if they could have gotten her on manslaughter. Don't get me wrong, I think Murder 1 was appropriate but getting all 12 jurors to acquit in 10 hours is a blow.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Bottom line....most people find it difficult to believe a mother could murder her child. Especially a attractive white woman. If Casey were a poor black woman, she would have stood a better chance of being convicted and if she were a man, she'd be sitting on death row as I type. Pasty played the loving doting mother ...(she was far from it IMO behind closed doors.) Loving doting moms don't kill their kids...atleast that's what jurors tend to think.

IMO This case is solved. It was a Ramsey. They simply were unable to prove who did what, beyond a reasonable doubt, to a jury.

 

[wonderllama]

Not only was it solved, the guilty party got a death penalty too.

Harsh, but true.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Not only was it solved, the guilty party got a death penalty too.

Harsh, but true.

Huh? What case are you talking about? Or do you mean that Patsy or John would've gotten the DP if the case went to trial?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Huh? What case are you talking about? Or do you mean that Patsy or John would've gotten the DP if the case went to trial?

IMO She was implying that Patsy did it and Patsy died. I tend to agree. Karma and all that jazz...imo

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Some people think it's ironic that Patsy died from ovarian cancer.

 

[BBB167893]

Dave,

That was deeply profound...... I wanted to stand up and clap.

Agatha, smurf, I got into a spate of trouble for posting the "Rules for RDIs" bit over at crimeshots. I can't even IMAGINE what would happen if I posted THIS there! God have mercy!

 

[BBB167893]

I do however think that by not charging both parents, they may have allowed the R's to become so entrenched in their lies and cover up that now, the truth, may never be known.

I believe one of the R's got away with murder and the rest are guilty of tampering with evidence and impeding an investigation. Done somewhat legally, with the help of their lawyers and the DA's office.

Right on all counts.

 

[BBB167893]

You actually are looking like a Lunatic right now Dave.

I wish I could take comfort in the idea that I am insane, Roy. But I can't ignore it when it's right in front of me.

You haven't told me anything.

I certainly HAVE told you a few things. And I'm not the only one. I haven't said anything that other people a lot closer to this case haven't said already.

The Grand Jury did not come up with enough evidence to hand out an indictment.

Like I've only told you a million times, pilgrim, we don't know that. About the one thing RDIs and FJs (my new name for IDIs) agree on is that the DA dismissed the Grand Jury before they had a chance to issue a ruling. Dan Caplis, Henry Lee, Michael Tracey and Bryan Morgan, among others, have said that very thing.

And even if it WERE true, and this is part of my argument, think about all of the things that COULD have been done that were not done, all due to the atmosphere that FJs have created. Listing them would take up an entire page.

There is a big big difference between Casey Anthony and The Ramsey's. Enormous.

No difference in outcome. 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty, made stupid by the kind of arguments I run up against every day. The standard of reasonable doubt has become distorted beyond recognition.

Why would you blame me for a Grand Jury that I was not part of?

It's the "smoking-gun-or-nothing" approach FJs have been giving us for almost 15 years. The CSI effect. I don't usually agree with Bill Maher, but he said something on Piers Morgan's show last week that really hammered it home: there has emerged this idea among the laypeople that circumstantial evidence equals phony evidence. God knows I've heard that a lot of times around here.

They couldn't make a Ham Sandwich much less get a conviction.

And I've told you WHY many, many times.

Dave this is wrong on so many different levels.

I WISH IT WAS!

And keep in mind another thing, Pilgrim, making a circumstancial case against the Ramsey's is fine. I got no problem with it.

You could have fooled me.

You can't make it stick when DNA from an unknown male is all over the place.

Even if that's true, that's my point: you can't make a circumstantial case in this day and age because people are blinded by technology. That's what I'm trying to say here. People don't understand the nature of evidence anymore.

But my second point is that THIS DA couldn't make it stick because they didn't have the SKILL or the KNOWLEDGE. In that regard, the problem is not just with juries. In this case, the CSI effect of being blinded by technology went to the very TOP!

You've dug a deep hole, pilgrim. And you're pulling us all in with you. No thank you!

 

[BBB167893]

The opposite happened. They got more corroborating DNA from an unknown male. And that is exactly why no statements have been made other than subtly apologizing to Mr. Ramsey.

No, Sunnie's right. What she describes is just one of the many things that could have been done early on that was not done.

And as for your statement, pilgrim, it becomes very interesting when you consider WHY.

 

[Roy23]

I wish I could take comfort in the idea that I am insane, Roy. But I can't ignore it when it's right in front of me.



I certainly HAVE told you a few things. And I'm not the only one. I haven't said anything that other people a lot closer to this case haven't said already.



Like I've only told you a million times, pilgrim, we don't know that. About the one thing RDIs and FJs (my new name for IDIs) agree on is that the DA dismissed the Grand Jury before they had a chance to issue a ruling. Dan Caplis, Henry Lee, Michael Tracey and Bryan Morgan, among others, have said that very thing.

And even if it WERE true, and this is part of my argument, think about all of the things that COULD have been done that were not done, all due to the atmosphere that FJs have created. Listing them would take up an entire page.



No difference in outcome. 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty, made stupid by the kind of arguments I run up against every day. The standard of reasonable doubt has become distorted beyond recognition.



It's the "smoking-gun-or-nothing" approach FJs have been giving us for almost 15 years. The CSI effect. I don't usually agree with Bill Maher, but he said something on Piers Morgan's show last week that really hammered it home: there has emerged this idea among the laypeople that circumstantial evidence equals phony evidence. God knows I've heard that a lot of times around here.



And I've told you WHY many, many times.



I WISH IT WAS!



You could have fooled me.



Even if that's true, that's my point: you can't make a circumstantial case in this day and age because people are blinded by technology. That's what I'm trying to say here. People don't understand the nature of evidence anymore.

But my second point is that THIS DA couldn't make it stick because they didn't have the SKILL or the KNOWLEDGE. In that regard, the problem is not just with juries. In this case, the CSI effect of being blinded by technology went to the very TOP!

You've dug a deep hole, pilgrim. And you're pulling us all in with you. No thank you!

Your whole idea of starting this thread and directing it specifically to me is and was wrong. I never have said anything about you can't try a circumstancial case. Your thoughts on Casey Anthony are spot on. I agree with it. It is completely different than my view of the Ramsey case. The GJ failed to indict the Ramsey's. It was said that it was due to lack of evidence. Challenge that all you want, it is your right. But don't expect others to follow you around like sheep.

I now have a whole different view of you. And I have asked you numerous times lately to knock off the debating with me. You and I are deadlocked in our beliefs. For me, it was fine to just sit back and wait and see until something developed. At least it wouldn't turn into attacks just like you did by starting this thread. And what bothers me most about it is that it is not true.

The Scott Peterson case had much less evidence than Casey Anthony. But we know how they both turned out.

 

[BBB167893]

He knows not of what he speaks.

Oh, I most certainly DO!

Circumstancial cases get prosecuted all the time. They even get convictions.

Number one, not in Boulder, they don't. Steve Thomas wasn't the only one to point that out.

Number two, what's happened with Casey Anthony is just the tip of the iceberg in regards to the CSI-IDI effect. How much longer will the law be able to keep up? It's just as I've always said: no amount of technology will ever replace good, old-fashioned legwork.

His rantings are frustration for a Grand Jury that deemed not enough evidence to get into a courtroom.

I'm frustrated about a lot of things, Roy. And don't state that as if it were a fact. It's far from a fact.

What IS fact is that the DA did not WANT a Grand Jury in this case and had sabotaged one in the past. What IS fact is that the DA had a lot of things that they didn't want to come out. I'd focus on that a bit more if I were you.

I don't support Wendy Murphy's theory in either the JonBenet or the Anthony case.

Then you got a problem, pilgrim, because thanks to the jury foreman in the Anthony case, that "theory" ain't a theory anymore. Maybe you didn't catch that interview, but in it, he said that it was precisely the cross fingerpointing strategy that provided the doubt needed for her to walk.

And as for this case, Wendy's not the first to mention it.

 

[Roy23]

Here is some answers about the GJ.




Jonbenet Case Still Not Closed, Prosecutor Says



Parents `Not Excluded' As Suspects



October 15, 1999|By Maurice Possley and Judith Graham, Tribune Staff Writers.


Although a grand jury did not bring charges in the slaying of JonBenet Ramsey, the child's parents have not been eliminated from suspicion, police and prosecutors insisted Thursday.

In the wake of criticism from legal experts and the public that the grand jury investigation was a failure, Boulder County District Atty. Alex Hunter and Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner conceded Thursday that aspects of the investigation immediately after the murder on Dec. 26, 1996, were handled poorly. But both said at separate news conferences that the case was still being actively pursued.





Ads by Google

Need an IRS Tax Lawyer?Lawyers Specializing in Resolving 20K+ Tax Debt. Speak to us Today. TaxResolution.com/TaxLawyer
Personal Injury LawsuitsLet Us Help You Get The Money You Deserve. Contact Morgan & Morgan. www.AtlantaInjuryLawyers.com




Hunter said that John and Patsy Ramsey, who now live in Atlanta, "have not been eliminated from the investigation. . . . They are not excluded."

On Wednesday, after more than a year of inquiry by the grand jury, Hunter announced that there was insufficient evidence to bring charges.
JonBenet, 6, was found strangled and bludgeoned in the basement of the family's home in Boulder. Evidence suggested she might have been sexually molested. A ransom note was found by Patsy Ramsey, and although experts eliminated John Ramsey as the author, they could not exclude the mother.

"I have an aching heart about where we are with this case," Hunter said. "But by no means do I or any of the men seated at this table feel a sense of failure."

Hunter said he wanted to emphasize that though the murder remains unsolved, a solution would still be sought.

Referring to media reports that portrayed the case as at a dead-end, Hunter, flanked by law-enforcement officials and prosecutors, said: "I don't think any of us have any sense of quit in us about this case. We may never get there, but we're not going to stop working."

Hunter and prosecutor Bob Grant, the district attorney from neighboring Adams County who was an adviser during the grand jury investigation, said the case was being actively worked and would be handled by investigators of the Boulder Police Department, two of whom were working directly with the grand jury.

"This case is not over," Grant said. "The Boulder Police Department will continue this evidentiary review. . . . There will be continuing forensic analysis. There will be continuing consultation" with outside experts.

The investigation has cost the City of Boulder and Boulder County nearly $2 million, and it remains to be seen whether authorities who control the purse strings will continue to approve substantial expenses.

Citing grand jury secrecy and a fear of compromising the investigation, Hunter and Grant declined to say what evidence had been developed. But Hunter and Beckner said that the case had moved ahead during the grand jury's tenure.

Meanwhile, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens said a panel of legal experts, including state Atty. Gen. Ken Salazar, would advise him about whether to name a special prosecutor for the case.

 

[BBB167893]

SD

Over the years I've been reading about JBR here on Websleuths, I've developed an enormous respect for your detailed knowledge of the case.

So, this is a little hard to say but it must be said - Chill Out. Roy is right, you're off the deep end now.

Can you blame me?

As for circumstantial evidence, when a case is built on nothing else it probably shouldn't succeed.

That's precisely the attitude I'm railing against! Nothing against you, Chrishope. From what I can tell, it's a much bigger problem than just a few people.

 

[BBB167893]

I respectfully disagree. Is the person in LE who apologized, that you are referring to ML? She is a total joke. This is the same person who brought a suspect from another country, without first doing a DNA test.

Yeah, I was going to bring that up, Sunnie. Roy's awfully trusting of a DA who gave us John Mark Karr (a subject he avoids like nuclear radiation). And even before that, had a bad history of being a Ramsey advocate.

 

[Chrishope]

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Mason_syndrome"]Perry Mason syndrome - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

A very short read - the Perry Mason syndrome. I remember Perry Mason when it was a new show, not in reruns.

I think we can safely say that no one today is worried about Perry Mason syndrome.


Likewise, in a few years, we will put to rest to bogus CSI effect. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect"]CSI effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

There is no proof that CSI and related shows are causing people to walk who should be convicted.

As of August 2010, no empirical evidence has demonstrated a correlation between CSI viewership and acquittal rates.[26][35] One researcher suggested that the perception of a CSI effect—and of other courtroom effects, such as Perry Mason syndrome and white coat syndrome—is caused not by the incompetence of jury members, but by a general distrust of the jury system as a whole.[36]