Verdict Suggests Juries are Tired of Theoretical Justice & Circumstancial Evidence

[RANCH]

Which part do you need explained?
This case was a show not real, the real case is hidden and that is very clear to me.

I don't get much of your post either.

 

[amysmom]

I could be wrong here, but the tests done to show she is capable to stand trial only show that a. she knows right from wrong. and b. she is capable and able to participate in her own defense. That is all they show. Any mental disorders are something entirely different and evaluated differently.

One of the shrinks for the defense evaluated her for hrs in jail in 2009..Ran certain tests, etc..He was on NG last night telling us he didn't find her to be a 'psychopath' or having any type of 'anti-social' behavior or any known 'mental' conditions..The worst he found was her moods seemed at times to be inappropriate..I believe I have this right but to be sure I hope someone can provide a link so you can hear him yourself.

eta..he obviously had permission from ICA & was probably put out there to prove she's not a 'danger' to society or whatever!

 

[Italy]

Please do not repeat what is a malicious story from a known liar and a lawyer who wanted to win at all costs. There is no proof that information is fact at all.

Mallory stated also that she saw ICA infrequently with Caylee. Perhaps no more than a dozen times. In family situations. How realistic an opinion would that be?

I agree 100% - I was being sarcastic.

Casey, thru her lawyer, said Lee had molested her. My point was that Mallory, engaged to Lee - a incestuous sexual molester ACCORDING TO CASEY - is not a reliable source for claiming Casey was a "good mother".

I know of no evidence that supports the claim that Lee did anything untoward. I think it is ridiculous, however, that Lee's fiancé would testify that Casey was a "good mother" after such a specious claim about her fiancé Lee.

 

[The Farm]

The jurors had that list of instructions and the Judge was available to the jury at any time if they had questions or needed further clarification.

Didn't "get" it is not excuse.

Exactly what I said in a previous post. As far as I am concerned there is no excuse. If you do not understand or are not sure you ask!

 

[Chilly Willy]

(Bold and Italics are mine)
Thank you, com n sense, for confirming my thoughts about that tape!
Below is the message I posted on July 2, 2011... my feelings were hurt that only one person "Thanked" me, so I'm glad you brought it up again..."IMO the duct tape could have been the murder "weapon" either alone, or in conjunction with chloroform. I believe she taped her to keep her quite, and/or to smother her... regardless, she did not plan the kidnapping story from the beginning, because I don't think she believed Caylee's body would ever be found. If she had planned for a kidnapping, then why would she use items from her own home, such as the blanket-- and anyone who has watched a crime show knows that trash bags can be traced to a known source....
I think she came up with that story on the fly, under pressure from Lee while he was 'interrogating' her in her bedroom. I'm sure this is full of holes that y'all more experienced sleuthers can point out... please do and thanks!"

I agree and will thank you now. Better late than never.

One thing that really perplexes me in regards to the duct tape - many of us who followed the case were convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey killed Caylee before the body was even found, before we were aware of the duct tape over the skull. We knew the who, where, and why, the duct tape answered the how. I can not understand why the jury worked so hard to discount the duct tape evidence, nor can I understand why they made it such an important factor in determining guilt. I think, in some backwards kind of way, the jury would have been more likely to convict if the body had never been found.

 

[amysmom]

The state picked this jury too...in fact we would still be in jury selection if it was up to JB...

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.

 

[songline]

I don't get much of your post either.

The state THREW the case - I do not know what you want me to explain - they put on a FOG - no way did they produce a clear case.
We have a legal system not justice - I do not know what you want me to explain.
This case gives people with illegal mind ammunition not the concept that bad deeds go punished - do not know what you want explained.
Let me know what you want explaind.

 

[Chili Fries]

I can only speak for myself, but this is not the first time I've questioned the intelligence of a jury or their ability to follow basic instructions from a judge. I'm not talking about the OJ verdict either. We have a murder case here that is about to be retried because during jury deliberations in the first trial, one of the jurors was turned in by another juror for having done "research" on the definitions of murder and manslaughter. Apparently the juror hopped on the internet and looked up the definitions even though this was expressly forbidden by the judge. This was not a sequestered jury of course. Fortunately the judge quickly declared a mistrial since what this juror did was a clear violation. They were also considering fining the juror in question and holding them in contempt. I haven't heard if that has been decided yet.

There have been indications that internet related jury misconduct has become more of an issue. But these jurors were sequestered, supposedly without access to the web.

Anyway, without research and statistical analysis I still don't think it's possible to draw general conclusions from just one or a few trials. It's like flipping a coin, getting heads three times and thus concluding that it will always come up heads. The sample size is just too small.

 

[Chilly Willy]

One of the shrinks for the defense evaluated her for hrs in jail in 2009..Ran certain tests, etc..He was on NG last night telling us he didn't find her to be a 'psychopath' or having any type of 'anti-social' behavior or any known 'mental' conditions..The worst he found was her moods seemed at times to be inappropriate..I believe I have this right but to be sure I hope someone can provide a link so you can hear him yourself.

eta..he obviously had permission from ICA & was probably put out there to prove she's not a 'danger' to society or whatever!

"One of the shrinks for the defense...." Nuff said.

 

[songline]

They also tuned out when ICA's ex boyfriend stated that Caylee slept in bed between them!

There are many posts here that point to NEGLIGENCE.
But if the state had charged her for Criminal Negligence then we may have had a case.
The state knew that what they did have in hand was weak and how they Did present it was even more weak.
TO ME it feels strongly like they Threw this case.

 

[logicalgirl]

I agree 100% - I was being sarcastic.

Casey, thru her lawyer, said Lee had molested her. My point was that Mallory, engaged to Lee - a incestuous sexual molester ACCORDING TO CASEY - is not a reliable source for claiming Casey was a "good mother".

I know of no evidence that supports the claim that Lee did anything untoward. I think it is ridiculous, however, that Lee's fiancé would testify that Casey was a "good mother" after such a specious claim about her fiancé Lee.

I think Mallory respects the law, was somewhat intimidated by testifying, and only testified about what she saw. But she only saw the family when she was with Lee, and we know Lee was out of town for stretches at a time. So in the year and a half she dated him, she only saw ICA with Caylee at family functions. What mother neglects or abuses her child at family functions? I had no trouble with her testimony. I think ICA fooled a lot of people, only to feed her own ego.

Like her "friend" of Tony, the roommate testified - everything we knew about her was a lie."

 

[songline]

One of the shrinks for the defense evaluated her for hrs in jail in 2009..Ran certain tests, etc..He was on NG last night telling us he didn't find her to be a 'psychopath' or having any type of 'anti-social' behavior or any known 'mental' conditions..The worst he found was her moods seemed at times to be inappropriate..I believe I have this right but to be sure I hope someone can provide a link so you can hear him yourself.

eta..he obviously had permission from ICA & was probably put out there to prove she's not a 'danger' to society or whatever!

Nobody asked them how often does Mental Illness go undetected.
How often does it take for something bad to happen before it is detected.

 

[nursebeeme]

The state THREW the case - I do not know what you want me to explain - they put on a FOG - no way did they produce a clear case.
We have a legal system not justice - I do not know what you want me to explain.
This case gives people with illegal mind ammunition not the concept that bad deeds go punished - do not know what you want explained.
Let me know what you want explaind.

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:

 

[PaulaF513]

Originally Posted by DIXIECAT
Apparently, the jurors were woefully devoid of critical thinking skills... I'm beginning to believe that "professional" jurors might be a good idea. JMHO

This has been a favorite argument of mine for a very long time. Our society has changed quite a bit since the Constitution was written and a "jury of one's peers" is just not reasonable or adequate in today's world.

Jury duty is the most essential portion of our legal system, yet we leave the end results of a criminal case in the hands of the inexperienced, the ignorant, the unwilling, the uneducated, the incapable...in other words, we rely upon the available.

I envision a professional juror, who is educated, principally on how to think critically, how to evaluate evidence or the lack thereof, how to apply the law and most importantly, how to really listen.

I envision a profession or occupation that is compensated fairly and respected for the importance of the job. A juror, after all, stands between a killer loose on the street and us.

I don't understand why we still allow a pack of people who bring nothing but their bodies to court, make decisions of overwhelming importance, which btw, cannot be altered. Even in the face of gross neglect, lack of comprehension and disobedience of court orders, a jury's verdict stands as rendered. That isn't justice.

I'm realistic in that I understand most do not agree with me. But I honestly believe that it's something that should be considered and discussed. Times change. It's time for a change in our legal system, imho.

 

[RANCH]

IMO this is what was clear to me.


--- The real story is so much more sinister then we know.


-

--- It also made it clear that this case will give much to anyone who operates illegally.


[/B]

Please explain these comments. I'm sorry but its not clear to me.

 

[songline]

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. AGREED
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 respect your view that the state did whatever...I think they could have done it differently.
I think they presented very weakly and could have gone a different way.
Criminal Negligence should have been the direction given what they can NOT prove.
I also think they know that this entire fiasco was a show, and that something
very dark did happen...Something that evolves hush money, I think the real players of this case are out of sight completely, but they referred JB.
<modsnip>.

 

[MidAtlanticNative]

IMO this is what was clear to me.

--- To me it was clear that The State threw this case. WHY?---Think about it.
--- The real story is so much more sinister then we know.
--- Was the attorney for the state threatened? another thing we will never know.

--- It also made it real clear AGAIN that we do have a legal system but we do not have justice.

--- It also made it clear that this case will give much to anyone who operates illegally.


The jurors did what they could with a foggy case.

My opinion re: your question: "was the attorney for the state threatened?"...

Nope. The Anthonys were a regular, middle-class family without wealth, political power, or community influence. What could they possibly use as leverage against an employee of the State of Florida?

As for the defense team - a few have acheived some degree of recognition on a professional level, but nothing that I would classify as real "clout" (for lack of a better term).

Just my .00000002.

 

[songline]

Please explain these comments. I'm sorry but its not clear to me.

OK
1- I think poor Caylee had a very similar sad ending as did Shaniya Davis.
But we can not talk more about this that is all we can say. MO

2- When bad people read that KC is free it will give them more ways to evade the law.

 

[Chilly Willy]

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 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.'

 

[songline]

My opinion re: your question: "was the attorney for the state threatened?"...

Nope. The Anthonys were a regular, middle-class family without wealth, political power, or community influence. What could they possibly use as leverage against an employee of the State of Florida?

As for the defense team - a few have acheived some degree of recognition on a professional level, but nothing that I would classify as real "clout" (for lack of a better term).

Just my .00000002.

LOL... You are right but but but.....
IT would not be the Anthony's who put money behind this case.
It would be a crowd that KC fell into - enough said.