Sidebar Discussion

[logicalgirl]

I am a fan of HHJP......but honest to gosh.....this MJ Judge is like a machine. No misunderstanding what he means and certainly no question about who's in charge. I'd have loved to see him on our case!

I think it is not only juries who have been influenced by the Anthony trial - I am quite certain judges throughout the country have also learned some valuable lessons.

While we complain about HHJP, he presided over the horror show case of the decade. By the time he received the case, all the players were pretty much in place and in full bloom. I think his primary concern, because of JB's legal incompetence, was not to go to mistrial and have to start the whole process all over again. I also believe he never foresaw the jury going sideways the way it did. Seriously - who could? FCA was so obviously guilty. I wish he had picked a jury from Orlando and just gotten on with it, in hindsight.

 

[2goldfish]

That chart just solidified my opinion that KC was not guilty BARD on the first 3 charges.

Prior to the trial, I wavered often back and forth between she was probably guilty to she was possibly guilty. Occasionally, I even felt like she was likely guilty.

Even when I was leaning towards she was likely guilty, I could not have in good conscience have convicted her of any of the first 3 counts, especially count 1 with the DP.

When CM pulled out the chart, and stated that even a strong belief that she was guilty did not meet the burden of proof needed, and no objection was voiced by the PT nor the judge, well, it made me realize that BARD is a very high standard of proof, and the state simply did not supply that proof. The majority disagrees with my opinion that the state did not supply the proof necessary, however, 12 strangers from Pinellas county do agree with me.

If you apply Occam's Razor to the verdict, the simplest answer as to how they reached the not guilty on the first 3 counts is that the state failed to convince the jury BARD with the evidence presented.

As always, my entire post is my opinion only.

my bold. I may have agreed with that had none of them come forward to speak. since several have, I disagree that it was about BARD.

I am always so interested in your POV. (not snark, I promise) I cant see how one can admit they felt she was probably or even likely guilty and yet convict of nothing. if I am ever going to get it, it will be through your posts.

btw the first charge's possible penalty was never meant to be considered in the guilt phase. it was only a possible penalty, and it was up to the jury to decide on that too.

(my own opinion is that the amount of jurors that had to be talked into the DP during voir dire could be part of this verdict - they would not vote for DP but couldnt let loose of the idea that others could)

 

[MsMacGyver]

Resepctfully snipped. Of course the fireworks happened while I was in the car but I saw some tweets to the effect that if this judge had been FCA's that JB would have been out on his ear the first time he was in contempt. Something about kicking someone out who had a cell phone. Do you know the details? Was it an attorney or spectator? Made me think of JB being allowed to stand at the podium with his cell phone getting help from his twitter watching jury experts. And JA getting yelled at for calling him on it. :banghead:

I haven't caught up on thread yet..I just caught the last part of Judge Pastors rant..A spectator I believe was booted out..took about 30 seconds if that. Judge made a motion to the officer with his hand like..get em outta here. He does NOT mess around..very little upset in courtroom if any.
I believe JB would have been gone before the trial ever started!

 

[MsMacGyver]

I had my opportunity today at my local CVS to turn around all the People magazines at the cash register with ICA on the cover! Felt good to do!

:rocker:..........:great:...............:clap:

 

[NocturnalLady]

I think it is not only juries who have been influenced by the Anthony trial - I am quite certain judges throughout the country have also learned some valuable lessons.

While we complain about HHJP, he presided over the horror show case of the decade. By the time he received the case, all the players were pretty much in place and in full bloom. I think his primary concern, because of JB's legal incompetence, was not to go to mistrial and have to start the whole process all over again. I also believe he never foresaw the jury going sideways the way it did. Seriously - who could? FCA was so obviously guilty. I wish he had picked a jury from Orlando and just gotten on with it, in hindsight.

I'm a big fan of HHJP. He's got a great courtroom demeanor and his knowledge of the law is vast.

I agree that avoiding a mistrial was his primary thought, along with rushing things along to save money & time. However I think this priority was a huge mistake on his part. He should have been focused on ensuring that justice was done - not trying to avoid something (an appeal, a mistrial) which may or may not have ever happened. Sadly, as much as I love HHJP I think he got the justice he he was going for - the cheap and quick kind.

As time goes on and I have more opportunity to think about the trial as it unfolded, the more I realize that the DT didn't win this trial - it was the prosecution who lost it, with a big assist by the judge. The prosecution took it for granted that anyone who heard Casey's story would know it was a laughable lie. They thought if they merely walked a jury through how stupid and obviously false her story was then they would get a conviction. I think the prosecution saw how incompetent JB was and they got complacent.

 

[logicalgirl]

my bold. I may have agreed with that had none of them come forward to speak. since several have, I disagree that it was about BARD.

I am always so interested in your POV. (not snark, I promise) I cant see how one can admit they felt she was probably or even likely guilty and yet convict of nothing. if I am ever going to get it, it will be through your posts.

btw the first charge's possible penalty was never meant to be considered in the guilt phase. it was only a possible penalty, and it was up to the jury to decide on that too.

(my own opinion is that the amount of jurors that had to be talked into the DP during voir dire could be part of this verdict - they would not vote for DP but couldnt let loose of the idea that others could)

I am always so interested to hear there wasn't enough evidence in this case to convict when it is referred to by experienced criminal lawyers as THE case with the most circumstantial evidence they have ever seen.

 

[MarthaM]

I am always so interested to hear there wasn't enough evidence in this case to convict when it is referred to by experienced criminal lawyers as THE case with the most circumstantial evidence they have ever seen.

It's a question of quality rather than quantity. Three pieces of circumstantial evidence can lead a jury to convict and a hundred pieces can still leave them with reasonable doubt.

 

[nssherlock]

I think it is not only juries who have been influenced by the Anthony trial - I am quite certain judges throughout the country have also learned some valuable lessons.

While we complain about HHJP, he presided over the horror show case of the decade. By the time he received the case, all the players were pretty much in place and in full bloom. I think his primary concern, because of JB's legal incompetence, was not to go to mistrial and have to start the whole process all over again. I also believe he never foresaw the jury going sideways the way it did. Seriously - who could? FCA was so obviously guilty. I wish he had picked a jury from Orlando and just gotten on with it, in hindsight.

I agree........the only real complaint I have is that HHJP did let JB get away with only threats to discipline him for his misbehavior. A bark with no bite is very quickly recognized and taken advantage of. JB is having the last laugh it seems which is just killing me!

And I originally thought that the jurors didn't understand the concept of reasonable doubt.....but if that chart was their guide....unchallenged by either the defense or the judge......then I have to say they acted on the direction they were given. Do you remember if the chart was challenged?

 

[Murphismo]

It's a question of quality rather than quantity. Three pieces of circumstantial evidence can lead a jury to convict and a hundred pieces can still leave them with reasonable doubt.

Just curious, not snark. What do you think of the Scott Peterson verdict then? I can't really think of one smoking guy piece of circumstantial evidence. In retrospect it seems as if the juries took two completely roads on these cases.....:twocents:

 

[logicalgirl]

I'm a big fan of HHJP. He's got a great courtroom demeanor and his knowledge of the law is vast.

I agree that avoiding a mistrial was his primary thought, along with rushing things along to save money & time. However I think this priority was a huge mistake on his part. He should have been focused on ensuring that justice was done - not trying to avoid something (an appeal, a mistrial) which may or may not have ever happened. Sadly, as much as I love HHJP I think he got the justice he he was going for - the cheap and quick kind.

As time goes on and I have more opportunity to think about the trial as it unfolded, the more I realize that the DT didn't win this trial - it was the prosecution who lost it, with a big assist by the judge. The prosecution took it for granted that anyone who heard Casey's story would know it was a laughable lie. They thought if they merely walked a jury through how stupid and obviously false her story was then they would get a conviction. I think the prosecution saw how incompetent JB was and they got complacent.

Sorry - I can't agree with you saying HHJP wanted the cheap and quick kind of trial. The only thing he tried to set time limits on was the jury selection, and even then he said they would stay there as long as was necessary. If you remember, he wasn't short at all with witnesses during this trial - I think what you saw was his experience talking. He knew this trial should take six to eight weeks, that the jury deliberations would probably take a week and then it's done. If anything, the only thing I saw him doing was working Saturdays, which the jury wanted to do, and threatening evenings, which more at trying to get the DT organized than anything else. I think this rush rush thing is a big myth. IMO - just one of the things we've grabbed onto - to blame for our frustration and anger at the verdict.

 

[logicalgirl]

It's a question of quality rather than quantity. Three pieces of circumstantial evidence can lead a jury to convict and a hundred pieces can still leave them with reasonable doubt.

Your point being?????

While I respect your opinion except that I've never seen anything except blanket statements that have caused it - I can compare this trial and it's evidence to other trials and say this trial had overwhelming evidence of guilt.

Having three or a hundred pieces of evidence makes no difference if it falls on closed ears and closed minds. While I appreciate that you believe there wasn't enough evidence to convict - I've chosen ten experts in the field who have backed up their statements saying there was enough, there was more than enough - and chosen to believe and accept their opinions.

But thanks for your posts - however circular statements won't make a difference to me now.

 

[Murphismo]

Interesting diccussion on the FCA jury from the Amanda Knox trial commentator:

...The interview with juror Jennifer Ford on the Casey Anthony outcome was quite fascinating because her decision was based on something we’ve been arguing about for a long time – circumstantial evidence.

There’ve been classic cases at Orphans of Liberty where expert testimony described actual evidence found and tested and what conclusions were drawn from that. When you get up to 12 or 13 experts all saying exactly the same thing and some of those were actually on site, then what do you conclude?

Against that, you have that comment that “circumstantial” is usually all you have in a murder. By definition, the murderer does not oblige by taking snapshots or videorecording the event.” Often he or she does everything in their power to cover it up.

It’s all very well for a Columbo to waltz in and cleverly trap the murderer he’s fixed on but in most cases, it’s the result of painstaking work building exhibits and other evidence which fits together. True, when the police try too hard, you can get frame-ups. But what the pro-Knox machine are making out – that “a stream of lies” has come out of Mignini’s office, while conflating that with his provisional conviction over another case - concluding from that that Knox is innocent, they’re open to challenge.

.......
Coming back to Jennifer Ford, what struck me was how tough it was for her because they did not have absolute final proof. They did have so much evidence of what happened – the car trunk, the remains in the swamp and so on, the forensic evidence, so much so that it was pretty much a foregone conclusion, unless some other person or persons unknown had come into it.

Yet they did not convict, on the grounds that the prosecution had not finally proven, i.e. they didn’t have Casey Anthony at the scene, through an eyewitness, actually doing the murder.

 

[logicalgirl]

Interesting diccussion on the FCA jury from the Amanda Knox trial commentator:

...The interview with juror Jennifer Ford on the Casey Anthony outcome was quite fascinating because her decision was based on something we’ve been arguing about for a long time – circumstantial evidence.

There’ve been classic cases at Orphans of Liberty where expert testimony described actual evidence found and tested and what conclusions were drawn from that. When you get up to 12 or 13 experts all saying exactly the same thing and some of those were actually on site, then what do you conclude?

Against that, you have that comment that “circumstantial” is usually all you have in a murder. By definition, the murderer does not oblige by taking snapshots or videorecording the event.” Often he or she does everything in their power to cover it up.

It’s all very well for a Columbo to waltz in and cleverly trap the murderer he’s fixed on but in most cases, it’s the result of painstaking work building exhibits and other evidence which fits together. True, when the police try too hard, you can get frame-ups. But what the pro-Knox machine are making out – that “a stream of lies” has come out of Mignini’s office, while conflating that with his provisional conviction over another case - concluding from that that Knox is innocent, they’re open to challenge.

.......
Coming back to Jennifer Ford, what struck me was how tough it was for her because they did not have absolute final proof. They did have so much evidence of what happened – the car trunk, the remains in the swamp and so on, the forensic evidence, so much so that it was pretty much a foregone conclusion, unless some other person or persons unknown had come into it.

Yet they did not convict, on the grounds that the prosecution had not finally proven, i.e. they didn’t have Casey Anthony at the scene, through an eyewitness, actually doing the murder.

Interesting comparison of trials and evidence - what do you think of the chances of Knox getting out?

 

[Murphismo]

Interesting comparison of trials and evidence - what do you think of the chances of Knox getting out?

You know, I don't know..... I'm really on the fence. My gut tells me no.... If I had to bet I'd say she was innoscent, but the Italian justice system is very different from ours and she's their Casey Anthony in a lot of ways..... If the evidence speaks and the jurors listen, I see an aquittal. Sadly, I'm not convinced it is going to go that way.

 

[Murphismo]

I'm actually not really convinced AK is innocent. I'm leaning heavily toward NG, but I haven't seen the evidence like I did for many other trials. It will be intersting.... I wish I knew more, I've really been researching it a lot this week. MK's parent's are going to be able to make an appeal to the jury before deliberations... Not sure how I feel about that...

 

[MarthaM]

Just curious, not snark. What do you think of the Scott Peterson verdict then? I can't really think of one smoking guy piece of circumstantial evidence. In retrospect it seems as if the juries took two completely roads on these cases.....:twocents:

I didn't follow the Peterson case very closely, and I think only two or three jurors spoke out after the verdict. That jury felt that Peterson's actions before, during, and after his wife's death led to him being the killer. They didn't see any other explanation.

I think it's hard (if not impossible) to compare two murder trials, though. There are entirely different casts of characters... different victim, judge, lawyers, investigators, defendant, witnesses, jury. Too many variables.

Your point being?????

While I respect your opinion except that I've never seen anything except blanket statements that have caused it - I can compare this trial and it's evidence to other trials and say this trial had overwhelming evidence of guilt.

Having three or a hundred pieces of evidence makes no difference if it falls on closed ears and closed minds. While I appreciate that you believe there wasn't enough evidence to convict - I've chosen ten experts in the field who have backed up their statements saying there was enough, there was more than enough - and chosen to believe and accept their opinions.

But thanks for your posts - however circular statements won't make a difference to me now.

My point being that the number of pieces of circumstantial evidence doesn't necessarily mean anything. There could be only three circumstances that add up to murder for a jury. Or there could be a dozen that don't convince the jury of a defendant's guilt.

Specifically with the Anthony trial, the circumstantial evidence just wasn't that impressive. Had it been more specifically tied to Casey, then I think the prosecution would have proven their case and won. It was just a little too vague for the jury, I think. The duct tape, chloroform searches, etc. just weren't all that great as far as circumstantial evidence goes.

Now, another jury might have thought it was enough to convict. But this jury didn't, and that's how the jury system works.

 

[MarthaM]

You know, I don't know..... I'm really on the fence. My gut tells me no.... If I had to bet I'd say she was innoscent, but the Italian justice system is very different from ours and she's their Casey Anthony in a lot of ways..... If the evidence speaks and the jurors listen, I see an aquittal. Sadly, I'm not convinced it is going to go that way.

I'm actually not really convinced AK is innocent. I'm leaning heavily toward NG, but I haven't seen the evidence like I did for many other trials. It will be intersting.... I wish I knew more, I've really been researching it a lot this week. MK's parent's are going to be able to make an appeal to the jury before deliberations... Not sure how I feel about that...

I'm way more interested in what's going on in the Amanda Knox case than I am in the Conrad Murray trial. Honestly, I'm not much interested in the Murray case. I want to know what the verdict is, but other than that it's not the kind of case that grabs my attention.

I didn't follow the Knox trial too closely, but I'm interested in this appeal. I have a friend who moved back here from Italy a year or so ago, and he said that just about everybody there thinks she's guilty. I didn't follow it enough to have an opinion about her guilt or innocence, but I'm very much interested in watching how different their legal system is from ours. I think it's fascinating.

 

[logicalgirl]

I didn't follow the Peterson case very closely, and I think only two or three jurors spoke out after the verdict. That jury felt that Peterson's actions before, during, and after his wife's death led to him being the killer. They didn't see any other explanation.

I think it's hard (if not impossible) to compare two murder trials, though. There are entirely different casts of characters... different victim, judge, lawyers, investigators, defendant, witnesses, jury. Too many variables.



My point being that the number of pieces of circumstantial evidence doesn't necessarily mean anything. There could be only three circumstances that add up to murder for a jury. Or there could be a dozen that don't convince the jury of a defendant's guilt.

Specifically with the Anthony trial, the circumstantial evidence just wasn't that impressive. Had it been more specifically tied to Casey, then I think the prosecution would have proven their case and won. It was just a little too vague for the jury, I think. The duct tape, chloroform searches, etc. just weren't all that great as far as circumstantial evidence goes.

Now, another jury might have thought it was enough to convict. But this jury didn't, and that's how the jury system works.

When you go here (BBM) when you are replying to me - as I've stated above - to me you are blowing in the wind. Many many others who are educated in criminal law have disagreed with you so strongly that your comments are falling on my deaf ears....

 

[Murphismo]

I didn't follow the Peterson case very closely, and I think only two or three jurors spoke out after the verdict. That jury felt that Peterson's actions before, during, and after his wife's death led to him being the killer. They didn't see any other explanation.

I think it's hard (if not impossible) to compare two murder trials, though. There are entirely different casts of characters... different victim, judge, lawyers, investigators, defendant, witnesses, jury. Too many variables.



My point being that the number of pieces of circumstantial evidence doesn't necessarily mean anything. There could be only three circumstances that add up to murder for a jury. Or there could be a dozen that don't convince the jury of a defendant's guilt.

Specifically with the Anthony trial, the circumstantial evidence just wasn't that impressive. Had it been more specifically tied to Casey, then I think the prosecution would have proven their case and won. It was just a little too vague for the jury, I think. The duct tape, chloroform searches, etc. just weren't all that great as far as circumstantial evidence goes.

Now, another jury might have thought it was enough to convict. But this jury didn't, and that's how the jury system works.

I think saying the "amount" of circumstantal evidence is irrelevent is like saying the "amount" of coincedences are irrelevent. They are part and parcel. As for the evidence. I actually agree with you on two points; the duct tape and chloroform evidence left reasonable doubt - I can see that. But not reporting her missing for 31 days - her daughter, the smell in the trunk, her trunk, the forensic evidence...... I can see no conviction on murder one, but to say there was no negligence on her part, that she wasn't involved in any type of child abuse. That dog won't hunt......:twocents:

 

[MarthaM]

I think saying the "amount" of circumstantal evidence is irrelevent is like saying the "amount" of coincedences are irrelevent. They are part and parcel. As for the evidence. I actually agree with you on two points; the duct tape and chloroform evidence left reasonable doubt - I can see that. But not reporting her missing for 31 days - her daughter, the smell in the trunk, her trunk, the forensic evidence...... I can see no conviction on murder one, but to say there was no negligence on her part, that she wasn't involved in any type of child abuse. That dog won't hunt......:twocents:

I think that juries don't always look at post-death behavior as proof. They'd rather see pre-death behavior and circumstantial evidence that lead them to murder, not what happened after a person is deceased. And I can understand that. It's much easier to prove murder if you have solid CE in the days and weeks leading up to a death, but less so if most of what you've got comes afterwards. I think that was a real problem for this prosecution team.