Sidebar for Caylee Anthony's forum #14

[PrincessSezMe]

i have been given the opportunity to read baez's book and am reading through the thread of all the inconsistencies, and i just want to thank everyone who posted in that thread... y'all rock!!

looks like the book is a waste... a huge waste (of my time) :floorlaugh:

:seeya:

You're braver than me LoL. I'm afraid to read Baez's book. I may fall down the rabbit hole and never return :candle:

 

[Steely Dan]

 

[skbsoccermom]

Usually when a defense attorney makes claims in his opening statement or later on in the trial, that is not proven with evidence, a jury is angered. Most people would be angry if they feel that they are being played. So what Baez did usually backfires on the defense. But not with this jury. MOO.

I heard alot of commentary from defense attornies during the trial on this exact issue. They all said the same thing ... that baez should never have told the jury that he would prove things and then not follow through because most juries would hold it against him. Not this jury .. they sang his praises at the end. SMH
Unless one of them speaks out about what went on, I will never understand. All the excuses they gave so far about the reason for their verdict were lame. They pretty much just repeated everything baez said during the trial. I just don't get why they thought he was so brilliant, when the rest of the world could clearly see he was anything but.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

Yes, but to fix a broken system it has been suggested perhaps changing how juries are seated to some sort of professional jury system. And that would need a constitutional amendment since now a jury of one's peers is mandated.

I think major changes could happen without major overhaul of the constitution. Jury instructions could be more clear for one thing. Most people (especially professionals) do not realize that the average reading comprehension level in this country is around 8th grade, so when speaking (as in HHJP giving the jury instructions) or writing (as in the written form of the instructions) everything needs to be at a level that the aforementioned "one's peers" can be expected to understand.

Given some of the nonsense I've read posted (on various forums) about how successful JB's tactic was, I would dare to venture a guess that many citizens outside of that jury were/are also under the impression that JB could say and do whatever he wanted in court and the jury did not have the option of ignoring any of what he said--it's a problem with level of understanding, IMO. Otherwise, there is no plausible explanation for why JB was taken seriously by the jurors. None. Nada. And the problem with level of understanding goes beyond that to people misinterpreting much of what the Constitution means.

All JMO of course.

I think you have a really good point here. But this jury was not eighth grade level from what I remember in the information that was released about them. Maybe a few of them were not college graduates and were simple working class people, but some of them were professionals that should have had better reasoning skills than an eighth grader.

I don't know what the answer is. I'm absolutely not an advocate for taking away anyone's constitutional rights, but something is not working...that I DO know. A lot of people have knocked around the idea of a professional jury, but maybe it could be as simple as the judge (or some other representative of the court) sitting with the jury through their deliberations. Not to interfere in their deliberations in any way, but to make sure they understand what their duty is, and to make sure they're following the instructions of the court.

Can AZlawyer or anyone else with a legal background comment on that? I can't see any way that would interfere with the defendants rights. But maybe it could help in protecting the victims rights?

 

[Steely Dan]

I think you have a really good point here. But this jury was not eighth grade level from what I remember in the information that was released about them. Maybe a few of them were not college graduates and were simple working class people, but some of them were professionals that should have had better reasoning skills than an eighth grader.

I don't know what the answer is. I'm absolutely not an advocate for taking away anyone's constitutional rights, but something is not working...that I DO know. A lot of people have knocked around the idea of a professional jury, but maybe it could be as simple as the judge (or some other representative of the court) sitting with the jury through their deliberations. Not to interfere in their deliberations in any way, but to make sure they understand what their duty is, and to make sure they're following the instructions of the court.

Can AZlawyer or anyone else with a legal background comment on that? I can't see any way that would interfere with the defendants rights. But maybe it could help in protecting the victims rights?

JMO, but smarts and wisdom aren't the same thing.

 

[RANCH]

I think you have a really good point here. But this jury was not eighth grade level from what I remember in the information that was released about them. Maybe a few of them were not college graduates and were simple working class people, but some of them were professionals that should have had better reasoning skills than an eighth grader.

I don't know what the answer is. I'm absolutely not an advocate for taking away anyone's constitutional rights, but something is not working...that I DO know. A lot of people have knocked around the idea of a professional jury, but maybe it could be as simple as the judge (or some other representative of the court) sitting with the jury through their deliberations. Not to interfere in their deliberations in any way, but to make sure they understand what their duty is, and to make sure they're following the instructions of the court.

Can AZlawyer or anyone else with a legal background comment on that? I can't see any way that would interfere with the defendants rights. But maybe it could help in protecting the victims rights?

The problem with this jury is that they didn't care. They didn't deliberate. They just wanted to go home. So they did. We don't need a jury babysitter, we need good jury's. The question is, how do we get good jury's?

 

[skbsoccermom]

I am still having a hard time accepting a trial as "fair" when only one side has to present the truth, and only one side gets a do-over if the verdict is not what they wanted.

The prosecutor must have strong enough evidence to convict. If they do not have that, they are prohibited from manufacturing something. I believe that to be right on, because a trial should be about one thing and one thing only: Getting to the truth of the matter.

But sadly, the defense can legally accuse an innocent person, manufacture or fabricate, with nothing whatsoever to back up anything they present in court. This is totally accepted in our courts of law as a defense strategy, though in any other venue it would be seen for what it is: A lie.

If both sides were held to the same standards, if the evidence is strong enough, it will convict a guilty person and if a person is truly innocent, evidence could be successfully challenged without benefit of lies.

JMO.

There is another problem with defense attornies being allowed to manufacture and fabricate and that is that people like me, who have developed an incredible mistrust of defense attornies, would tend to be hypercritical of what comes out of their mouth if I were to be seated on a jury. As someone who watches true crime shows, and used to listen to the nonsense those attornies on NG would spew, I have a bad taste about defense attornies in general. I see them along the same line as a used car salesman (or perhaps a bikini salesman).
The P12 were the exact opposite. Perhaps because some of them had prior records such as DUI and writing bad checks, they had more of a "you'll never catch me copper" attitude. In fact, I believe juror #5 who refused to look at Jeff during his closing arguments was one of those with a prior DUI.

 

[Intermezzo]

I was just reading on one of those 'Where is Casey Anthony now' sites, where it is reported that she is working at a dental clinic in Acworth Ga....
I have no idea if this is true or not...... but isn't that where Rosalie Bolin was from - the convicted killer's wife who acted as mitigation 'specialist' on the defense, for a while...? Anyone remember?

I believe she(Rosalie) grew up in the Tampa area,
Tampa has a good size Sicilian-American community and she said in an article she had a strict Sicilian Catholic upbringing and met her first husband when she was a teenager.


http://articles.latimes.com/1996-09-16/news/ls-44389_1_rosalie-martinez/2

 

[PrincessSezMe]

JMO, but smarts and wisdom aren't the same thing.

I get what you're saying. Lots of educated "fools" out there. My thought was that maybe having a neutral "legal person" holding their hands throughout the deliberations might be an option. It could be a neutral third party, not hired by the state or the defense. I'm sure AZ or someone else with a knowledge of the law will come back and say my idea's out to lunch :crazy:. Guess I'm a dreamer. The justice system will never be perfect, that's for sure.

 

[skbsoccermom]

The problem with this jury is that they didn't care. They didn't deliberate. They just wanted to go home. So they did. We don't need a jury babysitter, we need good jury's. The question is, how do we get good jury's?

I wouldn't be opposed to professional jury's who know exactly what their job is, understand how attornies operate, know how to weigh evidence .. both circumstantial and direct, and are educated enough to understand the judge's instructions. I think with a professional jury, it would be difficult for a defense attorney to snow them.

It is also truly upsetting that this particular jury allowed the foreman to tell them they could not consider her behavior during those 31 days. I'd like to know why he thought he had the authority to make that determination (besides his ego). Did being named jury foreman suddenly award him a law degree? I'd also like to know why the other jurors felt they couldn't challenge him on it. Someone should have asked him which guidelines or instructions he used to make that decision, and since he obviously pulled it out of his hat, they should have refused to go along with it.

I was concerned when listening to jury selection because a few of them sounded very uncertain of themselves. I knew that if there were a few strong personalities on the jury, the weaker ones would be intimidated into voting a certain way. Why have a jury of 12 when 1 or 2 insist on their way, and the rest go along with it to avoid conflict? Especially when they know that if they cave, it will get them out of there quicker!

 

[atthelake]

Maybe the SA felt a perjury charge might look like sour grapes after losing the murder case. I think it was a wrong decision to not charge her with perjury because of the negative message that sends. But if they had charged her, there would have been family members who would have lied to save Cindy.

Likely the SA not wanting to look like they were bullying the grandmother of a dead grandchild was their main consideration. They gave Cindy too much credit in the bereavement department, IMO.

Speaking of grandmothers, Shirleys legacy will be the quote (while law enforcement was helping with her cat.just like us lowly bloggers with nine cats)

Caysee hates Cindy more than she loves Caylee.

Caylee and great gramma Shirley are now holding hands in heaven....and Wolfmom continues to light a candle twice a day.

 

[beach]

I was just reading on one of those 'Where is Casey Anthony now' sites, where it is reported that she is working at a dental clinic in Acworth Ga....
I have no idea if this is true or not...... but isn't that where Rosalie Bolin was from - the convicted killer's wife who acted as mitigation 'specialist' on the defense, for a while...? Anyone remember?

I think it would be pretty darn bad for business. If I was a patient and I saw her working there, all I would do is immediately ask for a copy of my chart and leave. I doubt I'm alone in that thought either.

Off the top of my head about the only job I can see anyone willing to hire her for is telemarketing..or bill collections. Something like that. Where nobody knows who the heck they are talking to.

 

[LolaMoon08]

BBM

Oh, my, God! I never thought of that!!!

It was my first thought. I immediately had a flashback of getting my wisdom teeth pulled and being knocked out and waking up to see Casey Anthony trying to steal my drip.

She would not be able to handle anything dealing with financial aspects in an office setting? At least I would hope not with her convictions of theft, etc... She should not be allowed access to anyone's personal information/finance information.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

The problem with this jury is that they didn't care. They didn't deliberate. They just wanted to go home. So they did. We don't need a jury babysitter, we need good jury's. The question is, how do we get good jury's?

Hey Ranch - I understand that under the constitution a person is entitled to a trial by a "jury of their peers". What has been pointed out by this case is that a "jury of their peers" isn't always the most intellectual, or engaged. So I'm struggling with where we get these good juries from. I wasn't suggesting a babysitter. I was suggesting someone who is well versed on jury duty and their obligations, who can explain to them why they're not on the right track if they fall off the rails (which I think this jury did).

Either way I guess it's debatable whether or not it would be seen as stacking the jury. No easy answer to this issue.

 

[LolaMoon08]

I think it would be pretty darn bad for business. If I was a patient and I saw her working there, all I would do is immediately ask for a copy of my chart and leave. I doubt I'm alone in that thought either.

Off the top of my head about the only job I can see anyone willing to hire her for is telemarketing..or bill collections. Something like that. Where nobody knows who the heck they are talking to.

Can you imagine a buisness giving her access to customers personal information? When you're working in an office setting like that, you're talking about someone's whole dental history, financial information, possibly social security number, etc...

I honestly can not see a business that deals with the public in this manner giving Casey a job.

 

[skbsoccermom]

I am still having a hard time accepting a trial as "fair" when only one side has to present the truth, and only one side gets a do-over if the verdict is not what they wanted.

The prosecutor must have strong enough evidence to convict. If they do not have that, they are prohibited from manufacturing something. I believe that to be right on, because a trial should be about one thing and one thing only: Getting to the truth of the matter.

But sadly, the defense can legally accuse an innocent person, manufacture or fabricate, with nothing whatsoever to back up anything they present in court. This is totally accepted in our courts of law as a defense strategy, though in any other venue it would be seen for what it is: A lie.

If both sides were held to the same standards, if the evidence is strong enough, it will convict a guilty person and if a person is truly innocent, evidence could be successfully challenged without benefit of lies.

JMO.

I'm not sure how state law enters into the equation, but I recall watching a true crime show where the defense attorney wanted to accuse someone else of the crime, and the judge would not allow it unless the attorney had sufficient evidence, which of course, he did not. I think this shifts the burden onto the defense, as it should if they insist of openly accusing someone of a crime they didn't commit. If the prosecution can't accuse someone, then why should the defense have the ability?

Isn't it true that in some countries a jury has the option of something like 'undetermined' or 'undecided', in which if they are unable to determine guilt, the decision is then made by a judge or a panel of judges? Not sure how I feel about it, since it esentially takes away from the 'jury of your peers' thing, but in the case of FCA, a jury of peers obviously wasn't ideal.

 

[RANCH]

There is another problem with defense attornies being allowed to manufacture and fabricate and that is that people like me, who have developed an incredible mistrust of defense attornies, would tend to be hypercritical of what comes out of their mouth if I were to be seated on a jury. As someone who watches true crime shows, and used to listen to the nonsense those attornies on NG would spew, I have a bad taste about defense attornies in general. I see them along the same line as a used car salesman (or perhaps a bikini salesman).
The P12 were the exact opposite. Perhaps because some of them had prior records such as DUI and writing bad checks, they had more of a "you'll never catch me copper" attitude. In fact, I believe juror #5 who refused to look at Jeff during his closing arguments was one of those with a prior DUI.

If your ever called for jury duty be ready to have questions asked about what you watch on TV or what you do on the internet in regards to crime.

Last year I had jury duty and was called on a panel for attempted murder and other various crimes involving some gang members. Every single prospective juror was asked if they ever posted anything online about crime whether it was on a news site or Facebook or on a forum. Not one of those potential jurors said yes, they did make such posts. I'm talking about a two and a half day period of jury selection, not one person admitted to ever posting about crime or a crime case on the internet.

I was waiting for my name to be called for voir dire and be asked if I posted on the internet about crime. I decided that I would tell the truth knowing that the defense lawyers would go to Websleuths and check my posts. But my name was not called before enough jurors were selected.

I have a good feeling that some of the people who ended up on the jury lied about their online postings. MOO

 

[atthelake]

:goodpost: As much as the Anthony verdict bothered me (and bothered it putting it lightly) I would not want to live under any other justice system.

This case really captured me, and I sincerely believed all along that I would be watching the trial that would see justice served for little Caylee. I was emotionally down in the dumps after it. I won't let this case cloud my feelings about the foundation of our system though.

We have a fw folks here international, 2goldfish from UK and sammiejam from Aussieland posting recently. Don't one of your systems differ from ours in that there is not a double jeapordy, and what are your legal differences for discussion. (DO not mean to exclude others....just know these two folks (and some of you may know 2 better as ms. X),

 

[PrincessSezMe]

If your ever called for jury duty be ready to have questions asked about what you watch on TV or what you do on the internet in regards to crime.

Last year I had jury duty and was called on a panel for attempted murder and other various crimes involving some gang members. Every single prospective juror was asked if they ever posted anything online about crime whether it was on a news site or Facebook or on a forum. Not one of those potential jurors said yes, they did make such posts. I'm talking about a two and a half day period of jury selection, not one person admitted to ever posting about crime or a crime case on the internet.

I was waiting for my name to be called for voir dire and be asked if I posted on the internet about crime. I decided that I would tell the truth knowing that the defense lawyers would go to Websleuths and check my posts. But my name was not called before enough jurors were selected.

I have a good feeling that some of the people who ended up on the jury lied about their online postings. MOO

I would bet you're 100% right about that. Who doesn't, in this day and age from pre-teen to grandma, have some interaction with social media? Baez was smart in following the online chats and blogs about this case. One of the few smart things he did. I've never heard of the state doing the same. Lessons learned from this case.....I hope.

I :heartbeat: AZlawyer and JWG for giving the good peeps at WS the credibility they deserve. The online community (and in particular the Caylee Warriors) are a force to be reckoned with!

 

[RANCH]

We have a fw folks here international, 2goldfish from UK and sammiejam from Aussieland posting recently. Don't one of your systems differ from ours in that there is not a double jeapordy, and what are your legal differences for discussion. (DO not mean to exclude others....just know these two folks (and some of you may know 2 better as ms. X),

I think that before we try to emulate other country's judicial systems, we should look at what needs to be fixed. Is double jeopardy the problem or jury selection? If the problem lies with the jury then changing the US Fifth Amendment doesn't seem to be the answer to me. MOO