Sidebar for Caylee Anthony's forum #14

[Gnatcatcher]

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.

BBM - Did anyone see that Janie Weintraub on JVM the night this was covered? She tried to put across the theory that the one hour in question could have been due to the computer having a daylight savings time glitch and they forgot to set the computer ahead by an hour. I mean... gosh. It sickens me how ridiculous some arguments can be.

 

[PrincessSezMe]

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.

skbsoccermom - that sounds familiar to me, but I was unable to find what country(s) have that option. Funny thing is, when I googled both terms I got Casey Anthony references when I put in undetermined guilt, and OJ Simpson references when I put in undecided guilt. LoL...a match made in he//. :lol:

 

[atthelake]

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

You are a good straight man Ranch...was heading to perhaps discussion that another country has jurors that are indeed trained prior to sitting on jury....back to regalarly scheduled programming and perhaps others from such will chime in.

 

[RANCH]

You are a good straight man Ranch...was heading to perhaps discussion that another country has jurors that are indeed trained prior to sitting on jury....back to regalarly scheduled programming and perhaps others from such will chime in.

Thanks for the compliment. I've only looked a bit at other country's double jeopardy laws and not their jury selection rules or laws. Looks like I need to do some research.

 

[Gnatcatcher]

<modsnip>

thanks. Not that she'd be included in the list of online personalities anyway..

Where is that "where is casey anthony now" website folks have mentioned? am I allowed to ask?

 

[FrayedKnot]

I'm not following your interpretation of "ones peers". You seem to be saying that the educational level of the jury must match the defendant and the judge needs to instruct the jury at whatever that level is. What if the defendant is a PhD. Does that mean that a jury his peers must all be PhD's?

Jury deliberation from HE77!!!!!

 

[redheadedgal]

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:

i'm not reading it... no rabbit holes for me. i read enough of his "version" in that thread :liar: ullhair: :denied:

 

[Horace Finklestein]

If I am not mistaken, our justice system requires the prosecution to hand over all that they have to the defense, but the defense does not have to hand over everything they have to the prosecution. So, from a legal standpoint JB may not have done wrong in not bringing this evidence to their attention.

However...if JB knew of this evidence at trial it says he knows for a fact that Casey did the crime. JB defended the murdering mom in court, I have no problem with that. That was his job. He's a defense attorney and that's what defense attorneys do. What I do have a problem with is his attitude toward Casey since she got away with murdering her baby. And that goes for the attitudes of all the rest of the defense team...they should have, IMO, done their jobs in court and then walked away. No picking her up at the jail when she was released, no hiding her away and selling stories about her to the rag mags, no celebrating that a murderer will be set free on society. And no "tell all" book that is nothing but lies--claiming she is innocent when he has always known she is guilty. That is what I cannot stomach. Not his defending her in court, which is what he was hired to do. But his defending her after the fact. JB and Mason should have walked away from her and never looked back.

None of this "new" computer evidence would have mattered had it come out at trial. The majority of citizens know Casey is and will always be guilty, regardless of the verdict. But Casey got a jury of her peers--people who could not understand anything scientific or technological in nature. Had the stained trunk liner been put in evidence, intact, it might have had some impact even on that jury. But computer evidence...MO is the jurors did not have the brain cells necessary to understand any of it, and they didn't want to take the time out of their own lives to even try.

I am sick all over again. This "oversight" on the part of the state is going to be touted as what cost Caylee her much-deserved justice. But it didn't. Not at all. JMO.

Have to agree. It was all futile, 95% because of the jury and the other 5% due to Perry (still gets me that perjury was committed in a murder trial in his court and he didn't bat an eye).

Well, hopefully the Pinellas 12 are enjoying some donuts and dvds.

 

[krkrjx]

I agree that it's something that can be looked at. Do you think that we are in the same situation here in the Caylee Anthony case as in the case in your link? What I'm saying is do we have "compelling new evidence" that proves KC's guilt, or do we have another piece of circumstantial evidence in what was already a strong circumstantial evidence case.

Regardless of what kind of evidence it is, it is not new. Yes, it has just recently been exposed...but it was evidence the state had from early on.

If Casey had been convicted and the computer searches found after the fact were such that they might have helped her case, an appeal based on new evidence would be denied. The reason would be that an appeal based on new evidence can only be successful if the evidence is really new--something that was not available and could not have reasonably been available at the time of trial.

As it stands, this "new" computer evidence could have been used at trial if someone had bothered to look for it. It was there for the taking.

I do agree with the poster who suggested a retrial should be a possibility when misconduct during the first trial is proven...misconduct such as perjury. But...it seems perjury is no biggie after all.

 

[LinasK]

Thanks for the full timeline for June 16 with the cell info. Too bad they didn't get ping info for GA & CA - that would have been beneficial when the defense tried to say George & Cindy had done the searches. I think it would have been clearer to the jury than Cindy's work log if they could have shown GA&CA cell phones in another location when the home PC was being used.


This is just the saddest piece. Baby in the car trunk & off to rent a movie. The timeline along with the video from Blockbuster with no Caylee - should have at least netted a child endangerment conviction.
In Zinah's case, they never found her child & have a fraction of the evidence that there was again FCA and she still got 10 years for 'unlawful conduct toward a child'.
http://www.wistv.com/story/19484234/jury-reaches-verdict-in-zinah-jennings-trial

Based on the timeline, Caylee was most likely dead by the time they were renting the movies on the Blockbuster security tape. I think she was suffocated by 4:00, when Casey made the flurry of phone calls.

 

[LinasK]

The idea behind Double Jeopardy is to prevent the State from trying someone over and over until they get what they want. How often does an acquittal happen with as strong of a case as this one? Not very often in my opinion. I think that removing this very important protection from the US Constitution to remedy a few injustices would be overkill.

The problem in this case wasn't so much that Jose Baez lied and fabricated things during the trial, but the fact that the jury went along with his ideas without solid evidence to support them. So in my opinion the problem lies with the jury and not so much the defense.

I think that it would be more beneficial if we look at ways to get better juries before we give up our rights. Changes in jury selection rules? A professional jury? MOO

http://www.revolutionary-war-and-beyond.com/double-jeopardy-clause.html

I think a major step would be to not accept jurors who flat out tell you "they can't judge" as the black woman on Casey's jury said!

 

[Spice]

IMO, The problem is not jury selection or double jeopardy. Double jeopardy is part of our brilliant constitution for good reason. The problem is LAZY jurors who do not respect or take civic duty seriously. The problem is also a 24 hour news cycle filled with sensationalism and utter repeat disease, reducing our justice system into a reality show or an episode of Jersey Shore. I hear people around me all of the time making comments about shirking jury duty. They put tons of energy into getting out of it. Yeah, its an inconvenience but it is a reciprocal thing.

In other words, every person that treats jury duty as a joke, must realize that if they found themselves charged with a crime that they were innocent of, or god forbid have a loved one taken from them at the hands of another, they too would deserve a cognizant, committed jury, capable of critical thinking.

The system is not infallible by any means, but it works more often than not. It is designed to protect the innocent because even one innocent dying on death row or spending life behind bars is one too many. I would not want it any other way. Sadly, sometimes a murderer will walk free, but that is the price we pay to have a system that tries to protect those from wrongful conviction. And wrongful conviction STILL occurs despite that. Imagine if we didn't have the system we have? How many innocent people would rot in jail?

This case is not going to change the constitution and it shouldn't. Casey will never be tried for this crime again, and that sucks, I cannot stand the fact that she got away with this and it infuriates me as well, but there is nothing "wrong" with our system. There is something wrong however, with citizens that are so woefully uniformed, and so pathetically apathetic that they believed that they were doing the State of Florida some sort of favor instead of seeking the truth and ensuring that justice prevailed. In this case, for Caylee.

I blame the P12. 100%. They. did. not. care.

 

[2goldfish]

Wouldnt it be a bombshell if one of the jury members came out and admitted jury tampering? Wonder what the result of that would be? :what:

Wish one of them would at least talk and tell us the REAL story.

unfortunately we dont need that, we basically know what happened in there:

juror 8: do we have any pretzels?

juror 3: I has the pretzels!

juror 4: I miss my farmville, d'you guys think my sheeps will be okay??!!

juror 10: man, I dont wanna miss 4th of july! we has BBQ on 4th of july!

juror 2: how about cookies?? *to juror 12* YOU ATE ALL THE COOKIES AGAIN WHY DO YOU EAT ALL THE COOKIES?

juror 1: *clicks a pen over and over again in rapt fascination*

juror 9: phew, what is that SMELL?? it's coming from that....evidence....box...

juror 6: that's your BREATH blowing back in your FACE!! *joyous laughter*

juror 3: when are we gonna have DINNER? I am SO. HUNGRY. all this sitting here is HUNGRY TIRED WORK.

juror 5: you know what I miss...kraft macaroni and cheese...with velveeta...mmmm, velveeta...and spam....mmmm spam...

juror 6: is it 5 o'clock yet? I like to go swimming at 5 o'clock. with a rubber duck. I loooove my rubber duck...

juror 2: let's just ask if we can go, it's not fair how they keep expecting us to stay in here with that SMELL.

juror 6: that's your BREATH ---

all jurors: SHUT UP AND ASK IF WE CAN GO


etc.

:sigh:

 

[2goldfish]

I don't see the harm in revisiting a case where evidence comes to light after the original accquittal that the accused is absolutely guilty. It makes a mockery of the word justice to let those decisions stand IMO.
I think the Scots are way ahead of us- they wisely changed their laws to enable further prosecution. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-15905139

scotland also allows a jury to return "not proven" (basically, we know you did it but state did not prove it, dont do it again)

 

[LinasK]

thanks. Not that she'd be included in the list of online personalities anyway..

Where is that "where is casey anthony now" website folks have mentioned? am I allowed to ask?

I just tried to find her on Facebook, I had found one of her pseudonyms in the past, which had led me to the cesspool of her real pages, trashing everyone. I think her real pages have been taken down, but I found a support group for her- with only 3 members!!!:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[krkrjx]

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

So true!

I have known people with Masters Degrees who had less common sense than a mushroom.

 

[Steely Dan]

BBM - Did anyone see that Janie Weintraub on JVM the night this was covered? She tried to put across the theory that the one hour in question could have been due to the computer having a daylight savings time glitch and they forgot to set the computer ahead by an hour. I mean... gosh. It sickens me how ridiculous some arguments can be.

Computers automatically adjust the time. Also, the other websites she visited backup the time being accurate claim. JMO

You are a good straight man Ranch...was heading to perhaps discussion that another country has jurors that are indeed trained prior to sitting on jury....back to regalarly scheduled programming and perhaps others from such will chime in.

In Italy they have 3(?) judges sit in with the jury to help them with deliberations.

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.

I think that if you are going to make claims against somebody at trial you need to have the evidence to back up the claim. A private evidentiary hearing should be heard by the judge, defense and prosecutor to decide if it should be allowed. JMO

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.

A twist on the Italian system may work. Have a professional jury foreman to make sure the jury stays within the rules and at least deliberates.

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.

If wolfmom means Cindy I highly doubt she actually does it. JMO

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.

KC is walking down the hall with a drip to put the patient under. The doctor questions her to see if she did it right. "Don't worry," she says, " I won't make that mistake twice."

Regardless of what kind of evidence it is, it is not new. Yes, it has just recently been exposed...but it was evidence the state had from early on.

If Casey had been convicted and the computer searches found after the fact were such that they might have helped her case, an appeal based on new evidence would be denied. The reason would be that an appeal based on new evidence can only be successful if the evidence is really new--something that was not available and could not have reasonably been available at the time of trial.

As it stands, this "new" computer evidence could have been used at trial if someone had bothered to look for it. It was there for the taking.

I do agree with the poster who suggested a retrial should be a possibility when misconduct during the first trial is proven...misconduct such as perjury. But...it seems perjury is no biggie after all.

Jury misconduct is a reason for a retrial. The WM3 had a juror who told the other jurors that he saw on TV that one of them confessed. This was never entered into evidence and therefore was not allowed to be discussed. They couldn't get a retrial based on that alone and they should have. JMO

I just tried to find her on Facebook, I had found one of her pseudonyms in the past, which had led me to the cesspool of her real pages, trashing everyone. I think her real pages have been taken down, but I found a support group for her- with only 3 members!!!:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

3? Wow, that many! :what:

So true!

I have known people with Masters Degrees who had less common sense than a mushroom.

My father was a college professor for many years. Some of his coworkers would probably have sent money to NIgerian Princes.

 

[katydid23]

BBM - Did anyone see that Janie Weintraub on JVM the night this was covered? She tried to put across the theory that the one hour in question could have been due to the computer having a daylight savings time glitch and they forgot to set the computer ahead by an hour. I mean... gosh. It sickens me how ridiculous some arguments can be.

You know what? There are very few people that I truly DISLIKE. But Janie W. just really rubs me the wrong way. She is like a feisty lil lap dog for Baez. She always comes on those shows and says the most pathetic and ridiculous things to deflect and distract. It annoys the heck outta me.

 

[atthelake]

Steely, that's what I couln't remember! Italy! I had something in mind that another country did to help jurors do a better job that we discussed on the threads, and having trained folks go back with the jury was what was discussed. Thanks for being the one to remember! (Must have been the mushrooms that made me forget. Ha!)

 

[Tuffy]

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.

I think if Casey were working a job where she had contact with the general public, it would be all over the news in a split second. Most dental office workers work pretty hard all day long. Often staying late. I can't imagine Casey, with her work ethic, doing this type of work either.