Sidebar Discussion #5

Status
Not open for further replies.

Horace Finklestein

New Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2008
Messages
5,658
Reaction score
1
I think one of the major problems with the prosecution case started long before this jury was seated. The fact that in order to find people who had no interest in current affairs and therefore had no knowledge of the extensive news coverage of the case in the years proceeding the jury selection, they had to choose from people who really don't care much about the world around them and therefore these people were completely lost and uninterested in most of the evidence that was presented to them. If this case didn't grab their attention in the news before, what would make anyone think it would grab their attention sitting in that courtroom? I also think some of them may have related to situations of abuse in their own lives and were tuned out and believed that OS lie from the get go.

In order for a jury to understand that evidence and to have been able to put everything together, it required a group of people with at least average intelligence and lots of common sense who could follow the dots and put the puzzle together. People who had some kind of an interest or knowledge in current affairs and the court system and who had perhaps at least followed other cases in the news might have stood a better chance of taking in the evidence and deliberating properly over everything that had been presented. It is well known that most people like this do anything they can to get out of jury duty. I'm sure there were many who did that in this case and are kicking themselves for it now.

This was a group of people who admittedly didn't care much for what was going on around them and lived in a bit of a bubble with themselves and perhaps their immediate circle being the only thing of importance to them. And getting back to that life and their circle of family/friends was probably pretty important to a good deal of them. Either that or some of them lied and had an agenda because of the death penalty on the table, or any number of other reasons...which is entirely possible as well. How ironic that one or more of them could have lied to get on this jury. And if anyone did have an agenda and they were the ones who took up the task of convincing everyone else that there was no case for murder because they needed certain evidence that wasn't presented to them in order to convict then the prosecution never stood a chance from day one.

Jeff Ashton did do a brilliant job in that courtroom but there were times when he could appear to be condescending to someone of average or below average intelligence. I have no idea if any of the jury members fit into this category but if there were I can see them getting their back up when he was "making mincemeat" for lack of a better expression with some of the real doozies that the defence team brought forward. The "plant lady", the "grief lady", the "pigs in a blanket" guy and the loopy old "crack the skull" medical examiner just to name a few. All of them took at least one zinger from JA's arsenal. To most of us at home watching, he was effectively making them look as ridiculous and uncredible as they were. To some members of that jury who may have sympathized with them he may have seemed condescending and disrespectful. For those who, for whatever reason, took to JB, JA would have looked condescending and disrespectful to him on a daily basis. :floorlaugh:

It's so hard to tell exactly what factors led to this disastrous outcome but I really think it started before the jury selection. Perhaps the sunshine law needs to be looked at. I live in Canada where we have publication bans to prevent any kind of jury pool tainting. While it certainly makes following a case not nearly as interesting, I think it's effective in making sure that the prosecution has a better jury pool to choose from.

MOO

I can't forgive Judge Perry for allowing some of them - and allowing the nonsense they testified to to be presented in court.
 

BigFatMommyDog

Active Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
4,933
Reaction score
5
Hi all! Been busy sorting out my feelings as a Penn State alum. Complicated having gone there during the late 80s national championship days...hating that noone helped those boys and said that things ended for Joe the way they did..the boys come first but it's all very sad right now. Every bit of it.

I cannot understand your familiar pain, friend, but I get it; I cannot make up my mind about so many things in this case. Every bit of it is sad. Peace friend.
 

strawberry

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
12,017
Reaction score
2,446
I cannot understand your familiar pain, friend, but I get it; I cannot make up my mind about so many things in this case. Every bit of it is sad. Peace friend.

I just miss having a coach who was Better Than. Who demanded academic excellence and good behavior..and I wish he had been stronger. I used to have a lifesize cardboard cutout of him... :(
 

LambChop

Former Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
21,160
Reaction score
29
:aktion:

Very interesting read, thank you.

I think you are on exactly the same page as Ashton regarding jury selection.

As for the difference in personalities between Ashton and Baez, I think Baez had some good advisors or else good instincts. He took the pulse and educational level of the juror's and dummied it down. (Of course some will say this was very easy for HIM :)

I mean no disrespect to anyone without a formal education, I just mean that he talked like the average guy on the street instead of Ashton, George and Burdick who spoke like polished professionals. I'm constantly aware of this when watching effective politicians. One good example was George W Bush. He played the role as well as I have ever seen. Love him or hate him (I am not about to do politics here) he was effective. I've seen Obama do the same thing.

As for Ashton, he is a man of great confidence (shall we say) and he came across maybe a little too confident at times. :)

By the way, would you by chance be named after a hurricane? :seeya:

Hurricane Camille - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


JA was presenting the forensic evidence and there is no way to dummy down that. Plus the jurors were given strick instructions by the judge not to take into account the attorney's personalities during deliberation and this is a common jury instruction. I think LDB was pretty matter of fact in the way she presented the case. We just can't ever get over the fact that this jury never touched any of the evidence with everything they had in that room...they never once looked at the carpeting even though someone mentioned they could not see a stain on the picture they were shown. They had the actual carpet in the room with them and just did not bother to look at it. jmo
 

Kamille

Shine bright like a diamond
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
16,708
Reaction score
5,788
:aktion:

Very interesting read, thank you.

I think you are on exactly the same page as Ashton regarding jury selection.

As for the difference in personalities between Ashton and Baez, I think Baez had some good advisors or else good instincts. He took the pulse and educational level of the juror's and dummied it down. (Of course some will say this was very easy for HIM :)

I mean no disrespect to anyone without a formal education, I just mean that he talked like the average guy on the street instead of Ashton, George and Burdick who spoke like polished professionals. I'm constantly aware of this when watching effective politicians. One good example was George W Bush. He played the role as well as I have ever seen. Love him or hate him (I am not about to do politics here) he was effective. I've seen Obama do the same thing.

As for Ashton, he is a man of great confidence (shall we say) and he came across maybe a little too confident at times. :)

By the way, would you by chance be named after a hurricane? :seeya:

Hurricane Camille - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LOL...well it's the wrong first letter although we do have another poster here named Camille. I don't think they've named one after me....yet. :crazy:
 

babycat

whiskey in a teacup
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
1,642
Reaction score
4
And the same goes conversely for the prosecution. I've seen a lot of posters really get jumped on if they opine that the prosecution or the judge didn't do a perfect job. For some posters every single thing the prosecution did was perfect and they place all the blame on the stupid jury.

I think HHJP is one of the smartest judges I have ever seen. If ever I needed a judge I would pray to get one as competent as him. Do I think he ran this case perfectly? Nope. I feel that he rushed jury selection and retained jurors that clearly should not have been on a DP qualified jury. Remember the lady who didn't want to judge anyone?? There are other things I don't think he handled well but that one is a good example.

Jeff Ashton is a good lawyer but his conduct was sometimes very unprofessional. Laughing at Jose's remarks was totally wrong. Sure, what Jose said was ridiculous but there is no way Ashton should have laughed like that. He let his emotions get the better of him and I do believe it had a negative effect on the outcome of this case. Again - that's just one example.

Since the case has ended I feel like I see a trend towards "monsters and heroes". Every play in this case is being assigned their team - either a monster or hero - and that's that.

Personally I'd like to still continue to have a critical analysis of the case rather than broad brush paint everything through a lens of emotion.

Just my opinion of course.

I know I'm late to the thread, but I personally think this bears repeating...brilliant post, NocturnalLady!
 

bayouland

New Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
1,514
Reaction score
0
JA was presenting the forensic evidence and there is no way to dummy down that. Plus the jurors were given strick instructions by the judge not to take into account the attorney's personalities during deliberation and this is a common jury instruction. I think LDB was pretty matter of fact in the way she presented the case. We just can't ever get over the fact that this jury never touched any of the evidence with everything they had in that room...they never once looked at the carpeting even though someone mentioned they could not see a stain on the picture they were shown. They had the actual carpet in the room with them and just did not bother to look at it. jmo

Agree, and when you say we, please include me.

It is my observation though that Baez played them like a harp with his folksy, underdog personna and benefited that the forensics flew over their heads.
 

BigFatMommyDog

Active Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
4,933
Reaction score
5
I just miss having a coach who was Better Than. Who demanded academic excellence and good behavior..and I wish he had been stronger. I used to have a lifesize cardboard cutout of him... :(

sigh - these are tough times - there was a piece of great things there - this oversite, weather intentional or just ignorant (difficult to find the word for it - or why) will only be provided balance in time - like all great people - awesome, but flawed.


(with respect).
 

Kamille

Shine bright like a diamond
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
16,708
Reaction score
5,788
Agree, and when you say we, please include me.

It is my observation though that Baez played them like a harp with his folksy, underdog personna and benefited that the forensics flew over their heads.

Yeah he sure did have a way of dummying things down with his dried out sharpies and big pad o paper. He drew some pretty interesting pictures once he got some new markers.

:floorlaugh:
 

atthelake

Former Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2011
Messages
9,979
Reaction score
19
And the same goes conversely for the prosecution. I've seen a lot of posters really get jumped on if they opine that the prosecution or the judge didn't do a perfect job. For some posters every single thing the prosecution did was perfect and they place all the blame on the stupid jury.

I think HHJP is one of the smartest judges I have ever seen. If ever I needed a judge I would pray to get one as competent as him. Do I think he ran this case perfectly? Nope. I feel that he rushed jury selection and retained jurors that clearly should not have been on a DP qualified jury. Remember the lady who didn't want to judge anyone?? There are other things I don't think he handled well but that one is a good example.

Jeff Ashton is a good lawyer but his conduct was sometimes very unprofessional. Laughing at Jose's remarks was totally wrong. Sure, what Jose said was ridiculous but there is no way Ashton should have laughed like that. He let his emotions get the better of him and I do believe it had a negative effect on the outcome of this case. Again - that's just one example.

Since the case has ended I feel like I see a trend towards "monsters and heroes". Every play in this case is being assigned their team - either a monster or hero - and that's that.

Personally I'd like to still continue to have a critical analysis of the case rather than broad brush paint everything through a lens of emotion.

Just my opinion of course.


!,, Bottom line, FCA killed her beautiful daughter Caylee... and shall we focus onthat? We all may not be best as to our jobs... but FCA Killed.....
 

chakti

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
Messages
375
Reaction score
2
I think one of the major problems with the prosecution case started long before this jury was seated. The fact that in order to find people who had no interest in current affairs and therefore had no knowledge of the extensive news coverage of the case in the years proceeding the jury selection, they had to choose from people who really don't care much about the world around them and therefore these people were completely lost and uninterested in most of the evidence that was presented to them. If this case didn't grab their attention in the news before, what would make anyone think it would grab their attention sitting in that courtroom? I also think some of them may have related to situations of abuse in their own lives and were tuned out and believed that OS lie from the get go.

In order for a jury to understand that evidence and to have been able to put everything together, it required a group of people with at least average intelligence and lots of common sense who could follow the dots and put the puzzle together. People who had some kind of an interest or knowledge in current affairs and the court system and who had perhaps at least followed other cases in the news might have stood a better chance of taking in the evidence and deliberating properly over everything that had been presented. It is well known that most people like this do anything they can to get out of jury duty. I'm sure there were many who did that in this case and are kicking themselves for it now.

This was a group of people who admittedly didn't care much for what was going on around them and lived in a bit of a bubble with themselves and perhaps their immediate circle being the only thing of importance to them. And getting back to that life and their circle of family/friends was probably pretty important to a good deal of them. Either that or some of them lied and had an agenda because of the death penalty on the table, or any number of other reasons...which is entirely possible as well. How ironic that one or more of them could have lied to get on this jury. And if anyone did have an agenda and they were the ones who took up the task of convincing everyone else that there was no case for murder because they needed certain evidence that wasn't presented to them in order to convict then the prosecution never stood a chance from day one.

Jeff Ashton did do a brilliant job in that courtroom but there were times when he could appear to be condescending to someone of average or below average intelligence. I have no idea if any of the jury members fit into this category but if there were I can see them getting their back up when he was "making mincemeat" for lack of a better expression with some of the real doozies that the defence team brought forward. The "plant lady", the "grief lady", the "pigs in a blanket" guy and the loopy old "crack the skull" medical examiner just to name a few. All of them took at least one zinger from JA's arsenal. To most of us at home watching, he was effectively making them look as ridiculous and uncredible as they were. To some members of that jury who may have sympathized with them he may have seemed condescending and disrespectful. For those who, for whatever reason, took to JB, JA would have looked condescending and disrespectful to him on a daily basis. :floorlaugh:

It's so hard to tell exactly what factors led to this disastrous outcome but I really think it started before the jury selection. Perhaps the sunshine law needs to be looked at. I live in Canada where we have publication bans to prevent any kind of jury pool tainting. While it certainly makes following a case not nearly as interesting, I think it's effective in making sure that the prosecution has a better jury pool to choose from.

MOO

I totally believe in Goverment transparency and to be fair the PT asked for a gag order. What is wrong is the DT fighting it and then wanting a change of venue.
 

LolaMoon08

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2008
Messages
7,138
Reaction score
238
Yeah he sure did have a way of dummying things down with his dried out sharpies and big pad o paper. He drew some pretty interesting pictures once he got some new markers.

:floorlaugh:

I find it seriously troubling that a group of 12 educated (matter of opinion) adults needed to be given information like they were sitting in a Kindergarden class. Heck, I would even say they don't even use those type of props in Kindergarden anymore. They expect more from 5-year-old's than what was expected of these jurors. :banghead:

I'm going to walk away now... I still get very angry at them!
 

rose222

Active Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
7,556
Reaction score
5
I find it seriously troubling that a group of 12 educated (matter of opinion) adults needed to be given information like they were sitting in a Kindergarden class. Heck, I would even say they don't even use those type of props in Kindergarden anymore. They expect more from 5-year-old's than what was expected of these jurors. :banghead:

I'm going to walk away now... I still get very angry at them!

Not educated, just literate and I have my doubts about that as well.
 

Numbers

New Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
897
Reaction score
0
Agree, and when you say we, please include me.

It is my observation though that Baez played them like a harp with his folksy, underdog personna and benefited that the forensics flew over their heads.

Small correction:

Ashton, George, and Drane-Burdick played them like a Stradivarius.

Jose played them like a cheap fiddle.

Turns out they were cheap fiddles. No recognition of a concerto, but a deep kinship with some backwoods chicken screeching.
 

TotallyObsessed

New Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2008
Messages
6,096
Reaction score
1
Small correction:

Ashton, George, and Drane-Burdick played them like a Stradivarius.

Jose played them like a cheap fiddle.

Turns out they were cheap fiddles. No recognition of a concerto, but a deep kinship with some backwoods chicken screeching.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top