Verdict Suggests Juries are Tired of Theoretical Justice & Circumstancial Evidence

Discussion in 'Caylee Anthony 2 years old' started by Soulmagent, Jul 9, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Soulmagent

    Soulmagent Active Member

    Messages:
    7,565
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    "THE CASEY Anthony verdict made one thing perfectly clear: Juries are tired of theoretical justice and circumstantial evidence.

    http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2011/072011/07082011/637652/index_html?page=1

    I dont agree with the opinion expressed by the aurthor entirely. I do think as a society we do except more in court then before but is that because we are tired of theorectical justice and circumstantial evidence or because we as a society have more diverse experience than jurors once had? The world is much more open and transparent then before (cell phone, computers, gps's and facebook) that we believe proof should be easy to obtain?

    Everyone has had a court room experience or a traffic infraction or needed a lawyer, do these things reflect on jury duty in court cases at trial in the way of needing a higher standard of evidence?
     
  2. Loading...


  3. crucibelle

    crucibelle Pisces

    Messages:
    906
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Very interesting article. Thanks for sharing the link. :)
     
  4. ks1

    ks1 New Member

    Messages:
    277
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I heard someone say on one of the talk shows that jurors should have to have enough education to understand the scientific data and that this jury couldn't put two and two together.
     
  5. dog.gone.cute

    dog.gone.cute Kyron Horman - Missing Since 6-4-10

    Messages:
    15,411
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38
    http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/circumstantial-evidence/

    Circumstanctial Evidence:

    Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence which creates an inference from which a main fact may be inferred. For example, circumstantial evidence of a murder is not based on first-hand eyewitness accounts, but may consist of threats made, fingerprints at the crime scene, or the presence of the accused in the vicinity of the crime.

    Direct evidence, such as eyewitness testimony, is generally considered more powerful, but successful criminal prosecutions often rely largely on circmstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. When circumstantial evidence is cumulative, the weakness of such circumstntial evidence is strengthened.

    -----------------------------------------------

    B&BBM: Too bad "someone" didn't "videotape" what happened to Caylee because it was obviously needed to prove to the "jury" that FCA was the murderess ... then "MAYBE" the "jury" would have believed it !

    And ... the "cumulative evidence" against FCA was HUGE ! HUGE ! ! !


    :banghead::banghead::banghead:
     
  6. dog.gone.cute

    dog.gone.cute Kyron Horman - Missing Since 6-4-10

    Messages:
    15,411
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    38

    BBM:

    :waitasec: Yes ... it was VERY OBVIOUS this jury did not know that 2 + 2 = 4 !

    :waitasec: The jury obviously relied on Jose's "math", "spelling skills", "lack of knowledge of the law and legal skills", as well as his LIES, to reach with their verdict !


    :banghead::banghead::banghead:
     
  7. The Farm

    The Farm Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,120
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If they did not understand they could have asked questions as they certainly had the option of that.
    Fact is their minds were made up when they walked into deliberations.
     
  8. Italy

    Italy New Member

    Messages:
    519
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The jury, in trying to defend itself from their ridiculous and patently wrong conclusion, is forgetting one important thing: WE SAW THE TRIAL ALSO.

    We know it was a circumstantial case - we know there was more than sufficient evidence to convict. We paid attention to the evidence. We got it - they clearly did not.

    But we can protest with our dollars. Please let us make sure these jurors do not cash in on this travesty.
     
  9. Sjoseph316

    Sjoseph316 New Member

    Messages:
    42
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I stopped reading the article after that ***** said he would have voted the exact same way.
     
  10. DIXIECAT

    DIXIECAT New Member

    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    For an example that will curl your hair, read about the 1988 Mel Ignatow murder in Louisville, KY... photos, an accomplice, AND chloroform, but he was aquitted before the evidence was discovered. (I don't know if you will need to copy and paste this link to Wikipedia... sorry I'm not very tech savy.)
    [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Ignatow"]Mel Ignatow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
     
  11. NSS

    NSS Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,062
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I am more perplexed than I am angry.

    Maybe being inside the courtroom as in 'Judge Judy', or watching real life courtrooms 'in session' has seriously diluted our RESPECT for the courtroom, judge and the system that it represents.

    I hear lots of people say that the jurors took their responsibility seriously, except I don't think they did. They ignored judges instructions about motive and COD, used their time supporting a complex and outrageous theory (As in the plot of a CSI or Law and Order episode).
    I'd have no problem accepting a verdict that was contrary to my belief, IF I felt that they just read the evidence and testimony differently to me. However I am really struggling with some of the excuses (disguised as reasoning) that the jurors are offering in explanation.

    I recall a day when if one was stopped by LE, you put on your 'yes sir' voice and were respectful to the uniform. On the way to court, you hid your head in shame.

    Today, when stopped we call 1-800-lawyerPlease, and watch as the lawyer is disrespectful to the LEO and the rules he has sworn to uphold, and on the way into court we wave to the crowds and smile for our pics.

    This is part of a steady decline. Instead of TV interviews, I'd like to see some serious studies of the jury system and how it works or fails in legal schools right now.

    Sorry for being so long - I'm still confuzzled
     
  12. AvalonBlue

    AvalonBlue New Member

    Messages:
    260
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ITA!!!

    Great post!
    :rocker:

    Thanks just wasn't enough...
    :seeya:
     
  13. The Farm

    The Farm Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,120
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I so agree and people seem to get away with murder.
     
  14. LambChop

    LambChop Former Member

    Messages:
    21,160
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think it is disturbing that a jury thinks it is okay to lie. That the fact that KC lied should be put aside and not considered. That lying somehow is not a red flag that the person may actually be guilty of the crime for which they are charged.

    This jury claimed there was no evidence, no motive given but yet a 7 year old asked these questions: Why was her face taped? How could she breathe like that? (manner of death) And, why was she thrown in the trash? Didn't her mommy want her anymore? (motive). Yes, as much as you try to protect children from hearing these details they have heard them and want to know why. They also see the truth for what it is...

    I always have had faith in the jury system but this one baffles the heck out of me. They almost did not care. jmo
     
  15. Italy

    Italy New Member

    Messages:
    519
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree - what is great though is that the public is raining down on this jury. Thanks to having this trial televised we know the jury completely blew it and people are really speaking out and boycotting any efforts to pay them.

    This jury is not getting a pass and are being called out on the fact that they did not do what they swore they would do - consider the evidence and render a fair verdict.

    Just like the evidence was there to convict little Miss Casey Anthony, the facts are there for calling out this jury - both on the evidence in the trial and their own statements post trial.

    It is our responsibility to speak out on this. It is truly an outrage and I suspect it was done out of ignorance, laziness and financial motive.
     
  16. Italy

    Italy New Member

    Messages:
    519
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lambchop - you nailed it. I LOVE the comments from your 7 year old. Very very perceptive. Thanks for posting.
     
  17. Annie

    Annie New Member

    Messages:
    1,073
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am so tired of hearing people say our system works. It may work most of the time, but it did not work in this case. Why put your head in the sand and say it did? I think that jury did NOT take their duty seriously. I don't think it was unplanned that the trial ended right at the Fourth of July holiday. There were jurors who had other things planned and wanted out. But I heard this morning that most of them did not take any notes. How can you remember everything over that long a period without taking notes? I think some of them were in a hurry to get out and start making money, as evidenced by some of the things we have seen. And then for people to tell us we must RESPECT that decidion!!! It is a travesty and I hope people don't forget it soon. There should have been more time spent on selecting that jury. They should have had more instruction before it started. A person who can't judge another person should not have been on a jury whose purpose is to judge. I could go on and on, but something needs to change.
     
  18. Mamabear1963

    Mamabear1963 New Member

    Messages:
    1,276
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    NSS!!! thank you...you said what I have been thinking. No, this jury did NOT take their job seriously...or they didn't understand what their job was. Yes, they gave up 6 weeks of their lives...
     
  19. Chewy

    Chewy New Member

    Messages:
    2,321
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If they hadn't asked for the death penalty I think they would have convicted her. When ask for the death penalty you should have an airtight case. In this one it wasn't.
     
  20. Annie

    Annie New Member

    Messages:
    1,073
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They could have convicted on the lesser charge, which at least one of the jurors did not seem to know was there.
     
  21. Serjen

    Serjen New Member

    Messages:
    607
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    BBM and THANK YOU! I watched every single video that WFTV posted of that trial (yes, I have no life) Once everyone in my family was in bed, I watched all the videos and only forwarded through sidebars...I'm so sick of hearing the jury speak as if we didn't see every single minute of the same trial they sat through. :banghead:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice