Posted on 07/17/2011 1:14:20 PM PDT by Anti-Hillary
Enough articles have been written criticizing the result of the Casey Anthony case. I am not here to do that. While cases such as this can be polarizing, they can also be instructive. After following the case, here are some things I thought stood out as significant, but perhaps were not so obvious.
CSI Effect
For a long time now, we in the law enforcement professions have noted and at times feared, what has come to be known as the CSI Effect. What is this? The false expectation that, as in the television series, conclusive and irrefutable evidence will always be found at the crime scene. If life were only so.
As many of my colleagues know, rare is the crime scene where there is a lot of incriminating evidence. Unfortunately, criminals don't roll their fingerprints on surfaces leaving perfect prints - usually all we find are smudges. Many criminals know that bleach destroys DNA evidence as does high humidity and swamp-like conditions. Some rapists now carry prophylactics with them or make victims shower before they leave. Nevertheless, jurors, having witnessed hundreds of hours of CSI type shows, fully expect the evidence to be overwhelming when most cases tried today are in fact circumstantial.
Related Articles
O.J. Revisited: Those Who Don't Learn From the Past Are Doomed to Repeat It O.J. Revisited: Will the Casey Anthony Jury Acquit If They Can't Make It Fit? Did Casey Kill Caylee? How Forensic Psychology Can Help Humanize Evil Deeds Jury Gullibility in Orlando Consequential Conversations, Part III
Find a Therapist
Search for a mental health professional near you.
Find Local: Acupuncturists Chiropractors Massage Therapists Dentists and more!
By being over reliant on forensic evidence, jurors erroneously reject other kinds of information which should be considered. For instance, in America, the people who most often hurt children are the parents or care givers; similarly spouses or former relations are usually responsible for adult deaths at home. So we don't have to look far. And in these cases, DNA is not an issue because these individuals have, or have had legitimate access to the victim so, unless they cut themselves while committing the crime, DNA is irrelevant. Also, keep in mind that there are many ways to kill without leaving any kind of DNA evidence, especially where the victim is small or can't resist.
When jurors expect forensic evidence to be decisive we find that they become intellectually lazy. Rather than engage the problem for hours by looking at what they have, it is easier for them to say, "We wanted more." In most cases there is enough there, it just has to be worked intellectually. Justice requires that no stone be left unturned, that jurors analyze every fact assiduously. It is intellectual laziness to say there wasn't enough.
Jury Selection
In most criminal cases in America there is no need for jury consultants. However, there is a reason why they exist and it is primarily to assist the defense pick the jury that will best help the defense, not jurisprudence. I will repeat: that will best help the defense, not jurisprudence. What this means is that jury consultants (mostly hired by the defense) are there to "game" the system in one direction.
What kind of jurors do jury consultants and thus defense attorneys prefer in homicide cases? Perhaps better not to offend by looking instead at who usually doesn't get selected: College graduates especially those with graduate degrees. The more years you were in college the lower the chance a jury consultant wants you for that jury. Firemen are out as are police officers. They prefer to keep Republicans out and members of the NRA. If you own or have owned several successful companies you won't be selected. If you have a job where you manage a lot of people and need to make difficult decisions everyday, they don't want you and the same goes for human resource officers for large firms.
If you read Scientific American, Nature, Science, The Economist, or International Affairs, you need not worry. I could go on and on. One could argue, perhaps they just don't want to burden these already busy folks? Interesting argument - but it is vacuous. For in fact, as you read the qualities of those that defense wants off the jury, we get a sense for the kinds of folks whom they prefer.
One more thing and this is important, jury consultants don't want leaders on that jury. The Casey Anthony case is just such an example. In this case, the jury was selected from Pinellas County, rather than Orange County (where the trial took place), in order to pick a more unbiased jury. Pinellas County arguably has one of the largest concentrations of retired professionals (doctors, lawyers, accountants, military officers) in the country and yet none made the jury.
You never hear of a Captain or a Major or a Colonel (even retirees) serving on a jury where a jury consultant is involved - especially in homicide cases. Here are people accustomed to making command decisions, who know how to think quickly and decisively, but they are weeded out. Why? For the very traits that make them special: they have high situational awareness, they can think and size up individuals quickly, and they know how to lead. Which is why, in the OJ Simpson case, one of the jury voir dire questions was: "Do you seek out positions of leadership? (Please check answer) Always? Often? Seldom? Never?" Incidentally, those who have served as officers most likely also know the distinctive odor of decomposing bodies and how it is different from mere garbage.
Getting back to those they don't like. If you are in a job where you are used to doing high-level cognitive tasks, where decisions require intellectual rigor, they don't want you either. They don't want people who are willing to work hard to connect the dots. Also if you are an independent thinker, no need to worry - people who prefer consensus and harmony will more likely be selected. Obviously no defense attorney or jury consultant is going to get exactly what they want, but they will try. And of course, it only takes on juror to derail a conviction.
It is said that in the Casey Anthony case we should not blame the jurors. I agree - we shouldn't. That is like buying lemmings as pets and then being surprised when they act lemming like. Those jurors were preferred by the defense team for a reason and they performed as expected
CharlesOK
Since Jul 17, 2011
...................No proof connecting Casey to the crime, they said. Balderdash. The little girl did not do this to herself....................................
I don’t know. Maybe Caylee’s tooth fairy was a muslim terrorist!
Casey Anthony will die at the hands of folks who believe that mothers should not suffocate their children.
...................No proof connecting Casey to the crime, they said. Balderdash. The little girl did not do this to herself....................................
I don’t know. Maybe Caylee’s tooth fairy was a muslim terrorist!
Casey Anthony will die at the hands of folks who believe that mothers should not suffocate their children.
I hope the jury foreman can live with the fact that he put his dogs before justice for little Caylee. Nauseating.
I disagree. The worst thing that could happen is to let a guilty person go free. All of the data points to the fact that they usually kill again.
The jury said they thought Casey was a "good mother"-----the defense successfully countered the prosecution by showing videos of Casey playing with Caylee.
There's the CSI Effect in action. Cases are seldom "proven" by the prosecution. It's up to a jury to make a decision based on the evidence. Today's jurors expect 100% proof of guilt.
A little tired of hearing it? I’m a little tired of hearing your position too. There’s ample evidence she’s the worst mother in history, but none that she’s a murderer.
Again, yes, I think she did it. But I would not want our justice system to become run by public opinion polls. The prosecution couldn’t prove who committed the murder, or even that it was a murder. And no, I don’t believe it was an accident like the defense claimed, but there’s no evidence disproving that. Before someone is sent to prison for life (or executed) there should be more than just ‘she’s a horrible mother, so of course she did it’.
Yeah, I’ve lurked here for months; finally decided to jump into the fray. I do wish the comments section on here had threading.
The jury format was and is an idiot, if he did not have the tools to find her guilty, hang the jury, and have a new trial.
Could Zenaida Gonzalez have been Code For Caylee Anthony’s Location and Not Just a Nanny’s Name?
Casey Anthony’s Zenaida Gopnzalez Lived On Hopespring Drive
http://www.squidoo.com/casey-anthonys-zenaida-gonzalez-lived-on-hopespring-drive
(exerpt)
“In the photo here you will see an area, a cross section of Suburban Drive and HopeSpring Drive in Orlando.The wooded area is where Caylee was found in December of 2008, placed there [allegedly] by Casey Anthony. What is interesting is that the two plots of land that form a triangle, pinpoint the exact location of Caylee... As shown by the blue dot. As you will see, the name of the people that lived in these two houses, comprise the name ‘Zeniada Gonzales’”
She was the last one to be seen with Caylee.
She is the only person with access to everything at the crime scene including the shirt Caylee wore the day of her death which Cindy never saw before even though Cindy always did the laundry.
She had the motive/motives to get rid of Caylee. “Bella Vita” the good life tatoo explains a lot. Furthermore, she never wanted to be pregnant per her friend and Cindy would not let her friend adopt Caylee.
None of her many stories proved out as to what happened to her daughter.
1. She dropped the baby off with the nanny. (Whoopsy! Zanny is not a real person.)
2. The nanny held her arms down and said she is a bad mommy and took the child. (Nope!)
3. The child drowned in the pool accidentally, the father George found the body and said “Look what you have done! You are a bad mommy!” (notice a theme here?) “Oh help me dad!” “Ok. I will put the child in the garbage bag and can you bring me the duct tape to tape her mouth too? Why dad? Duh..I don’t know. Oh...by the way, don’t say she drowned if anyone asks. Meanwhile, I will duct tape the Caylee posters all over town using the same incriminating tape I used to bag Caylee. What a plan! Duh....
Were we watching the same trial? They found items from the household WITH the body, including a laundry bag, a blanket, and some clothing. They found duct tape from the house (it was a unique brand, made by a company that had gone out of business since George bought the tape) and much more. There really was quite a bit of physical evidence, but everyone keeps saying, Oh it was all circumstantial. There was also circumstantial evidence, but there was plenty of dots that were connected, that is, IF the jurors weren't making goo-goo eyes at Baez. (Who is a creep anyway, but a couple of them seemed to have a crush on him.)
Pinging a few folks to a pretty good column—I don’t have a ping list, so just pinging a few off the top of my head—not a complete list of all interested by any means.
The defense wanted morons on the jury, and that's what they got.
Oh my!
MizSterious, here is that ping for you. (The Casey Anthony trial watchers.)
As the lynch mob has been saying. /s/
After listening to the interviews with some of the jurors, I was absolutely sickened! They sound intelligent enough. However, I was struck by the fact that the jury, who were supposed to be objective and observant of the laws that govern jury trial, virtually convicted every single witness according to the direction of the Defense. George Anthony was deemed, “suspicious” and “probably had something to do with Caylee’s murder.” Roy Kronk was a “shady character” who moved the remains.” Scientific evidence was deemed “junk science” by the jurors as was the testimony of the medical examiner who expertly indentified the crime as a homicide. Lee Anthony, however, was inexplicably labeled “sincere” by the jury.
Every witness for the prosecution was summarily “convicted” of high crimes and misdemeanors simply by the way they “looked” or “acted.” Casey Anthony, on the other hand, was found “innocent” by these twelve incredibly lazy and gullible people.
We are exhorted to bow to the findings of this court of law and give Casey Anthony every benefit she “deserves” as one who has been found not guilty by a jury of her peers. Geraldo Rivera and countless other Devil’s Advocates(literally!) are singing Casey Anthony’s praises and exhorting us to be careful of her rights.
However, George Anthony and Lee Anthony will never escape the stigma of being labeled sexual criminals by their own flesh and blood. Cindy Anthony will never escape the label of “liar” even though she will never be prosecuted for lying under oath; a crime that has sent many others to prison for decades. River Cruise will garner publicity galore and probably make millions more than most of her “profession” ever will. Her word was accepted by all as absolute truth with no proof whatsoever, another strike against George Anthony’s character. Roy Kronk will forever be labeled as “creepy”, even though he was ignored by the police department when he tried to report what he had seen. If the police hadn’t ignored him, he probably would never have had the opportunity or a reason to tinker with the remains.
So, thanks to this jury, we have yet another monster walking among us, gaining fame and fortune for being just that, a monster. Every person who had a hand in releasing this woman is as guilty as she is of the attrocities and indignities she will wreak upon society as a free person. This farce is just one more glaring example of how our society has fallen into decay. At the very least, Casey Anthony should be bouncing off some rubber walls right now.
The evidence is in. We no longer have people who can provide sound judgement; for themselves or anyone else.
I was eliminated during a jury selection process because my wife was an RN. It was during the voir dire (sp?) process, and each juror was briefly asked where they lived, what they did for a living, and what their spouse does for a living. I had been on a jury where what I did for a living did not disqualify me. So I can only assume that in this case, the wife being a medical professional got me disqualified.
At that point in voir dire, all they knew about us was this very basic information. Attorneys have several pre-emptive challenges to jurors during jury selection, and they don’t have to give a reason for disqualifying someone.
So I definitely believe they choose to eliminate certain types of people from juries.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.