Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Not So Obvious Lessons From The Casey Anthony Trial Some things to think about.
Psychology Today ^ | 7-13-11 | Joe Navarro

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


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: caseyanthony; csieffect; juryconsultants; juryselection
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-138 next last
Joe Navarro: An ex-FBI agent on deception, espionage, interrogation, and reading people.

For those of you who think this verdict was just, please read and also take into account the "nutty" comments mades by the jurors after the fact...

1 posted on 07/17/2011 1:14:23 PM PDT by Anti-Hillary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Anti-Hillary
Whatever. I don't follow "True Crime Stories" but I saw enough of this one to know the prosecutors screwed it up. That and yes, the "CSI effect" is real. Just think, justice is in the hands of a bunch of your nitwit neighbors who think that Hollywood TV crap is how it really is.
2 posted on 07/17/2011 1:19:09 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Hillary

If I was going to write a book on these jurors, I’d entitle it “11 Airheads and a Plant”.


3 posted on 07/17/2011 1:21:09 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Hillary

Excellent. Just finding it a little off PSYCHOLOGY TODAY’s usual schtick. But what’s no-so-obvious?


4 posted on 07/17/2011 1:26:37 PM PDT by Mach9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Hillary

She could have been filmed in the act and given a confession in court and the jury could have found her innocent if they chose to do so.

It ain’t pretty but its a simple fact.


5 posted on 07/17/2011 1:30:48 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Hillary

But of course, we are still a Nation of Laws.


6 posted on 07/17/2011 1:36:35 PM PDT by I am Richard Brandon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Yup. Jury nullification. This verdict was a “ mom’s just wanna have fun” decision.


7 posted on 07/17/2011 1:41:18 PM PDT by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Hillary

The lesson from this trial is that juries can overlook the media hyped public opinion polls and still reach a verdict on the evidence, or lack thereof.


8 posted on 07/17/2011 1:50:27 PM PDT by CharlesOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

The few jurors that spoke out AFTER (one with his back to the camera with Greta—the rest in hiding) were oblivious to the fact that they were mega-airheads. Every word they uttered was proof-positive that they screwed-up bigtime.

Greta could barely disguise her disgust listening to the simpleton jury foreman. They were nonchalant about a mother who failed to report her daughter missing for 31 days. Nonchalant that Casey was out partying and getting tattooed while her child was missing. No decent mother acts like that.

No proof connecting Casey to the crime, they said. Balderdash. The little girl did not do this to herself.

The prosecution had plenty of evidence: (1) a dead little girl (2) duct tape on her face (3) ditched not far from the Anthony house. There was more than enough evidence for conviction.

The jurors KNEW Casey was a liar and convicted her on four counts of lying. That meant everything she said was in dispute.....not just the four times.....not just the nanny lie.

Casey is not a nice person. We now we learn more about Casey...that she committed bank fraud.....and God knows what else.


9 posted on 07/17/2011 1:51:53 PM PDT by Liz ( A taxpayer voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for Col Sanders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

I know in my gut that she’s guilty but its a bad side effect of the best possible option. In at least one case a jury found Jack Kevorkian innocent despite the fact that he readily admitted guilt.

During the civil rights era, juries were refusing to convict obviously guilty men. In all their wisdom the feds used those as a means of convincing Americans to allow them to create a new class of crime and retry those men in federal courts in venues where convictions were likely.

Here we are 50 years later with a growing list of hate crime laws.


10 posted on 07/17/2011 1:58:36 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CharlesOK
Not really; a murderer got off and it's clear that the jury was a basket of imbeciles.

Our justice system is a wreck.

11 posted on 07/17/2011 2:00:39 PM PDT by Chainmail
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Hillary
Those jurors were preferred by the defense team for a reason and they performed as expected.

In other words, they had the IQs of dry ice.

12 posted on 07/17/2011 2:06:59 PM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Hillary

Ever hear an LEO say “We need less funding, weaker laws, and nicer judges?” No, be they from Los Angeles to Moscow, police invariably say that they need “more money, stiffer laws, and tougher judges.” For this is their point of view.

But if you are on the other side of the fence, public and private defenders, a very different viewpoint emerges.

Police who form opinions as quick as anyone else, then become emotionally invested in them, especially if they are wrong. Officers who lack objectivity, see only what they want to see with scant evidence, and who have learned to use “pat” testimony in court, even though untrue, to help a conviction they think is warranted.

They can also point to huge differences among prosecutors. Some who lead grand juries around by the nose to indict whoever they want. Some who will railroad an accused person over something petty, while another will just blow it off as nothing. And how in many cases, prosecutors are replaced, sometimes more than once, changing the rules of the trial before it has even begun.

They also see that “expert witnesses” for both sides are often as not just “hired guns”, who will testify to whatever they are paid to testify.

And both prosecutor and defense counsel very actively try to load the jury with people of low intelligence, more impressed with emotional argument than facts. It has been proven that juries will acquit guilty people who are attractive, and convict ugly people who are clearly innocent.

And a jury can turn on a dime because of a unintentional facial expression by the defendant. Which is why many defense counsels arrange for defendants to be given tranquilizers before the trial, so they just sit there with a blank, but attentive expression on their face.

On top of it all, judges can be utterly predictable or unpredictable. In practice, they are much like referees, and you know how often fans who can see exactly the same play truly believe the referee messed up.

The bottom line is that even if everyone plays by the rules, and are fair and objective, it is often very hard to convict someone of a crime, because there is just nowhere near the amount of evidence that is needed for a reasonable conviction. And no matter what perspective you use, if a conviction happens in such cases, it is only because something or things went very wrong. Even if the person is as guilty as sin, unless things went by the rules, injustice has happened.

Justice is found in the process, not the result.


13 posted on 07/17/2011 2:11:37 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Hillary

for later


14 posted on 07/17/2011 2:15:18 PM PDT by Mare (Hey Barack America is Baroke!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz

The prosecution proved that Casey Anthony was a bad mother and a whore, but that doens’t prove that she’s a murderess. Perhaps the prosecution spent too much time proving Casey’s bad character and not enough connecting the dots. They claimed that she killed her daughter so that she could be a party girl. But she was already partying it up while Caylee was still alive, she didn’t have to commit murder to do that. The worst thing that could happen would be to convict a person of a crime he or she didn’t commit, even if the defendant is scum.


15 posted on 07/17/2011 2:19:18 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (Illegal aliens collect welfare checks that Americans won't collect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Chainmail

But who is the murderer? What evidence was there that showed WHO the murderer is?

I do believe Casey is probably guilty, BUT we are a nation of laws and you can’t find someone guilty of murder just because you think they did it. It has to be proven and the prosecution could not do that.


16 posted on 07/17/2011 2:25:09 PM PDT by CharlesOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Hillary

She would have been better off to cry for the tv cameras a la Susan Smith so no one would suspect her.


17 posted on 07/17/2011 2:27:32 PM PDT by Spirit of Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spirit of Liberty

That strategy didn’t work very well for Susan Smith.


18 posted on 07/17/2011 2:49:54 PM PDT by Huntress ("Politicians exploit economic illiteracy." --Walter Williams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Liz
If there is any "lesson" from this trial is that all a defense lawyer has to do to get his "client" off is to drag the trial out long enough to exceed the jury's "time tolerance".

These people had listened to all the perverted shit "evidence" for weeks....cooped up with each other...probably getting more annoyed by the day, and some even coming to hate some of their "fellow jurors"

...all they wanted to do was go home.

If you listened to the "foreman" he admitted that he was getting concerned about the welfare of his dogs.

So....in order to avoid having to go thru the "evidence" again, and to get away from each other....it was determined that the easiest way to do this was simply let Casey go...

...and that's what they did.

19 posted on 07/17/2011 2:57:42 PM PDT by B.O. Plenty (Give war a chance...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CharlesOK

“But who is the murderer? What evidence was there that showed WHO the murderer is?”

A little tired of hearing this........who was responsible for the life and safety of any two year old child? Who spent months covering up the child’s whereabouts? Who created a ficticious scenario as to the kidnapper? Who did not report the child missing? The same person who double bagged her and left her body in a swamp.


20 posted on 07/17/2011 3:04:44 PM PDT by Toespi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: CharlesOK

CharlesOK
Since Jul 17, 2011


Welcome to FR! Kind of odd you pick the Casey Anthony trial as your first post. Lots of trolls have been on this topic.


21 posted on 07/17/2011 3:21:02 PM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (zero hates Texas and we hate him back. He ain't my president either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Liz

...................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.


22 posted on 07/17/2011 3:31:41 PM PDT by Noob1999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Liz

...................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.


23 posted on 07/17/2011 3:32:01 PM PDT by Noob1999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: B.O. Plenty
.....as the case wore on........the "foreman" admitted to Greta that he was getting concerned about the welfare of his dogs. So....in order to avoid having to go thru the "evidence" again....it was determined that the easiest way to do this was simply let Casey go.....and that's what they did....

I hope the jury foreman can live with the fact that he put his dogs before justice for little Caylee. Nauseating.

24 posted on 07/17/2011 3:37:48 PM PDT by Liz ( A taxpayer voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for Col Sanders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
The worst thing that could happen would be to convict a person of a crime he or she didn’t commit, even if the defendant is scum.

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.

25 posted on 07/17/2011 3:39:15 PM PDT by Liz ( A taxpayer voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for Col Sanders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
The prosecution proved that Casey Anthony was a bad mother and a whore, but that doens’t prove that she’s a murderess.

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.

26 posted on 07/17/2011 3:47:00 PM PDT by Sans-Culotte ( Pray for Obama- Psalm 109:8)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CharlesOK
I guess per this article, prosecutors just want fair minded jurors, and the defense is gaming the system.
It couldn't possibly be that the defense is just doing it's job.
What is the point here? The standard of proof should be changed or that people should just accept the government's word for it that the accused person is guilty?
This article accuses jurors of being lazy. Well, I have seen cases where the cops were lazy and the evidence in court was therefore quite thin.
I recently had a CPS case where their excuse for not getting sufficient evidence was lack of government funding.
My response was that maybe you should take that into account before you take away someone’s kid. Either follow the rules or leave people alone.
But don't arrest someone or remove their child and then not bother to get all the evidence available.
Sheesh!
Where I live people suffer from the reverse CSI effect.
Evidence? We don't need no stinking evidence! That stuff is for TV.
Very conservative area, but extremely naive about government, and the corruption in the legal system and law enforcement.
27 posted on 07/17/2011 3:52:36 PM PDT by Clump (the tree of liberty is withering like a stricken fig tree)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Toespi

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’.


28 posted on 07/17/2011 4:35:04 PM PDT by CharlesOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952

Yeah, I’ve lurked here for months; finally decided to jump into the fray. I do wish the comments section on here had threading.


29 posted on 07/17/2011 4:35:15 PM PDT by CharlesOK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Liz

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.


30 posted on 07/17/2011 4:38:53 PM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

Could Zenaida Gonzalez have been Code For Caylee Anthony’s Location and Not Just a Nanny’s Name?

http://scaredmonkeys.com/2009/01/10/could-zenaida-gonzalez-have-been-code-for-caylee-anthonys-location-and-not-just-a-nannys-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....


31 posted on 07/17/2011 6:10:12 PM PDT by sheikdetailfeather ("Kick The Communists Out Of Your Govt. And Don't Accept Their Goodies"-Yuri Bezmenov-KGB Defector)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Clintonfatigued
"Perhaps the prosecution spent too much time proving Casey’s bad character and not enough connecting the dots."

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.)

32 posted on 07/17/2011 6:12:41 PM PDT by MizSterious (Apparently, there's no honor when it comes to someone else's retirement funds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: truthkeeper; caww; miss marmelstein; indylindy; Dr. Scarpetta

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.


33 posted on 07/17/2011 6:20:08 PM PDT by MizSterious (Apparently, there's no honor when it comes to someone else's retirement funds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
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.

The defense wanted morons on the jury, and that's what they got.

34 posted on 07/17/2011 7:21:48 PM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Hillary
Acupuncturists Chiropractors Massage Therapists Dentists and more!

Oh my!

35 posted on 07/17/2011 7:28:43 PM PDT by Grizzled Bear ("Does not play well with others.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Hillary

36 posted on 07/17/2011 7:38:35 PM PDT by JoeProBono (A closed mouth gathers no feet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfc1; miss marmelstein; Sarah Barracuda; WhyisaTexasgirlinPA; ANKE69; indylindy; Marty62; nycgal; ..

MizSterious, here is that ping for you. (The Casey Anthony trial watchers.)


37 posted on 07/17/2011 7:42:51 PM PDT by truthkeeper (Vote Against Barack Obama in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
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

As the lynch mob has been saying. /s/

38 posted on 07/17/2011 7:56:27 PM PDT by truthkeeper (Vote Against Barack Obama in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Hillary

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.


39 posted on 07/17/2011 7:57:48 PM PDT by Aleya2Fairlie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Scarpetta

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.


40 posted on 07/17/2011 8:00:19 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious
How about the hair in the trunk with the Anthony miochondrial DNA? And notice neither juror who spoke mentioned the dogs alerting to the death car? I could go on and on, as anyone who watched and paid attention could.

If a body is tossed in a swamp with duct tape around its face and the DNA degrades, is is still a murder? Apparently this bunch couldn't wrap their pea-brains around that concept.

Oh wait, they could...George Anthony did it.

41 posted on 07/17/2011 8:03:22 PM PDT by truthkeeper (Vote Against Barack Obama in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: truthkeeper

Good article. They chose in this case the lowest common denominator they had.


42 posted on 07/17/2011 8:04:45 PM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Dilbert San Diego
I was eliminated during a jury selection process because my wife was an RN.

Did the case have a medical issue?

43 posted on 07/17/2011 8:05:36 PM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: truthkeeper; All

MITOchondrial DNA.


44 posted on 07/17/2011 8:06:16 PM PDT by truthkeeper (Vote Against Barack Obama in 2012!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: samtheman

The Defense called her a slut, the Prosecution said she wanted to party, which was what people her age did, yet the alternate juror who spoke completely confused the two and said he was young and liked to party and there was nothing wrong with that. What a moron.


45 posted on 07/17/2011 8:07:37 PM PDT by WhyisaTexasgirlinPA (Going into Rehab means never having to say you are sorry....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy; reaganaut
Both prosecutor and defense counsel very actively try to load the jury with people of low intelligence, more impressed with emotional argument than facts. It has been proven that juries will acquit guilty people who are attractive, and convict ugly people who are clearly innocent. Defense counsels arrange for defendants to be given tranquilizers before the trial, so they just sit there with a blank, but attentive expression on their face.

Very interesting post....and certainly supports my take on the matter of jurors in the Casey trial...and concerns about attorneys having a say in appointing jurors.

I know that Casey was known to ask for sedatives while in jail. And might explain her controlled demeaner throughout the trial. For a woman known to not have control of her emotions she certainly had no problem doing so during the trial...might very well have been drugged prior. And no wonder we thought the jurors were lamebrains...apparently they do pick those who are just that. Would your husband attorney agree with what's said in that post Reagan???

46 posted on 07/17/2011 8:21:42 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Scarpetta

The case was a drunk driving case. Perhaps in some way it would have touched on medical issues.


47 posted on 07/17/2011 8:24:17 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: MizSterious

Thanks for the ping and well worth the read.....great find MizSterious!!! Sheds some light on what many were thinking about these jurors and the selection process...Further it “evidences” many people were correct in how they saw this shameful verdict and those who brought it in.

Thanks...very good read!


48 posted on 07/17/2011 8:28:47 PM PDT by caww
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: mrreaganaut

Opinion ping to #46


49 posted on 07/17/2011 8:30:52 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: caww; yefragetuwrabrumuy

I pinged hubby to respond directly.


50 posted on 07/17/2011 8:42:12 PM PDT by reaganaut (Ex-Mormon, now Christian - "I once was lost, but now am found; was blind but now I see")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-138 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson