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...
If I was going to write a book on these jurors, I’d entitle it “11 Airheads and a Plant”.
Excellent. Just finding it a little off PSYCHOLOGY TODAY’s usual schtick. But what’s no-so-obvious?
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.
But of course, we are still a Nation of Laws.
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.
In other words, they had the IQs of dry ice.
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.
for later
She would have been better off to cry for the tv cameras a la Susan Smith so no one would suspect her.
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.
Oh my!
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.
Breaking News: Casey Anthony places a call to 911 in fear of her life (Dispatcher) 911,What is your emergency? “Please help me, I have a bunch of people trying to kill me.” Okay ma’am, calm down. What is your name? “Casey Anthony.” Okay Miss Anthony try to stay calm, an officer will be there in 31 days, we are busy right now getting tattoos and partying.....
I’m shocked that juries are allowed to be asked questions such as are you a Republican? A member of the NRA, etc.
I served on jury duty between 1972 - 1992 (3 times). We were never asked these type of questions. Last time I served, we had a lawyer as a fellow juror and he helped us negotiate the differences of opinion among the jurors.
A lawyer in Houston, female, was interviewed and she said she was part of the team that selected the jury. She was pleased with the outcome of the trial and proud of her part. Had I been part of that team I would be embarrassed.