CASEY ANTHONY: what do you think will happen.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I noticed that about Hannity. Good for him.

You're not citing any evidence of "evolution" here - just a couple of examples of juries who returned guilty verdicts on the basis of bad evidence.

A jury might do that again next week, since doing so has nothing to do with an "evolution" of how jurors evaluate evidence - it's a matter of a jury returning a verdict on the basis of bad evidence.

This "CSI effect" is some bullshit that's been invented by critics who want to pretend that the Anthony jury was somehow asking for too much or unrealistic standards of evidence. Tell you what - I'm going to define the "CSI effect" as "a jury taking minimal forensic evidence and junk science as gospel because that's what they see every week on CSI (which would be a more accurate description of CSI, BTW)" and then I'm declaring that the Anthony jury rejected the CSI effect.

 

[DarthTom]

They just executed a guy in Texas on what looks to me like much less evidence than was presented at Anthony's trial.

Despite a good process, there are bound to be unusual outcomes from time to time. As long as the process was followed correctly, we have to live with the outcome, and that's just all there is to it.

Of course, one juror has already stepped in it by stating they considered possible sentencing as part of their deliberations....

Florida seems to be rife with 'odd ball cases.' Everyone cannot forget the women who committed statuary rape, admitted it but the judge said he was too good looking to go to jail..

Too pretty for prison Debra Lafave

• She is, for the moment, America's most famous sex offender: young, blond, and in the words of her lawyer, too pretty for prison. When the prosecution in Florida this week dropped charges against Debra Lafave, a former teacher who admitted having sex with a boy who was then 14 years old, they reignited a debate about whether society is willing to tolerate sexual misconduct if the aggressor is female and, as in Lafave's case, attractive.Lafave is the most recent in a series of high-octane cases of sexual abuse involving female teachers and their pupils, and the leniency of her treatment in America's legal system has provoked accusations of a double standard - not least from her ex-husband, Owen Lafave, who is producing a documentary film on such relationships.

 

[Spot's Meow]

This "CSI effect" is some bullshit that's been invented by critics who want to pretend that the Anthony jury was somehow asking for too much or unrealistic standards of evidence. Tell you what - I'm going to define the "CSI effect" as "a jury taking minimal forensic evidence and junk science as gospel because that's what they see every week on CSI (which would be a more accurate description of CSI, BTW)" and then I'm declaring that the Anthony jury rejected the CSI effect.

I have to disagree with this, there have been many books and articles discussing how it has become more difficult for juries to convict because of the "CSI effect" and other social factors in the past few decades, and they were written before the Casey Anthony trial ever came to be. I think that the way that juries have changed over time is a very interesting phenomenon and not at all something that's just been made up.

 

[boobatuba]

Every case is different. Trying to compare the results of one case to another is a pointless exercise because the circumstances are always different.

You might be interested to know that Sean Hannity agrees with you on this trial and over the last few days his regular conservative audiecne is furious with him about his position in agreement with the Anthony jury in this case.

Why are bringing conservative = "she's guilty" into this? Political bias has nothing to do with it. I have plenty of doubt that she did it and actually suspect the father much more mostly because he had the same type of duct tape (an odd brand with a "logo") as found with the body, his constant lies and changing his story on the stand, and the fact that he was leading the effort to "find her" when it's really hard to believe he didn't know she was dead.

 

[Peach Wookiee]

The brother saw the mother take his brother into the woods and return without him. The boyfriend testified she wanted to kill her children. There wasn't that in the Anthony case.

I'm convinced that if Caylee had been found a heck of a lot sooner, in enough time that her tissues could've been analyzed, we could have found out if chloroform was in her system. If there had been conclusive evidence of that, I believe Casey would have been convicted.

Both accounts were hearsay and I'm surprised admissible in this trial. In other words, in both cases the people could have had a grudge with the mother and were attempting to make her appear guilty.

The boyfriend, maybe, but not the kid.

 

[Trekker4747]

Let's recap so Tom can comprehend:

No body + plenty of motive + other evidence = conviction

Many, many people felt the Casey's odd behavior = motive and other evidence -just not apparently this jury.

Convicting someone of a crime based on a person's "odd behavior" is the worse possible idea we can have. I'd much rather is let a murderer go free than us to convict someone based on our perceptions of their character.

Convicting someone of a crime is based on evidence and proof, Proof that she committed the crime at the time, in the place and by the means outlined by the authorities. In this case there was no proof, at least nothing strong enough to convict her of murder. Being found "not guilty" isn't the same thing as being innocent.

We cannot and should not sentence someone to prison or possibly the death penalty based solely on our perceptions of her character from encounters in a court room, in the media, or even on the witness stand. Feelings are not evidence.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I have to disagree with this, there have been many books and articles discussing how it has become more difficult for juries to convict because of the "CSI effect" and other social factors in the past few decades, and they were written before the Casey Anthony trial ever came to be.

And for decades, defense attorneys have been blaming "the Perry Mason effect" for convictions. It's pretty much excuse-making - "when the verdict doesn't go my way, blame it on the culture."

My point is that you can't wave "CSI" as a rationale for the Anthony verdict - these people dismissed junk (or "cutting edge," if you prefer) forensics, the opposite of what's demonstrated every week on CSI (where, for gods sake, the "scientists" have been known to pull images of the assailant off of reflections in the cornea of a victim's eye in a surveillance video).

 

[DarthTom]

Convicting someone of a crime based on a person's "odd behavior" is the worse possible idea we can have. I'd much rather is let a murderer go free than us to convict someone based on our perceptions of their character.

Convicting someone of a crime is based on evidence and proof, Proof that she committed the crime at the time, in the place and by the means outlined by the authorities. In this case there was no proof, at least nothing strong enough to convict her of murder. Being found "not guilty" isn't the same thing as being innocent.

We cannot and should not sentence someone to prison or possibly the death penalty based solely on our perceptions of her character from encounters in a court room, in the media, or even on the witness stand. Feelings are not evidence.

Understood. I'm not personally advocating a conviction in the Anthony case just restating how some people feel. Also for many people the duct tape was the 'smoking gun,' in this case. And it was proven that she had duct tape on her face. [how many people would put duct tape on a drowning victims mouth?]

So to restate: Duct tape on face + odd behavior + failure to call the police for 30 days on your child's whereabouts + lying about your job and your 'rich boyfriend,' adds up to enough circumstantial evidence for guilt to them.

And as I said up thread several murder cases were convicted on substantially less hearsay evidence.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

And will be again. This has nothing to do with "evolution of verdicts," just people either understanding and respecting the rules of evidence and logic or not.

Anthony refused a visit from her mother today. That may be best for everyone involved.

 

[Trekker4747]

So to restate: Duct tape on face + odd behavior + failure to call the police for 30 days on your child's whereabouts + lying about your job and your 'rich boyfriend,' adds up to enough circumstantial evidence for guilt to them.

Circumstantial evidence isn't the same thing as evidence.

Odd behavior is a misnomer and has no place in a court setting when you're deciding if someone should go to prison for several decades. Lying about one's personal finances and status has nothing to do with the unexplained death of a child.

And while the deal with the duct tape and the deal with her calling the authorities is certainly odd that's not the same thing as saying that she did in fact kill her child. You should have iron-clad, solid, proof that she "pulled the trigger" -so to speak- and committed the act, some suspicious stuff is not the same thing as proof.

And as I said up thread several murder cases were convicted on substantially less hearsay evidence.

Every trial is going to be different, it all depends on who makes up the jury, how well their responsibilities and duties are outlined to them and how well the prosecution/defense makes their case to inform the jury to convict based on evidence rather than "feelings" or "circumstantial evidence." It seems in this trial the jury, the lawyers -most notably the lawyers for the defense- and possibly the Judge all outlined the responsibilities well.

IMHO, this is a case where our system worked. We should want stuff like this to happen. Not because a possible murderer is now free, but because now we've a team of investigators, lawyers, and police out there who are going to be more diligent and meticulous when it comes to evidence collection and setting up a case. Had they won here they'd learn that they can send someone to prison based on thin evidence and proof and circumstantial evidence. Had Casey lost here and gone to prison the next person these prosecutors and investigators went after may have been an innocent person and he could get strung up because the last time the prosecution and investigators learned all they need is some flimsy stuff and a person to point to.

Again, I'd rather a guilty person go free than for an innocent person to go to jail. The burden of proof is on the Prosecution and the defense and defendant are required to do nothing to prove their case. As she sat there she was an innocent woman. The prosecution had to prove the crime.

The prosecution did not do that well enough.

She goes free.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Anthony's behavior after Caylee's disappearence inclines me to think that she was directly involved in the child's death.

Her partying is troubling, but it's mainly the fact that she was willing to endure years of incarceration and undergo a death penalty trial on first degree murder charges rather than divulge anything about what she knows.

Now, Casey may be a calculating and manipulative person but she doesn't strike me as possessing either a chess-playing intellect, enormous courage or deep reservoirs of personal loyalty. So I don't think it's likely that she'd face the possibility of death to protect someone else or because she was supremely confident that she'd be acquitted.

Rather, I suspect that she deeply believes that telling what she knows would not have improved her situation.

 

[DarthTom]

And will be again. This has nothing to do with "evolution of verdicts," just people either understanding and respecting the rules of evidence and logic or not.

I understand. Ostensibly it appears that way but I understand that this opinion lacks hard evidence. It's probably worth a doctoral study to look at how juries look at evidence.

 

[Spot's Meow]

I have to disagree with this, there have been many books and articles discussing how it has become more difficult for juries to convict because of the "CSI effect" and other social factors in the past few decades, and they were written before the Casey Anthony trial ever came to be.

And for decades, defense attorneys have been blaming "the Perry Mason effect" for convictions. It's pretty much excuse-making - "when the verdict doesn't go my way, blame it on the culture."

My point is that you can't wave "CSI" as a rationale for the Anthony verdict - these people dismissed junk (or "cutting edge," if you prefer) forensics, the opposite of what's demonstrated every week on CSI (where, for gods sake, the "scientists" have been known to pull images of the assailant off of reflections in the cornea of a victim's eye in a surveillance video).

When I say CSI effect I don't mean only that show in particular, it is just a phrase I am using to represent the various changes in jury decision-making over time. I haven't even seen the actual CSI show. I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that as culture/society has changed over time, that jury decision-making processes would change with it.

 

[DarthTom]

Anthony's behavior after Caylee's disappearence inclines me to think that she was directly involved in the child's death.

I tend to agree. Personally I think negligence led to Caylee's accidental drowning and Anthony [who's an odd duck to begin with] delt with the whole thing as described in the trial. And I think she tried to cover up her own personal neglience and got caught.

Her partying is troubling, but it's mainly the fact that she was willing to endure years of incarceration and undergo a death penalty trial on first degree murder charges rather than divulge anything about what she knows.

That she was willing to take the police all the way to Universal and contend she was employed there as an Event Planner and it wasn't until Universal management said she wasn't employed there leads me to believe that Casey is a pathological liar in the extreme and likely believes the lies she tells - which is potentially dangerous to anyone around her.

Rather, I suspect that she deeply believes that telling what she knows would not have improved her situation.

Agreed. Or perhaps she's such a self deluded liar that she actually believes the one's she tells.

I've met people who convince themselves on their own lies and even when confronted with the truth they still deny it. It's scary behavior quite honestly.

 

[Trekker4747]

In court these days there is a such thing as the "CSI Effect" and that's what it's mostly called and it is, mostly, due to people expecting insane and detailed levels of evidence in trials, there's even some times when during voir dire attorneys may try and weed out people who watch CSI for this reason -expecting unreasonable levels of evidence.

CSI tries to set the idea that crime scene investigators have mountains of evidence and can pretty much trace a crime scene back to the criminal with 100% certainty and there's little room for doubt due to blood, hair, and DNA evidence, not to mention evidence collected in a violation of 4th Amendment rights, 5th Amendment rights, or information collected from someone without their lawyer present.

This can be seen as a good or bad thing, the "good" thing being that it forces investigators and prosecutors to be more thorough in their collection and presentation of evidence. The "bad" being that that is not always necessary, possible or cost-effective to collect "CSI Levels" of evidence.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAHHHH!!!!

 

[Robert Maxwell]

^ YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAHHHH!!!!

That's... not even a joke.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

The prosecution relied here on the idea that the jury would go for sophisticated, scientific, "CSI" forensic evidence which, unfortunately for them, had never been used at trial and for which it was possible for reasonably competent defense attorneys to demonstrate there was no basis in accepted practice.

The case absolutely hinged on a method of vapor analysis that has no established track record for accuracy and a piece of proprietary software that returns conclusions that are - again - way at variance from accepted industry tools.

They had to, because using recognized methods of analysis wouldn't produce the results they wanted. And they had to hope that the jury would be blinded by "science!" There's your "CSI effect" and it failed.

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

^ YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAHHHH!!!!

That's... not even a joke.

Hey, at least he's trying.

 

[Trekker4747]

^ YEEEEEEEEAAAAAAHHHH!!!!

That's... not even a joke.

Hey, at least he's trying.

I don't even know what he's trying to say with it.

The prosecution relied here on the idea that the jury would go for sophisticated, scientific, "CSI" forensic evidence which, unfortunately for them, had never been used at trial and for which it was possible for reasonably competent defense attorneys to demonstrate there was no basis in accepted practice.

The case absolutely hinged on a method of vapor analysis that has no established track record for accuracy and a piece of proprietary software that returns conclusions that are - again - way at variance from accepted industry tools.

They had to, because using recognized methods of analysis wouldn't produce the results they wanted. And they had to hope that the jury would be blinded by "science!" There's your "CSI effect" and it failed.

When I think of the "CSI Effect" and forensic science, as I suspect most common people think of it, is more simple stuff like blood evidence, DNA evidence, maybe slightly more complicated things like blood splatter and fibers and such. I think those things have been around long enough most jury members would "get it." I've no idea how intensive the forensic evidence was in this case but I'm guessing it was either too new or too complicated for the jury to grasp?

Because at the very least jurors these days should understand blood, DNA, fingerprints, and simple fiber evidence.