tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6316617410436977874.post4814128843652576607..comments2024-03-25T02:53:26.373-04:00Comments on Women in Crime Ink: Sniffing the AirUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6316617410436977874.post-46573014337123831002011-07-22T00:30:16.039-04:002011-07-22T00:30:16.039-04:00I have heard it said that a case is won or lost in...I have heard it said that a case is won or lost in voir dire. I had many concerns watching the voir dire process in this case, and my suspicions about these jurors eventually proved to be spot on. I think collectively they struggled with many issues during this trial. They seemed fascinated with Baez and were willing to accept his opening and closing statements as truth and INSTRUCTION ("If you don't have a cause of death, you cannot find someone guilty of murder"). They seemed to have trouble understanding the forensic evidence and even more difficulty wrapping their minds around the concept of reasonable doubt. But, ultimately, in my opinion, they lacked a rational understanding of Judge Perry's instructions. Listening to the foreman and juror #3, it was obvious that neither understood that inferences could be drawn from the evidence, and that connecting the dots was actually their job. So, instead of diligently deliberating as they meticulously analyzed the evidence, they dismissed most of it, and focused on George Anthony. All manner of doubt crept in, as did much speculation. In the end, quite simply, they got lost in the trees and could not see the forest.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6316617410436977874.post-67507539676261051022011-07-18T16:54:31.768-04:002011-07-18T16:54:31.768-04:00The jurors made the right decision. The prosecutor...The jurors made the right decision. The prosecutors offered the wrong charges. Period. As much as the jury wanted to find Casey Anthony guilty of murder, they didn't have a mens rea, an actus rea, or any evidence of how that child died. Without those things, how could anyone convict someone of murder? <br /><br />Think about this: How can there NOT be a reasonable doubt of murder, when no one can say for sure how the child died, when the child died, or where the child died, much less who killed her, or if she was even killed at all? <br /><br />All the prosecution could prove was that the child was dead, that Casey Anthony is a liar, and her family is a bunch of lunatics. It is apparent that they were counting on the emotions of the jury to override the law, and sadly, that strategy has worked before, to the detriment of our justice system. I am proud that it didn't work this time. No matter how strongly we "feel" that this woman killed her daughter, we don't want to go down the slippery slope of convicting on emotions. <br /><br />I am very disturbed that this site, supposedly a bastion of criminology professionals, is not supporting a jury which had no choice but to acquit. It makes no difference that we all KNOW Casey Anthony "did something" to her child. In America we don't convict people without proof, and that proof must come from the state. The state failed in this case - the jurors did not. And yet they are in fear for their lives because many ignorant people have no clue how our justice system works, and people who supposedly do understand (such as the people on this very site) are not explaining it to them. <br /><br />This is my first visit to this site. I was excited by the concept, but I am disappointed by the lack of legal understanding and the Nancy Grace-like mentality.Disappointednoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6316617410436977874.post-13873582370495841082011-07-17T22:48:07.889-04:002011-07-17T22:48:07.889-04:00"The only 'evidence' which went to ho..."The only 'evidence' which went to homicide was the alleged chloroform..."<br /><br />A Voice of Sanity, along with the jurors, you must have slept through all mentions of the three strips of duct tape during testimony and the presentation of photos of Caylee's skull. Are you, too, from Pinellas County, Florida?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6316617410436977874.post-70688972177919787482011-07-16T22:59:57.786-04:002011-07-16T22:59:57.786-04:00When this case began I assumed that the prosecutio...When this case began I assumed that the prosecution could make a case for improper disposal of human remains. They failed to even charge her with that BUT they went ahead and tried to prove it nonetheless and then use the logical fallacy "post hoc ergo propter hoc" to prove homicide. Ironically Baez defended her, not against murder but against improper disposal of human remains and did it successfully!<br /><br />The only 'evidence' which went to homicide was the alleged chloroform, a particularly stupid argument for several reasons. The main reason is that chloroform should only be introduced into a trial if a bottle of it is brought into court in a box labelled 'ACME CORP' carried by a man in a Wile E. Coyote suit. It is the 'go-to' idea of the stupid when asked for an anesthetic agent - but is, in fact, difficult to obtain or use.<br /><br />At the end of the prosecution CIC I came to the realization that Anthony was, in fact, innocent. Sadly this is clearly of no interest to the lynch mob which has sickeningly formed around this case.<br /><br />In the USA almost five children die every day as a result of child abuse. More than three out of four are under the age of 4. Where are their mobs? There isn't even money to protect them all. What happened to Rilya Wilson?A Voice of Sanityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11285284153694191831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6316617410436977874.post-64080565262614537632011-07-16T10:58:42.021-04:002011-07-16T10:58:42.021-04:00Appreciate your helpful article. I thought the sam...Appreciate your helpful article. I thought the same as you did, but not being in your area of expertise it was great to have your confirmation. This jury was particularily stupid, lazy and odd. Mason years ago, when interviewed made 3 interesting points. The first time when Casey was in prison and Caylee's body still missing, he said the prosecution are too keen with too little and he'd love to be doing that case. The day Caylee's remains were found Mason's opinion was Casey now would get a life sentence. Very damnning from a confident defender. When asked about would he, if defending that case, insist on jurists that don't know hardly anything about the case, Mason had reservations. He explained I wouldn't really want that, as those types who know nothing much of such a case are rather strange types. Not really part of the mainstream.<br />If a person has common sense, prepared to listen, evaluate evidence intelligently, properly understands their task, concepts associated with the trial process, has personal ethics and integrity it is possible to make the correct finding based on evidence put forth in the trial. That can be done impartialy and would not be affected by prior knowledge or any ensuing prior views regarding guilt.<br />The jury ought to have to pass a mini test that makes them reflect what do they understand of these concepts used in a trial. They should be made aware, that whatever conclusion they come up with are ones they can in full sentences with details, explain all aspects of how they made decisions on various points. They had a simple clear explanation by the medical examiner Jan that made it clear no one yet has not called 911 on a drowned child. Then all the other factors in Caylee's body being found that are supported by statistics that indicate murder as the only conclusion.<br />There are then numerous tapes of Casey that indicate how cold, innapropriate, detatched and even resentful she is in regard to Caylee. Therefore if the jury were morons as more complex science goes, they had that simple clear firmly cleary stated, even repeated for them to grasp. Plus Ashtons brilliant summation in his final rebuttal.They were exceptionally lazy , not listening or thinking as well as extremely stupid. They only managed "lied to the police."<br />As Mason said , the out of touch are odd, so they went for their exciting soap opera that Baez put on for them. I do credit Baez's rough background, street smarts he'd have needed to survive to know how to read probably any type of very common folk in their attributes in detail. He's the type who then knows what risk they can be for any involvement so he can never be caught off gaurd plus it means you know how to manage /manipulate them when needed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6316617410436977874.post-60114756249430133082011-07-15T16:54:49.981-04:002011-07-15T16:54:49.981-04:00Despite Judge Perry's admonitions regarding fa...Despite Judge Perry's admonitions regarding facial expressions, reactions and demeanor allowed in court, the defendant's motherly, "compassionate" (in her words) attorney and she were allowed to carry on throughout the trial. The performance took place directly in front of the jurors and seemed to set up a pattern for the need to protect KC, (not to mention the lowered chair). Almost as if: "how dare they hurt such an amazing mother's feelings by speaking of such things." Quite a persuasive technique?<br /> Questions: 1) Are defendants and their legal rep's usually able to skirt the rules that apply to the rest of the courtroom? And 2) What effect might these repetitive, well-cued and timed emotional displays have had on the jurors? <br /> Is it possible they unwittingly identified with Ms. Sims? KC? Did they connect their dots (abusive father, crazy family, acting-out, not her fault, grieves differently) ? (Obviously!) Were they distracted by the drama rather than forensic details, leading juror #3 to later proclaim a bit too emphatically that she was not emotionally involved. Is it possible the physical "petting" of the defendant was more powerful than tiresome evidence and testimony?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6316617410436977874.post-1303444911363059222011-07-15T14:00:41.886-04:002011-07-15T14:00:41.886-04:00Mrs. Campbell,
Thank you for the great article! A...Mrs. Campbell,<br /><br />Thank you for the great article! Add me on your list of upset people. <br /><br />Jurors failed miserably for not connecting the dots! Prosecutors Mrs. Burdick and Mr. Ashton did such a wonderful job! I watched at least 90% of the trial, and it never occurred to me the verdict would be this. Can you believe I am still in shock? <br /><br />When juros started to appear on National Media spewing their "theories" of GA, then I was sure that they bought JB's "opening statements" and from there they didn't seem to have watched the same trial I did. <br /><br />Opening statements are "not evidence"!<br /><br />Where is their "common sense"? <br /><br />What about "jury instructions"... did they listen to it when HHJP read to them? <br /><br />Whaty about following the laws? <br /><br />Jurors are now saying they could not convict her to DP if there was no "cause of death"... now, let's see... the State didn't have to prove "motive" nor they had to be discussing "penalty phase"... it was the "guilt phase"!!!<br /><br />What's wrong with them? <br /><br />They claim the State didn't have evidence to convict her... did I hear that right?<br /><br />I could go on and on. What these jurors did is "beyond comprehensible"! <br /><br />KC was even acquitted of child aggravated abuse... so it shows these people have no idea of what mothers' obligations are. Geesh!<br /><br />I would like to say something I found it outrageous in this trial... "opening statements" by the defense were not backed up by the defense and in my opinion it should not be allowed because I believe that's what the jurors kept in mind and could not past the "sexual abuse" never proved by the way. <br /><br />Jurors failed and I am not apologetic about it. <br /><br />Caylee didn't have her justice! <br /><br />Thank you for allowing me to vent. LOLFRGnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6316617410436977874.post-29813262257782113202011-07-15T13:45:07.878-04:002011-07-15T13:45:07.878-04:00The analogy of the breathalyzer is such a great po...The analogy of the breathalyzer is such a great point. It absolutely shows and proves that forensic air analysis has been around for a long time. I don't know if it would have mattered though, because it's apparent to me that despite how clearly and organized the Prosecution's case was, these jurors weren't intelligent enough to make the connection. The perfect storm of dumbness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6316617410436977874.post-74167972234244944542011-07-15T13:09:23.268-04:002011-07-15T13:09:23.268-04:00I have a science background and closely followed t...I have a science background and closely followed the trial. I agree...this is not junk science at all - air sampling and GC/MS is used daily in science labs. But it is clear it was well over the jurors heads. I think they didn't understand the science so they disregarded it; especially the chloroform testing. All three chloroform tests yielded different results; but they are consistent with the type of tests that were performed (one air sample from a sealed container...more concentrated; one air sample direct from the trunk that was open and "aired"-less concentrated; and the test of the carpet sample itself). Thanks for the article.Boycottkchttp://www.boycottcaseyanthony.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6316617410436977874.post-88558664805883353682011-07-15T01:32:14.645-04:002011-07-15T01:32:14.645-04:00Thank you for this very informative article. I wis...Thank you for this very informative article. I wish the jury could have been instructed in these principles. It all seems to have gone right over their heads... amazingly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com