Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's why Jose Baez, who isn't a great attorney, was able to win this case. All you have to do is throw a blizzard of bizarre material at the jurors, no matter how unbelievable or ridiculous it is (molestation-which had absolutely nothing to do with case, a meter reader purposefully handling evidence in an incriminating manner, an ex-homicide investigator dumping a body in the bushes only 15 houses down from his, a "bug" and "pig" expert disagreeing with Orange County forensic scientist and human decomposition experts, etc.) As my grandma used to say "If you throw enough mud at the wall, something is gonna stick". Baez just kept throwing things at the jury, hoping that at least one thing would cause reasonable doubt within each of them, and it worked.
It makes me laugh to remember how Nancy Grace and her cohorts assumed she would be convicted of the killing and claimed, "Casey Anthony will get an appeal based on incompetent counsel!" Yeah, right.
Juries wrongly convict people too. It's a FACT that innocent people have been wrongfully convicted. However, in the long-run, this system is correct far more often than it's wrong.
Not 'far' more often, I think.
Indiana did a study and proved (dna) 33% of people on death row were innocent. That is the number that can be proven, so the true number must be greater. The governor put a permanent freeze on the death sentence because of that.
When DNA evidence was proven to be effective Great Britain went through all their inmates with the test and released every one who was found innocent. We struggle to keep the innocent in prison and only those wealthy enough or lucky enough to have outside help have the good fortune to get a review and when the new evidence is presented most are not pronounced 'not guilty' in their system records.
We do not have the best criminal justice system on the globe - far from it. There is so much pressure to resolve cases that some innocents are pronounced guilty which to me is a much greater crime than allowing a criminal to walk, unless he is a serial killer or rapist, perhaps.
Our rehabilitation attempts usually stink, as well, and we also do not have the best consistent system to catch troubled youngsters before they offend and counsel them into productive and happy lives. There must be ways to separate those who can turn their lives around from the hard heads or genetically mutated.
It makes me laugh to remember how Nancy Grace and her cohorts assumed she would be convicted of the killing and claimed, "Casey Anthony will get an appeal based on incompetent counsel!" Yeah, right.
There should be an appeal because of an incompetent jury. I understood when at first they were saying they didn't have enough to convict of murder. But when the jurors started talking about George Anthony was involved and they believed it was an accident, then I just realized they were idiots. There was less evidence to support these theories than there was the murder theory.
There should be an appeal because of an incompetent jury. I understood when at first they were saying they didn't have enough to convict of murder. But when the jurors started talking about George Anthony was involved and they believed it was an accident, then I just realized they were idiots. There was less evidence to support these theories than there was the murder theory.
It is the responsibility of the jury, ALL JURIES, to determine the credibility of the witnesses in a trial. That's how the system has always worked. They were in the courtroom with those witnesses. They were able to assess far more about the individual witnesses than those of us out here watching it all on TV.
In death cases, like this one, we use 12 jurors instead of 6, which is the usual number used for felony cases. Those 12 people came to a conclusion that the state had not proved any of those charges, 1 thru 3, beyond a reasonable doubt. Remember, this was a death qualified jury, which is far more likely to return a guilty verdict than one which is not death qualified.
George Anthony came off as not credible, IMO, because his statements about having an affair with a volunteer he met when she was looking for Caylee, were just not believable by MOST people, even those talking heads on TV who were very favorable biased for George Anthony! Very, very few people believed him.
The jury members are not idiots. Could be that too many people out there are just very attached to their emotional beliefs about this case and can't give it up because it's like losing face.
p.s.
How would you define an "incompetent jury"? Specifically what would be your standards?
Not 'far' more often, I think.
Indiana did a study and proved (dna) 33% of people on death row were innocent. That is the number that can be proven, so the true number must be greater. The governor put a permanent freeze on the death sentence because of that.
When DNA evidence was proven to be effective Great Britain went through all their inmates with the test and released every one who was found innocent. We struggle to keep the innocent in prison and only those wealthy enough or lucky enough to have outside help have the good fortune to get a review and when the new evidence is presented most are not pronounced 'not guilty' in their system records.
We do not have the best criminal justice system on the globe - far from it. There is so much pressure to resolve cases that some innocents are pronounced guilty which to me is a much greater crime than allowing a criminal to walk, unless he is a serial killer or rapist, perhaps.
Our rehabilitation attempts usually stink, as well, and we also do not have the best consistent system to catch troubled youngsters before they offend and counsel them into productive and happy lives. There must be ways to separate those who can turn their lives around from the hard heads or genetically mutated.
In death cases I would agree. Even one wrongful conviction is enormously difficult to "un-do."
I didn't realize that Great Britain used the death penalty anymore.
Typical defense when a woman is being tried for murder is to take her husband/father/boyfriend whoever, and paint the woman as an abused victim who either didn't think rationally because of her abuse or was coerced into her actions by the "evil" guy who has been used as a scape goat. This tactic works very well on juries, especially ones that have majority of females because they irrationally sympathize. You don't even have to have a legal education to know that, just watch the show Snapped and look at how many cases where a woman killed her husband or boyfriend, that the defense claims she was "abused" or when a woman kills another woman she was jealous of and the defense claims the boyfriend/husband "manipulated" her into doing it or something like that. Jose used this bread and butter tactic by painting George Anthony as the evil guy behind the entire accident, cover up and even Casey's own mental illnesses. He was trying to get the jury to stop focusing on Casey and focus on someone else. Jose originally wanted to use one of Casey's boyfriends as the scapegoat at first, but then chose GA for reasons I don't remember.
The problem with the jury is, they bought into because instead of assessing whether or not this version of the story was even CREDIBLE or had any solid evidence to back it up, they instead focused on whether GA was credible, which has NOTHING to do with whether he was involved in the cover up or not. Wasn't the defense own argument, when referring to Casey, that being a liar doesn't necissarily make you guilty of murder or negligent homicide? Well why didn't the jury apply this to GA? Sure, GA is fidgety, vague, dishonest and defensive but that doesn't mean he was involved in Caylee's death. It means he was hiding an affair, he is uncomfortable on a witness stand and he is angry at the defense team for accusing him of molesting his daughter and covering up his granddaughters death. His personality has nothing to do with his involvement or noninvolvement in Caylee's death, just like the jury found that Casey's demented personality didn't prove she was involved. But they didn't use that standard with George and admitted in interviews they think he was involved and that helped lead to their decision.
Instead of his personality they should've looked at factors such as whether George was even around that day (which the prosecution showed evidence he wasn't), his phone conversations with Casey in jail (which again, imply he wasn't because he was probing her for answers), and whether it's believable that someone with his expertise on homicide investigations would toss a body right down the street from his house. The jury prides themselves in looking at Casey Anthony with a legal and scientific mind, but they didn't look at GA in this way.
I think everyone involved in that trial was extremely unlikable, and Casey tops them all. Jose Baez is a slimy greaseball who the Florida Bar didn't accept for 8 years, and didn't want to, but finally had no choice but to admit him. He was arrogant, cocky and used extremely greasy and scandalous tactics that defamed poor George Anthony forever. Cheney Mason is an aggressive, country good ol' boy who talks down to everyone and showed his true colors when he gave the bird to cameras. Even Ashton was a prick, and he might have comprised the trial by being too arrogant, too combative with the witnesses and then laughing like an 8 year old bratty kid during Baez closing argument. After watching that trial I finally understand why people hate lawyers.
Casey Anthony was the creepiest of them all. Her stone cold face with those remorseless, devilish eyes staring at everyone with pure hatred and no regrets, only to be occasionally interrupted by a sinister laugh; the blatant manipulation on her grieving mother during the jail house tapes, making her believe Caylee was alive and even telling people she spoke to Caylee; accusing Zanieda Gonzales of taking her child which caused Zanieda to get death threats and have to move and go into hiding. I've seriously had nightmares about Casey's face, staring at me with those eyes that are more black and soul-less than the eyes of a great white shark (great whites really do have creepy eyes), and I'm afraid for all of us when she is released from jail. The only thing worse than her eyes is her lying tongue, spitting out lie after wicked lie.
"You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies." - Jesus
you may be one of the few that do understand this person's origin
Typical defense when a woman is being tried for murder is to take her husband/father/boyfriend whoever, and paint the woman as an abused victim who either didn't think rationally because of her abuse or was coerced into her actions by the "evil" guy who has been used as a scape goat. This tactic works very well on juries, especially ones that have majority of females because they irrationally sympathize. You don't even have to have a legal education to know that, just watch the show Snapped and look at how many cases where a woman killed her husband or boyfriend, that the defense claims she was "abused" or when a woman kills another woman she was jealous of and the defense claims the boyfriend/husband "manipulated" her into doing it or something like that. Jose used this bread and butter tactic by painting George Anthony as the evil guy behind the entire accident, cover up and even Casey's own mental illnesses. He was trying to get the jury to stop focusing on Casey and focus on someone else. Jose originally wanted to use one of Casey's boyfriends as the scapegoat at first, but then chose GA for reasons I don't remember.
The problem with the jury is, they bought into because instead of assessing whether or not this version of the story was even CREDIBLE or had any solid evidence to back it up, they instead focused on whether GA was credible, which has NOTHING to do with whether he was involved in the cover up or not. Wasn't the defense own argument, when referring to Casey, that being a liar doesn't necissarily make you guilty of murder or negligent homicide? Well why didn't the jury apply this to GA? Sure, GA is fidgety, vague, dishonest and defensive but that doesn't mean he was involved in Caylee's death. It means he was hiding an affair, he is uncomfortable on a witness stand and he is angry at the defense team for accusing him of molesting his daughter and covering up his granddaughters death. His personality has nothing to do with his involvement or noninvolvement in Caylee's death, just like the jury found that Casey's demented personality didn't prove she was involved. But they didn't use that standard with George and admitted in interviews they think he was involved and that helped lead to their decision.
Instead of his personality they should've looked at factors such as whether George was even around that day (which the prosecution showed evidence he wasn't), his phone conversations with Casey in jail (which again, imply he wasn't because he was probing her for answers), and whether it's believable that someone with his expertise on homicide investigations would toss a body right down the street from his house. The jury prides themselves in looking at Casey Anthony with a legal and scientific mind, but they didn't look at GA in this way.
IMO it's not that the jury bought Baez/Casey's story. It is that the State did not prove it's case.
Typical defense when a woman is being tried for murder is to take her husband/father/boyfriend whoever, and paint the woman as an abused victim who either didn't think rationally because of her abuse or was coerced into her actions by the "evil" guy who has been used as a scape goat. This tactic works very well on juries, especially ones that have majority of females because they irrationally sympathize. You don't even have to have a legal education to know that, just watch the show Snapped and look at how many cases where a woman killed her husband or boyfriend, that the defense claims she was "abused" or when a woman kills another woman she was jealous of and the defense claims the boyfriend/husband "manipulated" her into doing it or something like that. Jose used this bread and butter tactic by painting George Anthony as the evil guy behind the entire accident, cover up and even Casey's own mental illnesses. He was trying to get the jury to stop focusing on Casey and focus on someone else. Jose originally wanted to use one of Casey's boyfriends as the scapegoat at first, but then chose GA for reasons I don't remember.
The problem with the jury is, they bought into because instead of assessing whether or not this version of the story was even CREDIBLE or had any solid evidence to back it up, they instead focused on whether GA was credible, which has NOTHING to do with whether he was involved in the cover up or not. Wasn't the defense own argument, when referring to Casey, that being a liar doesn't necissarily make you guilty of murder or negligent homicide? Well why didn't the jury apply this to GA? Sure, GA is fidgety, vague, dishonest and defensive but that doesn't mean he was involved in Caylee's death. It means he was hiding an affair, he is uncomfortable on a witness stand and he is angry at the defense team for accusing him of molesting his daughter and covering up his granddaughters death. His personality has nothing to do with his involvement or noninvolvement in Caylee's death, just like the jury found that Casey's demented personality didn't prove she was involved. But they didn't use that standard with George and admitted in interviews they think he was involved and that helped lead to their decision.
Instead of his personality they should've looked at factors such as whether George was even around that day (which the prosecution showed evidence he wasn't), his phone conversations with Casey in jail (which again, imply he wasn't because he was probing her for answers), and whether it's believable that someone with his expertise on homicide investigations would toss a body right down the street from his house. The jury prides themselves in looking at Casey Anthony with a legal and scientific mind, but they didn't look at GA in this way.
Why would someone with "expertise in homicide investigations" NOT call the authorities when his granddaughter was missing and he was POSITIVE that the smell he smelled coming from Casey's trunk was the result of a dead body having been in there?
Do you really think someone with "expertise in homicide investigations" would have gone to the jail to visit his daughter and act like he knew already what was going on with Caylee?
He knew enough that he knew those conversations were being taped by the jail and would be used.
It is the responsibility of the jury, ALL JURIES, to determine the credibility of the witnesses in a trial. That's how the system has always worked. They were in the courtroom with those witnesses. They were able to assess far more about the individual witnesses than those of us out here watching it all on TV.
In death cases, like this one, we use 12 jurors instead of 6, which is the usual number used for felony cases. Those 12 people came to a conclusion that the state had not proved any of those charges, 1 thru 3, beyond a reasonable doubt. Remember, this was a death qualified jury, which is far more likely to return a guilty verdict than one which is not death qualified.
George Anthony came off as not credible, IMO, because his statements about having an affair with a volunteer he met when she was looking for Caylee, were just not believable by MOST people, even those talking heads on TV who were very favorable biased for George Anthony! Very, very few people believed him.
The jury members are not idiots. Could be that too many people out there are just very attached to their emotional beliefs about this case and can't give it up because it's like losing face.
p.s.
How would you define an "incompetent jury"? Specifically what would be your standards?
a jury that deliberates this terrible case after such a short time without further questions and no notes present,and ignores the obvious coverup by the family of this child's death should imo be deemed extremely questionable if not incompetent
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
