Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Brainwashed: Casey Anthony Jury

Posted by on Jul. 8, 2011 at 9:10 AM
  • 70 Replies


http://powerwall.msnbc.msn.com/politics/casey-jury-brainwash-1694371.story


The inevitable juror cameos have begun. Juror Number Three, now known as Jennifer Ford, spoke to Nightline. She came forward to give her explanation for the shocking acquittal that freed Casey Anthony of any criminal liability for the killing of her baby, Caylee Anthony.

No doubt she meant to justify the verdict. On that score, she failed. But she succeeded in showing us a great deal about the dynamics and thinking of this jury—significantly, this sequestered jury.

I'm going to start by saying that, for those who thought the jury came back awfully fast—less than eleven hours spent in deliberation, you should now wonder what took them that long. Because from the very first vote, this jury was already close to a unanimous verdict of acquittal - at least as to murder: ten to two for not guilty. That's an impressive show of solidarity for a first vote. And it shows they were almost unanimously inclined to acquit right from jump.

It's the fact that this jury was already in sync in a case that posed so many debatable issues is what's so noteworthy. And it has everything to do with sequestration. This jury was sequestered for more than two months. When jurors are forced to spend day and night with each other, apart from their families and friends, they become a tribe unto themselves. Because they only have each other for company, and because most people prefer harmony to discord, there's a natural desire to cooperate, to compromise in order to reach agreement. And they have no safe retreat. If they disagree with their fellow jurors, they can't go home to a husband, a wife, a friend, where they can regroup and marshal their energies. Make no mistake about it, sequestration is no picnic and I have sympathy and respect for the jurors who put up with that incredible hardship.

But we can't ignore the mental and emotional impact it has on the jurors—an impact that likely thwarts the whole point of drafting twelve individuals to decide a defendant's fate. The point of having twelve jurors is to have an array of differing points of view. The belief is that people of different backgrounds and experience will naturally bring a variety of attitudes to bear, and thus produce a more balanced view of the evidence. What one juror doesn't get, another one does, and each of them sees different aspects to each witness and piece of evidence. The idea is for them to share differing views and reach a greater understanding—not to have them shave off their square corners so they can all roll together.

Unfortunately—and psychological studies bear this out—a group that is kept together for any length of time becomes more and more alike, more in sync, as time goes on. (By the way, this phenomenon is also in play with regard to proximity to the defendant. The longer the jury is in contact with the defendant, the less sinister he or she appears. In this way, familiarity with Casey Anthony turned her from a potential murderer to an abused, perhaps disturbed, but certainly nonthreatening, child.) Add this phenomenon to the natural desire to avoid contentiousness and seek harmony and you can see how individuality begins to erode in a sequestered jury.

Now add to that the psychology of group dynamics—a subject well known to trial lawyers and jury consultants. In every group there will be leaders and followers. Listening to Juror Jennifer Ford, who was very likely a leader, it became abundantly clear that the leaders on the Anthony jury were cheerleaders for the defense.

Ms. Ford's primary complaint was that the prosecution didn't prove cause of death. As she put it: “How can you punish someone for something if you don't know what they did?...[The prosecution] didn't even paint a picture for me to consider.”

That was defense attorney Jose Baez's strategy, through and through. And it has nothing to do with what's legally required to prove a homicide.

The truth is, the prosecution doesn't have to prove cause of death. It only need prove criminal agency—that the death was a homicide, as opposed to an accident. It's nice to have a body, a murder weapon, a cause of death, but it's certainly not essential. I've had cases where not only was there no murder weapon, there was no body. We had no evidence to establish cause of death. Still, those cases resulted in convictions—in fact that jury returned a verdict of first-degree murder in one of them.

And the Anthony prosecutors could have done it too, because the evidence was more than sufficient to prove a homicide: a baby disappeared and the last person seen with the child—the mother—lied repeatedly for a full month about her whereabouts; deliberately lied in a way that prevented anyone from searching for the child. The mother's researching of chloroform on the computer matched up to the finding of chloroform traces in the trunk of the car. The same car trunk where a hair consistent with Caylee's was found; a hair that was arguably from a decomposing body. The same car trunk from which the smell of a decomposing body emanated strongly. The child's decomposed body was found bagged in the woods near the mother's house. Significantly, the child's mouth and nose had been duct taped. And while that child's body lay decomposing in the woods, the mother euphorically and gleefully partied with her buddies knowing full well that not only was her child dead but she was actively preventing anyone from finding out. That evidence not only proved a homicide, it proved that Casey Anthony committed it.

How did the defense counter this compelling body of evidence? They put up a bit of a fight on the forensics. Especially as to whether the hair could be definitively said to have come from a corpse. Okay, fine, let that one go.

Then what about the duct tape? There's no reason to put duct tape on the face of a child who's already dead. The defense made a lame attempt to counter that by asserting that ‘some other dude' put the duct tape on the baby's face—but the testimony offered to prove that (Dr. Werner Spitz) was laughably weak, and thus didn't even dent the prosecution's case.

When all was said and done, the only things the defense really had going for it were the unproven allegations of molestation and the wholly unsubstantiated claim that the baby drowned in the swimming pool.

But if you listen to Juror Jennifer Ford's interview, those unproven, unsubstantiated claims are exactly what the jury hung its collective hat on.

When she complained that they never knew exactly how the child died, she was asked: “So you believed it was an accident?”

Her answer: “I'm not saying that, I'm saying it's a lot easier to get to that conclusion. I can walk from here to there and make it happen. But the chloroform I'm all over the place, I'm in a maze, I don't know where I'm at.”

The child's body was found in a plastic bag with duct tape over the mouth and nose, and left to decompose in the woods while Casey Anthony told everyone the baby was with Zanny the Nanny, and she found it “easier” to believe it was an accident? Frankly, I don't see how you “walk from here to there” to make that happen.

So where did she get the idea that it was easier to believe this was an accident? Baez's opening statement—where he claimed that he'd prove this was an accident. The only problem is, he didn't. Usually, juries hold lawyers accountable for those flops. Not here.

Ms. Ford also claimed the prosecution never showed a motive. What did all those party pictures mean to her? The tattoo Casey Anthony got days after her baby died: “Bella Vida”?

To that, Ms. Ford said, “It looks very bad…but bad behavior is not enough to prove a crime.”

Sound familiar? It's exactly what Jose Baez said: You can believe she's a liar, a slut, a lying slut, but that doesn't mean she killed her baby.

But where Baez's non-evidence had the greatest impact was on the jury's perception of George Anthony. Here, Ms. Ford's answers are very telling. Her statements are somewhat contradictory, and show incredible antipathy for—and suspicion of—Casey's father.

“He did not help the State's case,” she said. “He was clearly dishonest. He was evasive. His story seemed to change.”

But there was an obvious explanation for the father's behavior. George Anthony was a man undergoing an incredible conflict: he wanted to defend his daughter, yet, being a police officer, he surely knew the evidence against her was compelling. And on top of all that, his daughter's defense strategy set him up as an incestuous child molester.  Given all those circumstances, it's not hard to see how he veered from one side to the other, his loyalties and love for his daughter and his granddaughter in conflict and sorely tested. The jury could have reasoned it that way too. But it didn't.

When asked whether she believed George Anthony had some part in the demise of little Caylee, Ms. Ford said: “I don't know if he had anything to do with it, but I think he was there.”

And where would the jury get the idea that George Anthony was “there”? Surely not in the evidence—there was not one shred of evidence to support that notion. Once again, that was speculation that was raised in Jose Baez's opening statement but was nowhere in the evidence.

Then what did the jury think happened to Caylee? Now this is where the reasoning finally falls through the hole in the floor.

According to Ms. Ford, “Something happened, at some point she probably needed medical care or at least there could be some attempt…to save the child's life that was never made. That bothered me.” But if it was just an accident, then why would the body wind up in a plastic bag in a swamp? “You're covering up something…it's either an accident or…nobody knows what it is.”

This is exactly what Jose Baez told them to believe. That since they couldn't know how Caylee died, they couldn't convict his client. That it was an accident—and he'd prove it. Didn't matter that he never proved it, didn't matter that the notion of accident had no basis in fact or logic, didn't matter that only his client had motive to kill the child, didn't matter that his client was the last to be seen with the child, put duct tape on the child's mouth and nose, hid the fact of the child's death, carried the child's body around in her trunk, then stashed the body in a plastic bag and hid it in the woods. Never mind all that.

Juror Ford said she didn't believe it was their duty to "connect all the dots," and that the prosecution was required to answer every question about Caylee's death, including why and how it was committed.

First of all, there is no such thing as a case in which the prosecution answers every question. It isn't possible. Second of all, the prosecution doesn't have to. The prosecution is only required to prove the elements of the crime - and that does not include motive nor does it include cause of death.

Moreover, it is most certainly the jury's duty to "connect the dots." The jury is required to consider all of the evidence and to draw the reasonable inferences that evidence suggests. Note I said reasonable - that doesn't mean concocting scenarios out of thin air based on nothing but a lawyer's opening statement.

And by the way, what about that duct tape? How did the jury get around that one? Here's what Ms. Ford said:

“In our country unfortunately we have to prove it…it smells bad, looks bad, yeah I get that. But it's someone else's life and if I'm wrong, I can't live with that.”

In other words: no answer. I said it early on in this case and I'll say it again: that duct tape was the murder weapon. No innocent explanation—that is, any viable one—was ever produced. And the jury never found one either. Nevertheless, they bought the defense and acquitted Casey Anthony, who most surely killed that child.

That's what I can't live with.

by on Jul. 8, 2011 at 9:10 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
romalove
by Roma on Jul. 8, 2011 at 9:25 AM

I agree with every bit of this.  The jury they empaneled, if you read the profiles, were not really a good jury to have on this kind of case.  I don't think overall they were smart enough to understand the forensics, they clearly didn't understand what the prosecution's burden was, there was one juror who said she didn't want to be in a position of judging someone else (a requirement for a juror), there was another that didn't want to be on a jury at all and was there very reluctantly....a whole mishmash of reasons that they were unfit to adjudicate this particular case.

The same juror he spoke about said "saying not guilty doesn't mean she's innocent."  On that statement alone this is a person who doesn't get what she just did.

I think, reading this, that what happened in this case is so abhorrent to most people that they were almost hoping for a more reasonable explanation than a young mother murdering her child for her own benefit, so she can go on and have a fun life.  I think people have trouble dealing with that, so when Baez threw out there, without a scintilla of evidence, without a shred of proof, that the baby drowned, that George and Lee molested Casey, that George wanted the coverup, the idea that there was something not as sinister to deal with made people accept that as possibly the truth, when in fact there is no truth there at all.

Sad, sad, sad.

1bluediamond
by Gold Member on Jul. 8, 2011 at 10:58 AM

Can someone remind me of the other charges again?  I don't think she should have been off scott free of the more severe charges completely. But I don't consider myself brainwashed and given the evidence by the state I would not have found her guilty on first degree murder either.

GLWerth
by Gina on Jul. 8, 2011 at 11:02 AM

So, because people don't agree with the verdict, the jurors were brainwashed?

Would we be hearing all of this if Ms. Anthony were on her way to death row? Nope, we'd be hearing about how wonderful it is that the jurors were able to come to the "right" decision.

If you want to go to a system where you are guilty until proven otherwise, then write to your congresscritters and ask them to get on that. Until that happens, Juries decide, whether we agree or not.

1bluediamond
by Gold Member on Jul. 8, 2011 at 11:06 AM

I was reading that her boyfriend Tony stated that Casey would get phone calls in the middle of the night and then wake Caylee and drop her off somehwere (supposedly the "nanny's") and then go back to his house without Caylee and go back to sleep. Where was she dropping her off at in the middle of the night? Too many crazy twists to this story.

1bluediamond
by Gold Member on Jul. 8, 2011 at 11:21 AM

Okay I found them. Aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter of a child. Why wasn't she charged with child neglect and endangerment?


Quote:

In order for you to find the defendant guilty of aggravated manslaughter, the State is 

required to prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt: 

 (1) that the defendant caused (insert victim's name) death, and 

 (2) that the defendant did so recklessly, and 

 (3) that the defendant did so under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to 

human life. 

 One element that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted recklessly.


Did the state prove Casey caused the death? No. They couldn't prove how Caylee died so how could they prove who did it?

romalove
by Roma on Jul. 8, 2011 at 11:22 AM


Quoting GLWerth:

So, because people don't agree with the verdict, the jurors were brainwashed?

Would we be hearing all of this if Ms. Anthony were on her way to death row? Nope, we'd be hearing about how wonderful it is that the jurors were able to come to the "right" decision.

If you want to go to a system where you are guilty until proven otherwise, then write to your congresscritters and ask them to get on that. Until that happens, Juries decide, whether we agree or not.

I'd like intelligent juries who can understand evidence.  I'd like juries who want to be jurors, who aren't there despite not wanting to be on a jury or not wanting to "judge" people.  I'd like juries who, when faced with "so many questions", as the juror who spoke out said, would ASK those questions by sending a note to the judge, as so many juries have done in the past. 

Juries decide, and this one decided poorly.  They had an opinion, and so do I.

romalove
by Roma on Jul. 8, 2011 at 11:23 AM


Quoting 1bluediamond:

Can someone remind me of the other charges again?  I don't think she should have been off scott free of the more severe charges completely. But I don't consider myself brainwashed and given the evidence by the state I would not have found her guilty on first degree murder either.


They acquitted her of aggravated manslaughter and of child abuse as well.  Only found her guilty of lying.

Why was this poor innocent woman who had just lost her child in a tragic drowning accident lying, lying to her mother, father, brother, boyfriend, investigators, police, the media, friends, anyone who would be within the sound of her voice, not once, not twice, but for months on end?

I am sickened.

1bluediamond
by Gold Member on Jul. 8, 2011 at 11:27 AM


Quoting romalove:


Quoting 1bluediamond:

Can someone remind me of the other charges again?  I don't think she should have been off scott free of the more severe charges completely. But I don't consider myself brainwashed and given the evidence by the state I would not have found her guilty on first degree murder either.


They acquitted her of aggravated manslaughter and of child abuse as well.  Only found her guilty of lying.

Why was this poor innocent woman who had just lost her child in a tragic drowning accident lying, lying to her mother, father, brother, boyfriend, investigators, police, the media, friends, anyone who would be within the sound of her voice, not once, not twice, but for months on end?

I am sickened.

I found them. I concede that at the very least she knew what happend to Caylee and I'm almost certain she was the culprit, but honestly according to the information above the state has to prove beyond a reaonsable doubt that the defendant caused the death. Again how can they prove Casey caused it when they don't know what caused it?

romalove
by Roma on Jul. 8, 2011 at 11:32 AM


Quoting 1bluediamond:


Quoting romalove:

 

Quoting 1bluediamond:

Can someone remind me of the other charges again?  I don't think she should have been off scott free of the more severe charges completely. But I don't consider myself brainwashed and given the evidence by the state I would not have found her guilty on first degree murder either.


They acquitted her of aggravated manslaughter and of child abuse as well.  Only found her guilty of lying.

Why was this poor innocent woman who had just lost her child in a tragic drowning accident lying, lying to her mother, father, brother, boyfriend, investigators, police, the media, friends, anyone who would be within the sound of her voice, not once, not twice, but for months on end?

I am sickened.

I found them. I concede that at the very least she knew what happend to Caylee and I'm almost certain she was the culprit, but honestly according to the information above the state has to prove beyond a reaonsable doubt that the defendant caused the death. Again how they prove Casey caused it when they don't know what caused it?

They don't have to know how she did it to know that she did it.  You can't go by what Baez said in opening statements about the child accidentally drowning, George and Lee molesting her so that she was forced to do what George told her to, and the two of them covering up the accident.  I say you can't go by that because by law what is said in opening arguments, without backing up proof, is not evidence.  They didn't put on any evidence to any of what they said.  Now, the defense doesn't have to put on a defense, they don't have to prove anything, BUT if they state something, then they either must prove it or it must be disregarded.

I think they should have also pursued obstruction of justice, not just the lying.  I don't think it means a hill of beans.  This was a jury predisposed to find her not guilty, for a variety of reasons.

GLWerth
by Gina on Jul. 8, 2011 at 11:33 AM


Quoting romalove:

 

Quoting GLWerth:

So, because people don't agree with the verdict, the jurors were brainwashed?

Would we be hearing all of this if Ms. Anthony were on her way to death row? Nope, we'd be hearing about how wonderful it is that the jurors were able to come to the "right" decision.

If you want to go to a system where you are guilty until proven otherwise, then write to your congresscritters and ask them to get on that. Until that happens, Juries decide, whether we agree or not.

I'd like intelligent juries who can understand evidence.  I'd like juries who want to be jurors, who aren't there despite not wanting to be on a jury or not wanting to "judge" people.  I'd like juries who, when faced with "so many questions", as the juror who spoke out said, would ASK those questions by sending a note to the judge, as so many juries have done in the past. 

Juries decide, and this one decided poorly.  They had an opinion, and so do I.

All right, what are your ideas for fixing the system?

Do we institute a test to ensure that jurors are "smart enough"?

Do we simply do away with juries and change the whole thing to "judged by a judge of the state's choosing" instead of "Jury of your peers"?

Do we perhaps compensate jurors better for performing their duty, making it less of a hardship on people with jobs (thus making them more willing to serve)?

Maybe if a person is judged Not Guilty, there should be a second trial with a new jury to ensure that the "right" decision was made.

Or if the judge disagrees with the Jury he or she can say, nope, here's what's going to happen and change the verdict.

Do you see a real problem in the system, or are you simply angry at this particular jury?

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)