<p>ahhh but we’ll never know…did they feel sick or did they find out what public reaction was and adjust their comments accordingly??? they still need to get back into their lives…</p>
<p>i still wont dispute their right to find however they did…i may not agree…but i think they did their job as they understood it</p>
<p>I can understand in a way how jurors may feel sick about how it turned out. I think they, like many of us, felt Casey was very involved in wrongdoing, but based on evidence, they had difficulty proving the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with regard to the charges that were brought. Perhaps many of them were truly torn over it but didn’t want to convict due to not feeling it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn’t mean they believe Casey didn’t do anything wrong. They dealt with the legal case. So, I do get how they may feel sick about it because the jury decision didn’t entirely match the feeling that Casey did something wrong with Caylee. They may be torn up as they didn’t feel they had enough proof. I’m not saying that they did or didn’t have enough proof, but if they felt they didn’t have enough proof, but still felt something was amiss with Casey and the death of her daughter, they would feel torn up over that. I get how that could be possible.</p>
<p>I don’t like to blame the jury. I believe in the system and sometimes the system gets it right and sometimes it doesn’t. Sometimes someone who is guilty goes free. A judicial system is not foolproof, but overall I think our country’s system works pretty well. This was a case where the outcome doesn’t seem to match what many believe likely happened, but the system requires a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and these folks apparently had some doubts and that was enough for them not to convict, even though doubts run both ways and they may also doubt she is innocent too.</p>
<p>(I still think if they hadn’t made it into a capital murder case, there was a chance the verdict would have come out differently if the starting point had been manslaughter or child endangerment)</p>
<p>I respect the system, but I question how well it works in anything but slam dunk simple cases. (Of course, the OJ trial shows us that they can screw those up too. ) I don’t think the average juror is capable of figuring out sophisticated, complicated cases. If they are lucky enough to have at least one person who is willing to take it upon him/herself to bring the others along, then there is a better chance of getting it right.</p>
<p>I understand that the system is supposed to be a jury of your peers. But on the other hand, in complicated cases that require critical thinking skills, I have to wonder how such important decisions are left to some (NOT ALL) who are not educated. For certain jobs in the work force, an education is required due to the level of skill involved in the job, but serving on a jury doesn’t require any education.</p>
<p>I am NOT referring to the Anthony case, but just generally speaking. It has nothing to do with agreeing or not agreeing with this particular verdict.</p>
<p>I also think that lengthy sequestration is great for dulling critical thinking.</p>
<p>My experience on a jury on a much less complex case (which took LONGER for us to deliberate on), was that there needs to be a systematic review of each story, each piece of evidence in terms of what held up for review and what was thrown out, what was plausible, what doubts there were. We went through each possible story, the quality of each witness, how different pieces of evidence were contradictory, and asked for agreement along the way. It is easy to see how much or little agreement there was among us all along.
Then each charge has to be reviewed in light of all this.</p>
<p>A good foreman has a structured approach and asks the group each step of the way for opinions and then a final decision on EACH piece of the case. That way, we kept track of when we were basing a story on evidence or testimony or a witness that was consensus weak vs consensus strong.</p>
<p>Defining “reasonable” in reasonable doubt (on each of these things, btw) is a big problem. The judge needs to give good instructions on that. </p>
<p>IMO the defense pointing to an alternate murderer story AND the fact that the three key witnesses were so unreliable (liars, personality disorders, whatever) threw this case wide open and made it very difficult case to prosecute, judge, and be a juror for, given that ANY story (true or false) was circumstantial. It became a case of what was LESS circumstantial or MORE circumstantial, and that is very hard for a jury to deal with. Everything felt doubtful, so it was probably overwhelming to know how to decide what was reasonable doubt and what was not, and believe that a consensus would ever come about in the end. This creates fatigue, emotion, a desire to avoid. It may have felt much easier to agree to nothing major than argue potentially forever about this. So they may have been emotionally drained, exhausted, and over-challenged, and then “given up” once they saw how hard it was to come up with a clear sense of one view unanimously. Bad, but I could see it happening.</p>
<p>As we move along the sprectrum and get more sophisticated science(forensics), computer and technology literate, more complicated and compartmentalized experts, I can see how one would need to be a little more savvy and educated to be able to critically think through the testimony and evidence. We have come along way in our ability to present very complicated science, but have we balanced this out with a more sophisticated and educated jury?
Maybe there needs to be some sort of formal juror instruction to better equip them to make a more informed decision.
Maybe the whole idea of a “sequestered jury” needs to be re-evaluated.</p>
<p>I was thinking the same, milkandsugar. I think the legal complexities of this case were enough to justify having an expert (how can there even be a guarantee of impartiality- maybe two, then) to advise and be available for questions from the jury, maybe even to outline how to handle the process, act as a foreman. And to check to see if the methodology in coming to conclusions is correct legally.</p>
<p>I read in the NYT today a comment that says the DUE to the more scientifically based forensics for “proof” now available, the standard for “reasonable doubt” has changed, and juries are looking for more clear cut evidence, less doubt, to convict.</p>
<p>The jury can sometimes take it upon themselves to represent the Defendant so they feel obliged to pick apart every piece of evidence with possibilities, speculation and imagination. Instead, they need to look at the totality of the circumstances and see that there may be only one reasonable conclusion. To me, in this case, everything points to one person and one person only. Everything that needed to be proved was proven and the circumstantial and physical evidence fit nicely. Even though the prosecution didn’t need to prove motive, that is a big piece of the puzzle for me.</p>
<p>Perspectives aside, need to be sure jurors do analyze validity of using which pieces of case and how heavily to come to a “totality” overview.</p>
<p>We said stuff like, “Since I do not find that witness credible about x, I do not believe strongly that>>”</p>
<p>Or, “That piece of evidence is only 50 % reliable as per the expert.”</p>
<p>These comments were important to the overall conclusions each of us made and we were definitely helped by sharing other jurors’ interpretations.</p>
<p>I guess you could go backwards and have each juror list their “initial” opinion about each charge and why, which evidence they relied on and what they did not. After going around the table, then the obvious points of disagreement could be the focus of the rest of the deliberation.</p>
<p>I also think that lengthy sequestration is great for dulling critical thinking.</p>
<p>I agree.</p>
<p>I think it just promotes that “I wan’t to just get home” feeling.</p>
<p>One juror missed a family wedding.</p>
<p>One was leaving on a long-scheduled cruise the day after the verdict (and had been assured that the trial would be over by then by the judge. big mistake!)</p>
<p>I know that when my H or I have to be gone from the home for several weeks for business or family reasons, after awhile, the other spouse is getting antsy for the other to return home because “shared” responsibilities are burdening one spouse. I imagine that the married jury members were getting some antsy communications from their spouses.</p>
<p>Wow, you guys are still at it. :p</p>
<p>I love CC. If it had been a jury of CCers, (not really Casey’s peers, I mean, let’s be honest), we’d still be deliberating. </p>
<p>I just read that one of the jurors has retired from her job and moved out of the state and gone into hiding because she is afraid to go back to her job.</p>
<p>I think armchair jurying has gone too far when that’s the case. They didn’t have the same set of facts the public had from the news. I feel horrible for them.</p>
<p>“I respect the system, but I question how well it works in anything but slam dunk simple cases.”</p>
<p>I think it was a slam dunk simple case. The prosecution simply didn’t have the goods.</p>
<p>This thread has officially come full circle.</p>
<p>did anyone see Alan Dershowitz on TV tonight? </p>
<p>It was amazing listening to him.</p>
<p>He essentially said that he NEVER celebrates an acquital because there is a victim, and he feels like he’s a minister/priest who knows a deep dark secret (about his client’s guilt).</p>
<p>He did say that he felt that Casey should have been convicted of a charge below 1st degree.</p>
<p>And…he also said that she should have been charged and found guilty of a few other charges (including obstruction of justice and other charges) which would have gotten her 15 years at least.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If this is the case then the jury performed as the were supposed to. In the face of doubtful evidence where there is no clear cut answer we are supposed to err on the side of innocence and not guilt.</p>
<p>Some have suggested court appointed “experts” in the jury room, or mandating higher education and ending sequestering. </p>
<p>Having an “expert” will only cause each decision to come under fire because having a court appointed person in the jury room can never be fair. Any appearance that the court can influence verdicts leads to anarchy. Who will trust a court system, that’s already biased, with the power to judge as well? We have the right to a trial by jury specifically to AVOID these sham trials.</p>
<p>Requiring a higher level of education is silly. They have already ruled that a “jury of your peers” does not actually guarantee you a jury of the same gender, race, religion or economic class. If one can mandate an educational status then I demand intelligence tests AND a racial and economic makeup that matches mine. Juries are random for a reason.</p>
<p>Sequestering juries will never end for the main fact that the defendant’s right to be judged on the facts and not by what talking heads say on tv trumps the juries right to go home. Serving on a jury and being sequestered, possibly for years, is the responsibility you take for living here. Does it suck? Not as much as getting convicted because Juror #9 likes Nancy Grace… Does it suck that we can’t expect people to make an informed decision and not be influenced by talking heads? LOLOL Look at some of the arguments here. Every defendant would be found guilty…</p>
<p>mom2collegekids, that is an interesting point about obstruction of justice. It does seem that so much thrust was put into capital murder charges, that it may have been better to charge her with some other things. They already decided she lied to law enforcement (duh). But it does seem that the nature of her lies were an obstruction of justice. Also, what about improper disposal of a body? Isn’t that a crime too? (I also finding it wholly implausible that George disposed of the body in the swamp right near their home given he is a former police officer…way too dumb)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have not attacked you. I directly attacked your argument. "At best it’s speculation. At worst it’s an immature emotional response. " <– That was my argument. This is true for some people here. A quick perusal of the thread will put the truth to my statement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Didn’t you just say not to attack? I said your argument could be an emotional response. You imply that I am immature, lack sufficient age to know better and lack formal education.</p>
<p>Reverting to the I’m older and know better argument is weak. Let’s stick to logic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>THIS is what I was referring to…</p>
<p>We don’t HAVE to prove she is innocent. She is inherently innocent based on our legal system AND society. Anyone that positively asserts that she is guilty for whatever reason bears the burden of proving it. </p>
<p>Does that statement mean she IS innocent. NOOOOOOOOOO… It means that absent some proof she is as good as…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I could quote a whole lot of posts but 1 will suffice…</p>
<p>" To me, in this case, everything points to one person and one person only. Everything that needed to be proved was proven and the circumstantial and physical evidence fit nicely." -Cartera</p>
<p>While I can quote others all I needed was one to negate your assertion… </p>
<p>Are we done here?</p>
<p>STATEMENTS MADE BY XSLACKER:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>RESPONSE BY ME:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>XSLACKER’S RESPONSE:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do believe your statements referred to me as immature, biased, emotional, lacking in English comprehension skills, and as someone who does not adhere to society’s standards. I chose to point this out to you rather than reporting you, which I could have. </p>
<p>I did not say you are immature and don’t know better. If you inferred that, I’m sorry. What I was saying IN CONTEXT, was that by calling me immature and lacking in comprehension, it was a sign of disrespect to someone who is older and actually more educated than you. It doesn’t mean I am more mature than you or have better comprehension or that you lack those traits, but rather that accusing me of immaturity and lacking comprehension skills (your argument), is disrespectful to someone who is older and has attained more education than you. I was merely referring to RESPECT and not facts as to your maturity or how much you know. I didn’t say I know more than you. I was responding to what YOU said and I found your remarks lacking in respect and courtesy, which they are when talking to an elder, not to mention are against CC’s Terms of Service. You threw accusations of immaturity, emotionality, and lack of comprehension into the mix. You should have made your arguments on the topics and not about me as a person. </p>
<p>No need to discuss it any more. I pointed this out to you, rather than reported you but next time, I will handle it differently.</p>
<p>When I wrote:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I should have spoken mostly for myself and not said “none of us,” since I was responding to remarks you were addressing to me (quoting me). I will amend my statement to say “I am not saying” rather than “none of us are saying,” though I believe I am still speaking for a number of people on this thread, but perhaps not all. Please accept this clarification as to my mistake in wording.</p>