O.J. Anthony

[RobVarak]

Hard to get felony murder when you can't prove the underlying felony.

Child abuse. What evidence was there that the child was ever abused? By all accounts, the kid was well cared for (by the family) and there had NEVER been any concerns about her care.

I'm not remotely familiar with all of the facts. I was just pointing out that from the DA's standpoint, there was no freaking way they weren't going to find some way to go capital on this case. Pathologically lying young mother who intentionally misleads the police following the death of her own child? They're going to charge murder 1 for the pro-prosecution jury it brings whenever they can...a move which often backfires but is still a favored tactic of prosecutors.

[Rodster]

IMO she had something to do with the death of her daughter can I prove it NO but she had something to do with it, too much evidence albeit circumstantial. What I also think happened is this verdict was a result of a broken jury system where just wanted to go home and get back to their jobs. Instead of approaching it as she was involved in some way with the death of her daughter, nope she had nothing to do with Caylee winding up in a swamp.

Maybe it's time to have professionals on jurys. If people are made to stay away from their families and make $1.75 I would have said no way I want no part of that and said something to get me kicked off the jury selection.

[fsquid]

Hard to get felony murder when you can't prove the underlying felony.

Child abuse. What evidence was there that the child was ever abused? By all accounts, the kid was well cared for (by the family) and there had NEVER been any concerns about her care.

I'm not remotely familiar with all of the facts. I was just pointing out that from the DA's standpoint, there was no freaking way they weren't going to find some way to go capital on this case. Pathologically lying young mother who intentionally misleads the police following the death of her own child? They're going to charge murder 1 for the pro-prosecution jury it brings whenever they can...a move which often backfires but is still a favored tactic of prosecutors.

Don't forget the media sensation that often catapults a prosecutor's career if the case is won.

[Leebo33]

No common person wants to sit in a jury box and feel responsible for putting a person to death unless they're damn sure that the person did it under the evidence submitted.

This is very true. I was recently in such a position and luckily there was a confession, 911 call from the actor, witnesses to one of the murders, and tons of evidence. Even with all the evidence and no doubt the person murdered 3 people and tried to kill many others I still get a lot of questions about our death sentence and quotes from the murderer's family that I'm going "to have to answer to the man above" for putting him on death row.

[JackB1]

IMO she had something to do with the death of her daughter can I prove it NO but she had something to do with it, too much evidence albeit circumstantial. What I also think happened is this verdict was a result of a broken jury system where just wanted to go home and get back to their jobs. Instead of approaching it as she was involved in some way with the death of her daughter, nope she had nothing to do with Caylee winding up in a swamp.

Maybe it's time to have professionals on jurys. If people are made to stay away from their families and make $1.75 I would have said no way I want no part of that and said something to get me kicked off the jury selection.

I agree. We need to have "experts" making these decisions...not a bunch of dumb@sses from Orlando that base their decisions on religion, gut feeling or physical appearances or because they want to get back home.

[RobVarak]

I agree. We need to have "experts" making these decisions...not a bunch of dumb@sses from Orlando that base their decisions on religion, gut feeling or physical appearances or because they want to get back home.

This sentiment may be the wrongest thing ever stated on this forum...and we've done our best to really say some wrong things.

All this rending of garments over the popular obsession with this case strikes me as sillier than the obsession itself. The history of this country is filled with the public becoming wrapped up in sensational crimes. The media by which this interest is transmitted is contemporary, but the impulse that drives it is as old as the Republic.

Coincidentally, Bill James (the baseball guy) has a new book that examines the history of popular crimes in the US and dissects the media surrounding them as well. Nancy Grace may be a new and unwelcome phenomenon, but she is not without her antecedents.

[RobVarak]

Apropos of James, Grantland features a Chuck Klosterman interview with him today.

An excerpt:

There's a section in Popular Crime where you create a mathematical system that could be used by juries in order to deduce an accused person's guilt, built around a list of criteria. It's basically a weighted point system. The example you use is Lizzie Borden,6 who you feel was not guilty (as least according to this point system). However, two murders were committed that day, and there does not appear to be any potential suspect except Lizzie Borden. She seems to be the only real option. So what do you make of Sherlock Holmes' fictional axiom that states, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"? If there is no other explanation for the Borden murders, what else are we supposed to conclude?

That Sherlock Holmes line is very, very interesting. It's false, and extremely arrogant, and very dangerous. That's not a real way to think about the world. This concept of eliminating the impossible — we could never do that. The whole idea of Sherlock Holmes is dangerous because it encourages people to think that — if they're intelligent enough — they could put all the pieces together in absolute terms. But the human mind is not sophisticated enough to do that. People are not that smart. It's not that Sherlock Holmes would need to be twice as smart as the average person; he'd have to be a billion times as smart as the average person.

[toonarmy]

I find it hard to believe that the jurors made their decision so quickly because the wanted to go home and get on with their lives. They spent all that time listening to the case, so I think they probably wanted to make the best decision they could. The decision was unanimous and quick, therefore it would have taken every juror on that jury to want to get out of Dodge as quick as possible, which is hard to believe. Although I did not follow the case closely due to being disgusted with all of the "experts" obsessing over it, I do have confidence in the jury system, as imperfect as it may be. I guess we will find out more when some of the jury start talking to the media in the future.

[Leebo33]

IMO she had something to do with the death of her daughter can I prove it NO but she had something to do with it, too much evidence albeit circumstantial. What I also think happened is this verdict was a result of a broken jury system where just wanted to go home and get back to their jobs. Instead of approaching it as she was involved in some way with the death of her daughter, nope she had nothing to do with Caylee winding up in a swamp.

Maybe it's time to have professionals on jurys. If people are made to stay away from their families and make $1.75 I would have said no way I want no part of that and said something to get me kicked off the jury selection.

I agree. We need to have "experts" making these decisions...not a bunch of dumb@sses from Orlando that base their decisions on religion, gut feeling or physical appearances or because they want to get back home.

Yeah, nobody in this country has ever lied or did a half-assed job to get out of work early And nobody has ever let religion or other biases enter their professional lives.

I must have had an atypical jury experience. Most people try to lie their way out of it so my jury was filled with "crazy" people like me that feel it is their civic duty and take the responsibility very seriously. Hell, during my voir dire I overheard one of the deputy DAs whisper to the other "he's paying attention." As far as I know all of us got reimbursed by our employers so money wasn't a factor. We had a great jury that wasn't filled with any dumbasses. We had a few engineers, a CPA, A VP at a large corporation, a nurse, head high school football coach, a couple of IT guys, etc.

[XXXIV]

I guess in the national media's eyes, if the murder involves pretty people from the well-to-do suburbs, it merits more attention. This case and the Natalee Holloway case apparently deserve to be national obsessions, while cases like the Anthony Sowell trial going on right now in Cleveland, nobody needs to care about. This guy Sowell is a hundred times the monster that Casey Anthony is. But because he's from the inner city, and his eleven victims (that they know about anyways) were mostly crack whores (literally), the national media doesn't care. Apparently Nancy Grace doesn't have a problem with him, he wouldn't do much for her ratings.

They sure do seem to value one life over countless others based on one and only one criteria... Ratings.

I'm still waiting on Al Sharpton and Nancy Grace to apologize to the Duke lacrosse players.

Welcome my friends. Welcome to Fantasy Island.

[toonarmy]

IMO she had something to do with the death of her daughter can I prove it NO but she had something to do with it, too much evidence albeit circumstantial. What I also think happened is this verdict was a result of a broken jury system where just wanted to go home and get back to their jobs. Instead of approaching it as she was involved in some way with the death of her daughter, nope she had nothing to do with Caylee winding up in a swamp.

Maybe it's time to have professionals on jurys. If people are made to stay away from their families and make $1.75 I would have said no way I want no part of that and said something to get me kicked off the jury selection.

I agree. We need to have "experts" making these decisions...not a bunch of dumb@sses from Orlando that base their decisions on religion, gut feeling or physical appearances or because they want to get back home.

Yeah, nobody in this country has ever lied or did a half-assed job to get out of work early And nobody has ever let religion or other biases enter their professional lives.

I must have had an atypical jury experience. Most people try to lie their way out of it so my jury was filled with "crazy" people like me that feel it is their civic duty and take the responsibility very seriously. Hell, during my voir dire I overheard one of the deputy DAs whisper to the other "he's paying attention." As far as I know all of us got reimbursed by our employers so money wasn't a factor. We had a great jury that wasn't filled with any dumbasses. We had a few engineers, a CPA, A VP at a large corporation, a nurse, head high school football coach, a couple of IT guys, etc.

I've never served on a jury, but have had plenty of family, friends, and coworkers serve. The common thread is that every single one of them, while not being thrilled about being called into jury duty, took it very seriously and wanted to do the best job possible. Professional "expert" juries completely defeat the purpose of a jury of "peers."

[XXXIV]

Yeah, nobody in this country has ever lied or did a half-assed job to get out of work early And nobody has ever let religion or other biases enter their professional lives.

I must have had an atypical jury experience. Most people try to lie their way out of it so my jury was filled with "crazy" people like me that feel it is their civic duty and take the responsibility very seriously. Hell, during my voir dire I overheard one of the deputy DAs whisper to the other "he's paying attention." As far as I know all of us got reimbursed by our employers so money wasn't a factor. We had a great jury that wasn't filled with any dumbasses. We had a few engineers, a CPA, A VP at a large corporation, a nurse, head high school football coach, a couple of IT guys, etc.

I've never served on a jury, but have had plenty of family, friends, and coworkers serve. The common thread is that every single one of them, while not being thrilled about being called into jury duty, took it very seriously and wanted to do the best job possible. Professional "expert" juries completely defeat the purpose of a jury of "peers."

I agree here. While plenty would be leap for me, I have known a handful (now including Leebo) of people and they were not dumbasses. Though Im sure some get in their once in a while. Just the odds.

Also agree that pro jurors would defeat the purpose of a jury of your peers.

[Rodster]

I've never served on a jury, but have had plenty of family, friends, and coworkers serve. The common thread is that every single one of them, while not being thrilled about being called into jury duty, took it very seriously and wanted to do the best job possible. Professional "expert" juries completely defeat the purpose of a jury of "peers."

I gotta disagree Toon. There was a lot of evidence to at least have a lesser charge go against her. The verdict came in too fast for anyone to rightfully say she was guiltless of everything that happened to her daughter. That's the trouble I have with this case.

That leads me to believe these jurors just wanted it over ASAP and to get back home to their lives and start earning some real money and not send someone to death row. What does bother me about these current high profile cases and IIRC it started back with Orenthal Simpson is the publicity along with the book and movie deals for the defendants and jurors. It's like their version of the Super Bowl for those cats.

[toonarmy]

I've never served on a jury, but have had plenty of family, friends, and coworkers serve. The common thread is that every single one of them, while not being thrilled about being called into jury duty, took it very seriously and wanted to do the best job possible. Professional "expert" juries completely defeat the purpose of a jury of "peers."

I gotta disagree Toon. Even if she was innocent there was a lot of evidence to at least have a lesser charge go against her. The verdict came in too fast for anyone to rightfully say she was guiltless of everything that happened to her daughter.

That leads me to believe these jurors just wanted it over ASAP and to get back home to their lives and start earning some real money and not send someone to death row. What does bother me about these current high profile cases and IIRC it started back with Orenthal Simpson is the publicity along with the book and movie deals for the defendants and jurors. It's like their version of the Super Bowl for those cats.

How long before we see her in Playboy?

[greggsand]

I was on a jury a few years back, and was shocked at how unprofessional it felt when we would deliberate. It was a drug dealing case. The cops bought drugs from this lady in her apartment for 3 straight weeks, and one juror kept saying "something doesn't feel right" - like she watched too much CSI or something. We finally got a guilty verdict, but it wasn't without basically bullying the 'csi lady' to give it up.

I was shocked at how this obviously guilty dealer nearly walked. When I told a friend of mine, who is also a newspaper reporter, about it all - he said "oh yeah, if you're guilty, DEMAND a jury trial. It only takes one idiot..."

[JackB1]

Yeah, nobody in this country has ever lied or did a half-assed job to get out of work early And nobody has ever let religion or other biases enter their professional lives.

I must have had an atypical jury experience. Most people try to lie their way out of it so my jury was filled with "crazy" people like me that feel it is their civic duty and take the responsibility very seriously. Hell, during my voir dire I overheard one of the deputy DAs whisper to the other "he's paying attention." As far as I know all of us got reimbursed by our employers so money wasn't a factor. We had a great jury that wasn't filled with any dumbasses. We had a few engineers, a CPA, A VP at a large corporation, a nurse, head high school football coach, a couple of IT guys, etc.

I've never served on a jury, but have had plenty of family, friends, and coworkers serve. The common thread is that every single one of them, while not being thrilled about being called into jury duty, took it very seriously and wanted to do the best job possible. Professional "expert" juries completely defeat the purpose of a jury of "peers."

I agree here. While plenty would be leap for me, I have known a handful (now including Leebo) of people and they were not dumbasses. Though Im sure some get in their once in a while. Just the odds.

Also agree that pro jurors would defeat the purpose of a jury of your peers.

The whole concept of a "jury of your peers" makes no sense when you think about it. A bunch on common people such as myself making decisions of such paramount importance without any expertise in law or justice? It's kind of like the judges panel at the Miss USA contest

[Rodster]

I've never served on a jury, but have had plenty of family, friends, and coworkers serve. The common thread is that every single one of them, while not being thrilled about being called into jury duty, took it very seriously and wanted to do the best job possible. Professional "expert" juries completely defeat the purpose of a jury of "peers."

I gotta disagree Toon. Even if she was innocent there was a lot of evidence to at least have a lesser charge go against her. The verdict came in too fast for anyone to rightfully say she was guiltless of everything that happened to her daughter.

That leads me to believe these jurors just wanted it over ASAP and to get back home to their lives and start earning some real money and not send someone to death row. What does bother me about these current high profile cases and IIRC it started back with Orenthal Simpson is the publicity along with the book and movie deals for the defendants and jurors. It's like their version of the Super Bowl for those cats.

How long before we see her in Playboy?

I was reading a headline this morning that says OJ Anthony stands to get rich off this case. The only good thing about that is seeing Nancy Disgrace losing it over the thought of that happening.

[JackB1]

I was on a jury a few years back, and was shocked at how unprofessional it felt when we would deliberate. It was a drug dealing case. The cops bought drugs from this lady in her apartment for 3 straight weeks, and one juror kept saying "something doesn't feel right" - like she watched too much CSI or something. We finally got a guilty verdict, but it wasn't without basically bullying the 'csi lady' to give it up.

I was shocked at how this obviously guilty dealer nearly walked. When I told a friend of mine, who is also a newspaper reporter, about it all - he said "oh yeah, if you're guilty, DEMAND a jury trial. It only takes one idiot..."

^^^^

Exactly my point.

[Rodster]

The whole concept of a "jury of your peers" makes no sense when you think about it. A bunch on common people such as myself making decisions of such paramount importance without any expertise in law or justice? It's kind of like the judges panel at the Miss USA contest

OMG hell hath frozen over. Stop the presses I agree with Jack.

[XXXIV]

The whole concept of a "jury of your peers" makes no sense when you think about it. A bunch on common people such as myself making decisions of such paramount importance without any expertise in law or justice? It's kind of like the judges panel at the Miss USA contest

Now that is an interesting analogy.

[XXXIV]

The whole concept of a "jury of your peers" makes no sense when you think about it. A bunch on common people such as myself making decisions of such paramount importance without any expertise in law or justice? It's kind of like the judges panel at the Miss USA contest

OMG hell hath frozen over. Stop the presses I agree with Jack.

Not technically correct as he agreed with you first...but...yeah...you are in agreement.

[Lancer]

I too didn't know of this case until this post. I thought it was about Carmelo's brother.

I was on a jury long time ago in a different state and it was very interesting. I was amazed how there were some in the jury who merely based everything on emotion. 'Well look at him, he had to do it, he's guilty', or 'I don't like the way he looks at the defendent's family'. I was one of the jurors who had to keep reminding them that let's base our conclusions on hard evidence and facts represented not on emotion. One juror had it out for me since I was perceived as a snob only because I kept going back to the hard evidence and facts card. A few eventually teamed up and convinced the court to kick me off which they did.

I don't know the outcome of the case, but when I was involved I felt really proud and energetic because of contributing to our system. I can only compare the feeling to the first time I voted. But it quickly turned into s*** based on the experience I described above and I really would be discouraged to rejoin a jury again.

I always get out of jury duty if I get selected far by stating I cannot convict anyone of murder even if the evidence is overwhelming. The judge usually takes that and lets me go.

[JackB1]

The whole concept of a "jury of your peers" makes no sense when you think about it. A bunch on common people such as myself making decisions of such paramount importance without any expertise in law or justice? It's kind of like the judges panel at the Miss USA contest

OMG hell hath frozen over. Stop the presses I agree with Jack.

I'm sure we have agreed on other things in the past

For example...I'm sure you agree with me on these:
-food poisoning blows
-sleeping late rules
-getting stuck in an elevator with Minka Kelly wouldn't suck

[Naples39]

Well technically jurors don't need any knowledge of the law because they are merely supposed to evaluate the evidence presented at trial and make a finding of fact. Supposedly.

I'm just wondering who would be these "professional" fact finders? Avid mystery novel readers? Or maybe we can just chuck that role altogether and have a government official or judge be an inquisitor and pass judgment themselves?

Any other constitutional rights to throw out while we are it?

Seems that this case was so obvious that, after listening to Nancy Grace and maybe the ladies of the View talking about it, we should have just have had an internet poll about her guilt and skipped the trial.

[Brando70]

Well technically jurors don't need any knowledge of the law because they are merely supposed to evaluate the evidence presented at trial and make a finding of fact. Supposedly.

I'm just wondering who would be these "professional" fact finders? Avid mystery novel readers? Or maybe we can just chuck that role altogether and have a government official or judge be an inquisitor and pass judgment themselves?

Any other constitutional rights to throw out while we are it?

Seems that this case was so obvious that, after listening to Nancy Grace and maybe the ladies of the View talking about it, we should have just have had an internet poll about her guilt and skipped the trial.

No kidding. It's a murder case where they prosecution couldn't determine the cause of death and could not present any evidence of Anthony harming her child. Anthony certainly acted very suspiciously and she may very well have killed her daughter, but you can't convict someone because they seem guilty.

And Naples is right about professional juries. You may as well not have them at all, just a judge or judges instead.

The OJ comparison also doesn't match at all other than another murderer may have gone free. That case was as much about money, celebrity, race, and the LAPD as it was about the victims, if not more.