Boop His Nose But Be Careful!!
Smiling Tiger Loves When You Donate Monthly
Sponsoring FReepers will contribute $10
For each New Monthly Donor!
Get more bang for your buck
Sign up today
Posted on 07/17/2011 1:14:20 PM PDT by Anti-Hillary
Enough articles have been written criticizing the result of the Casey Anthony case. I am not here to do that. While cases such as this can be polarizing, they can also be instructive. After following the case, here are some things I thought stood out as significant, but perhaps were not so obvious.
CSI Effect
For a long time now, we in the law enforcement professions have noted and at times feared, what has come to be known as the CSI Effect. What is this? The false expectation that, as in the television series, conclusive and irrefutable evidence will always be found at the crime scene. If life were only so.
As many of my colleagues know, rare is the crime scene where there is a lot of incriminating evidence. Unfortunately, criminals don't roll their fingerprints on surfaces leaving perfect prints - usually all we find are smudges. Many criminals know that bleach destroys DNA evidence as does high humidity and swamp-like conditions. Some rapists now carry prophylactics with them or make victims shower before they leave. Nevertheless, jurors, having witnessed hundreds of hours of CSI type shows, fully expect the evidence to be overwhelming when most cases tried today are in fact circumstantial.
Related Articles
O.J. Revisited: Those Who Don't Learn From the Past Are Doomed to Repeat It O.J. Revisited: Will the Casey Anthony Jury Acquit If They Can't Make It Fit? Did Casey Kill Caylee? How Forensic Psychology Can Help Humanize Evil Deeds Jury Gullibility in Orlando Consequential Conversations, Part III
Find a Therapist
Search for a mental health professional near you.
Find Local: Acupuncturists Chiropractors Massage Therapists Dentists and more!
By being over reliant on forensic evidence, jurors erroneously reject other kinds of information which should be considered. For instance, in America, the people who most often hurt children are the parents or care givers; similarly spouses or former relations are usually responsible for adult deaths at home. So we don't have to look far. And in these cases, DNA is not an issue because these individuals have, or have had legitimate access to the victim so, unless they cut themselves while committing the crime, DNA is irrelevant. Also, keep in mind that there are many ways to kill without leaving any kind of DNA evidence, especially where the victim is small or can't resist.
When jurors expect forensic evidence to be decisive we find that they become intellectually lazy. Rather than engage the problem for hours by looking at what they have, it is easier for them to say, "We wanted more." In most cases there is enough there, it just has to be worked intellectually. Justice requires that no stone be left unturned, that jurors analyze every fact assiduously. It is intellectual laziness to say there wasn't enough.
Jury Selection
In most criminal cases in America there is no need for jury consultants. However, there is a reason why they exist and it is primarily to assist the defense pick the jury that will best help the defense, not jurisprudence. I will repeat: that will best help the defense, not jurisprudence. What this means is that jury consultants (mostly hired by the defense) are there to "game" the system in one direction.
What kind of jurors do jury consultants and thus defense attorneys prefer in homicide cases? Perhaps better not to offend by looking instead at who usually doesn't get selected: College graduates especially those with graduate degrees. The more years you were in college the lower the chance a jury consultant wants you for that jury. Firemen are out as are police officers. They prefer to keep Republicans out and members of the NRA. If you own or have owned several successful companies you won't be selected. If you have a job where you manage a lot of people and need to make difficult decisions everyday, they don't want you and the same goes for human resource officers for large firms.
If you read Scientific American, Nature, Science, The Economist, or International Affairs, you need not worry. I could go on and on. One could argue, perhaps they just don't want to burden these already busy folks? Interesting argument - but it is vacuous. For in fact, as you read the qualities of those that defense wants off the jury, we get a sense for the kinds of folks whom they prefer.
One more thing and this is important, jury consultants don't want leaders on that jury. The Casey Anthony case is just such an example. In this case, the jury was selected from Pinellas County, rather than Orange County (where the trial took place), in order to pick a more unbiased jury. Pinellas County arguably has one of the largest concentrations of retired professionals (doctors, lawyers, accountants, military officers) in the country and yet none made the jury.
You never hear of a Captain or a Major or a Colonel (even retirees) serving on a jury where a jury consultant is involved - especially in homicide cases. Here are people accustomed to making command decisions, who know how to think quickly and decisively, but they are weeded out. Why? For the very traits that make them special: they have high situational awareness, they can think and size up individuals quickly, and they know how to lead. Which is why, in the OJ Simpson case, one of the jury voir dire questions was: "Do you seek out positions of leadership? (Please check answer) Always? Often? Seldom? Never?" Incidentally, those who have served as officers most likely also know the distinctive odor of decomposing bodies and how it is different from mere garbage.
Getting back to those they don't like. If you are in a job where you are used to doing high-level cognitive tasks, where decisions require intellectual rigor, they don't want you either. They don't want people who are willing to work hard to connect the dots. Also if you are an independent thinker, no need to worry - people who prefer consensus and harmony will more likely be selected. Obviously no defense attorney or jury consultant is going to get exactly what they want, but they will try. And of course, it only takes on juror to derail a conviction.
It is said that in the Casey Anthony case we should not blame the jurors. I agree - we shouldn't. That is like buying lemmings as pets and then being surprised when they act lemming like. Those jurors were preferred by the defense team for a reason and they performed as expected
Here is what I think happened.
Aliens from the planet Zanny abducted Caylee. The alien Zannies are actually hideous looking creatures but fortunately for them they have advanced cloaking devices that enable them look like heavyset Hispanic women. The crime was commited by Interplanetary Medical Exploration Unit 12B, whose job was to kidnap a small earthing child and poor Caylee happened to fit the requirement. They performed medical studies on her, especially in the area of duct tape and chloroform effects on children, then framed the mother for murder to divert all attention. Nanny Grace works for them.
‘Where’s Casey? New Speculation She’s In Southern California’
How exactly did the prosecutors screw it up?
It’s as good a place as any for her, I guess. I’m just glad I don’t have to have the kind of dreams she must certainly be having. In fact, my submission for best protest would be to have a group of people wearing masks of the picture of Caylee’s skull superimposed over a picture of her, with duct tape over the mouth. Just standing there, no need to say anything. Let her think on that awhile.
They will have to do something about showing this evil woman as people will lose interest in her; so expect more of this murderer.
She’s in a mental facility somewhere I suspect. She can’t afford body guards and police won’t. At least in a facility she will have a degree of protection. In reality it is just another prison for her.....she is not free in the general sense of the word.
Still finding it ironic people are searching for Casey in light of the search for her daughter.
Never thought about that; but certainly a possibility. Who knows; she may have even given Baez guardianship over her.
Baez doesn’t want guardianship over Anthony...no way. Neither does anybody else for that matter. But no, he wouldn’t do that...his job is done.
I know what you are saying; but I see a day that Casey decides he is not her hero; however he may have already thought about that.
Sick of it here too and at the point it’s not worth reply to anymore.
Those who keep claiming the prosecution didn’t prove who committed the murder obviously didn’t watch the trial, didn’t look at a single shred of the overwhelming evidence presented or even listen to Casey Anthony’s own attorney who admitted she was the last person with Caylee. That Baez in so many words admitted Casey put on the duct tape, wrapped her daughter in the Pooh blanket and laundry bag then dumped her body in a swamp must obviously prove innocence (no sarcasm tag needed I hope).
It may be easier for some to form an opinion while ignorant of a subject. That does not mean they are right, knowledgeable or even worth your time.
She won’t cut loose from Baez easily. He is her hero.
Fox reported today tonight that the Anthonys refused to be used as a decoy for Casey’s release. I find that interesting that they were even asked, considering Casey refused her mothers visit after she was found not guilty.
Seems the tit-for-tat among the family continues.
Yep. I bet Casey is thrilled. She is telling her parents to shove it.
IMHO if the death penalty was not on the table they may have gotten a conviction
IMO they just didn't have the stuff, period.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.