Incompetence

I must say that, to my mind, there still existed SOME reasonable doubt as to whether she actually DID the killing or was merely AWARE of the death. I'm positive she at least knew. The reason I say this is, it's entirely possible that this habitual liar orchestrated this whole thing to cover up the accidental death (through her own neglect) of her child.

It's also possible that some as-yet-unknown third party did the killing and she was merely attempting to save them from involvement. Whatever the case, I don't think it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that she did the actual act, however heinous the other things she did after her child's death were.

And for THOSE things, which are unquestionably wrong, she should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, even if it means re-writing the law to make up a punishment fit for her case.

yeah i couldnt watch or i would have gotten too emotionally invested.

I saw one of the jurors (Ms. Ford) on TV last night after I had alredy posted mycolumn, and it only confirmed my opinion that this was a collection of unusually dumb jurors. Ms. Ford's whole mantra was that cause of death was unknown. Plus she thought the cloroform evience was conflicting (which I don't think it was). Apparently, probabilistic reasoning does not cut it for her. As for her 15 minutes of fame, I think she made a foolish decision to go public, as she will be forever villified for her participation on that jury.

I also drank the wine, knowing that I shouldn't. I get tired of hearing the whole system worked, because those of all that feel otherwise are entitled to feel anger. This jury even by their own statements are not happy with the outcome. I thought that the prosecution, in most pre-trial jury procedures, are allowed to get rid of certain people did Judge Perry not allow any of this? In this day and age, some people, depend on the tv to do their thinking for them which I think was evident among the jury and the even less intelligent alternates. I think the prosecutor was clear that they would have to use common sense this would connected it all. I live in FL and I know how brutal the heat is. I left a pair of shoes in my trunk for few weeks the heat was bad that the souls came apart from the rest of the shoes. After that I don't leave anything in my car unless I know it may get ruined. The whole point of all of that, is that Casey knew what the heat would do she isn't stupid, she also got lucky with all the rain it all worked in her favor.

I think Casey is more lucky than smart. How long do you think it will be before she is in trouble again? Juror number 3 is neither smart nor lcky (she will be forever vilified by her decision to have her 15 minutes of fame) Steve Greenspan

I do think Casey is certainly lucky, but I do think she intelligent. The depth and thoughtfulness that she put it into her lies, its kinda frightening. I can't decide if Casey will attempt to lay low or just have a field day with the media? I do think it will have to do with a man. If a man leaves her that will be it, she has always left them. I agree with you on Juror 3 she was neither lucky or smart, that was evident by her interviews. The alternates really bugged me, they don't even matter because they weren't there for deliberations yet they are trying to take credit for something like they were. I was on another website and posted that perhaps the jurors did this for money, this is a common feeling among many people, I was actually told by someone I must not have any ethics.

Sir,

As a Trial/Jury Consultant who works nationwide (including death penalty cases), let me first explain a key point you seem to not understand. Jury's are "de-selected" not "selected". I help identify those who are the WORST jurors, not the best. We can only remove bad jurors with peremptory and cause strikes, not choose the jurors we want. Those who we deem as "bad jurors" are those who will already be biased towards the other side's case.

I believe this verdict was the result of the prosecution’s desire for a death-qualified jury (typically a huge advantage in these cases). This required them to tell a ridiculous and difficult to prove story of premeditation that raised as many questions as the defense. I have watched thousands of hours of Mock Jury deliberations nationwide (many of which were high profile cases) where jurors wanted to find one way, but the attorney's poor narrative or overreaching charges created reasonable doubt.

What is more frightening is the fact that the prosecution (and judge) have set terrible precedents for the admission of “junk science” in future trials. I have written a blog about it at http://www.jurylaw.typepad.com . Several commenters viewed this as an endorsement of the Anthony defense, which it was not.

As juror #3 so aptly put it (paraphrase): We did not find her innocent, we found her not guilty.

You make some good points. Obviousy a consultant or lawyer is limited in how much they can influence how a jury is selected. But you do not address my central point, which is that in a trial like Anthony's, a dumb jury is better for the defense than a smart jury. I took that from Kressel and Kressel (who are expert jury consultnts, which I am not), so if you disagree, take it up with them. I watched a great deal of the trial, and also testify in a lot of trials (around competence issues). I think I know junk science whern I see it, and I disaree with your assertion that the state's science was junk. Cutting edge maybe, but hardly junk. Whatever the limits of what jury cnsutants can do (and I assume you would agree they can do a lot to affect the outcome of a trial), I am a little bothered by the amorality of what they do, not to mention the amorlity of what a lawyer like Baez does. It may be our system, but excuse me if I assert that it does not always work as well as you seem to think it does.

It strikes me that those who know the least about this case are most sure that she is guilty. I have found in jury research that it is often the most intelligent jurors that analyze the facts and avoid making decisions based on emotion and internal desires.

Regarding your assertion of "cutting edge" science, this is not the standard that is utilized in our justice system. The issue is the reliability of the science. The polygraph (lie detector) has been around for 70 years, but is still generally inadmissable because of its inconsistency.

As to the "amorality" of my profession, I am happy that our justice system is operated through laws (not morals). I would hate to have to live under a system that is decided by some individual or groups "morality."

We have seen the hazards of "moral" justice systems through feudalism (land owner morality), monarchy (the king's morality), fascism (the dictator's morality) and mob justice (the witchhunter/lynch mob's morality). Our system works better, as evidence by the number of countries turning to the jury system in criminal matters because of judicial corruption.

Thanks for the lively debate.

I too am enjoying the debate but think maybe we should move on after this. It is not intelligent jurors who get hung up in (imaginary) reasonable dubt but intellgent jurors who are also highly OCD, like the foreman who hung the first Spector jury and the foreman who held up the Scott Peterson jury until the judge kicked him off. They both kept notebook after notebook and got so cught up in the details they lost sight of the big pcture. As in Gladwell's BLINK, it is often one fact that enables you to see the truth in a situation and looking at every fact results in parlysis. In the case of Scott Peterson it was the fact he went fishing (and he was not a fisherman) on Christmas Day in a cold rainstorm in the Berkely marina one mile from where Lacey's body washed up. Bada Bing. Everythig ese is noise. Ditto in the Casey trial, athough I agree seeking death was a mistake. True intelligence is not just divergent thinking but ultimately convergent thinking. There are many intellignt people who lack common sense.

I too am enjoying the debate but think maybe we should move on after this. It is not intelligent jurors who get hung up in (imaginary) reasonable dubt but intellgent jurors who are also highly OCD, like the foreman who hung the first Spector jury and the foreman who held up the Scott Peterson jury until the judge kicked him off. They both kept notebook after notebook and got so cught up in the details they lost sight of the big pcture. As in Gladwell's BLINK, it is often one fact that enables you to see the truth in a situation and looking at every fact results in parlysis. In the case of Scott Peterson it was the fact he went fishing (and he was not a fisherman) on Christmas Day in a cold rainstorm in the Berkely marina one mile from where Lacey's body washed up. Bada Bing. Everythig ese is noise. Ditto in the Casey trial, athough I agree seeking death was a mistake. True intelligence is not just divergent thinking but ultimately convergent thinking. There are many intellignt people who lack common sense.

So here's a populist article by an author who seems so self-absorbed that I don't imagine he's inclined to read any comments that are anything but stock full of praise. So, assuming as I do that this guy with the matchbook PhD won't bother reading this and that I'm writing to others, I mean to point out only one thing: what rational reason is there for attributing the decision in Casey Anthony to manipulation by a mad scientist jury consultant rather than to a simple lack of evidence? The prosecution was supposedly helpless during jury selection and that's the reason they failed? Is the reader supposed to assume that they actually put together a meritorious case against Anthony that they would have been able to present to any rational jury and gotten a guilty verdict? That they were competent trial attorneys when it came to compiling and presenting evidence but idiots when it came to selecting a jury? Seriously? Was some kind of mass hypnosis supposedly involved? Maybe voodoo?

The attack against Gabriel is absurd enough (I know the man and have never known him to be of anything but the highest moral integrity) but to then smack around an entire county? By moving the venire, that "meant seating jurors remarkably lacking in intellectual curiousity"? Please.

I understand there are a lot of people who disagree with the verdict. Mostly, these seem to be people who wish this was over and that they had some finality - it is frustrating not to know what happened and many people want to think they do - and I don't blame anyone that kind of sentiment. But I am not so gullible as to buy into Greenspan's garbage. For those who have been looking for someone to call "ignorant elite," there is some good news in this article anyway. They have a candidate for such a moniker in this joker. Crap science, indeed.

Dear Mr. Donner:

I read you comments.I have no intenion of exchanging insults with someone so given to ad hominem and intemperate attacks. My opinion may have been strongly stated but I do not think I crossed over the line.You obvously have. I will leave it to others to say whether my credentials are matchbook or not

What we need to do is improve on the court system then. By taking a IQ test and having a least a 90 on it would do a lot when picking a jury. The one seated on the Casey trial was a good example of stupid. They were just smart enough that if casey had video taped her murdering her child they might have believed her guilty, like they had her lying to police. Some people cant think unless they see it, they are just to stupid.

90 is pretty low for dealing with and weighing complexity. PhD maybe? (especilly earned, not matchbook kind)

Because this is psychology today then I want to say Casy Anthony is a female sociopath.Also I think some people are so mad about the not guilty verdict is because she is guilty and guilty of the worst kind of crime there is and there is more evidence than in most crimes where people are convicted.For me its not just about justice for Caylee but justice for everyone.People are in jail on a lot less crime and evidence so where is the justice for them. Let them all out then, because if casey cant be found guilty of murder then I think anyone should be convicted of anything.Just think how much money will be saved, no court, police,or jail. And then I, everyone in jail ,the jury and casey can get justice too.

"Because this is psychology today then I want to say Casy Anthony is a female sociopath". Gee thanks for that Mr. Armchair analyst.

The author of this is just a victim of the media circus surrounding this case. If she couldn't be proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and an American court with its ridiculously high conviction rates found her not guilty, then she shouldn't be convicted. If the standing jury were stupid, as you so boldly claim, then they would have appealed to their emotions and the fact that 90% of the media was convinced of her guilt, as were you.

OJ wasn't convicted because the prosecution didn't want him convicted, because it would have spurred more riots in LA.

I am no victim to anything or anyone. I did watch the whole trial thanks to DVR and I do watch and read about killers and also victims of crime. I have seen lots of trials and read hundreds of true crime books. Also psychology. I have a brain that works well and I do think for myself. She could have been convicted and proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt just not beyond any doubt. The jury did convict her for lying to police because there was a video and there was NO DOUBT that she was guilty of lying. They could have convicted her on murder because the law does not say no doubt...It says reasonable doubt. Any reasonable minded person would conclued that she was guilty without any REASONABLE DOUBT. I guess some people might conclued that a martian could have came down and took caylee up in their space ship, did accidently drowned her, then brought her down close to her home in a swamp, put her in a trash bag, forget to take off the duck tape, and leave. Martians dont know too call 911 if its an accident so that has to be what happened. To the person who responded to me, Thanks for responding and she was not convicted and she was found not guilty of murder. My earlier statement really wanted to say that there is not really any justice for anyone or maybe I mean fairness. When the jury came back not guilty on this case, for lots of people it means that the system was not fair to them. Which when I think of it, its just comes down to is what people do affect us all in one way or the other, but we notice more when its the wrong thing. That is why i think the not guilty verdict has affected so many people. They say justice for caylee but I think they mean fairness for themselves, everyone, and caylee. The world is not fair but normal people still seek it for themselves and others.

I have watched the trial pretty much from start to finish. They refuse to convict Casey Anthony based on "speculation" and "emotion", but they aquitted her based on their speculation and gut feeling that it could have been an accident, that George COULD have covered it up. That it COULD have been an accident. Sure, and it COULD have been aliens abducting Caylee too. But that is not reasonable. The judge instructed them that Baez's opening statements were not facts, he never substaniated a drowning accident.

Where is the evidence that this was an accicent? Did the baby jump in the bag, wrap her head in duct tape and throw herself in the woods by herself? Did she ask her mommy to lie about where she was and go dancing instead? I'm not trying to be inflammatory but what did these jurors expect- a youtube video of Casey murdering her daughter...

My biggest thought about the jury is, since they all clearly think she is culpable to some degree and have all reiterated the statement "she is not innocent", why were they not able to make the connections in the circumstancial evidence that juries in the past, before CSI science, have been making for decades? I'm no medical professional so pardon my french, but why did they lack the critical thinking and balls to convict and stand by it? Why do they seem to revel / be almost defiant when speaking of their opinion/verdict? Is this groupthink? This woman is a nurse?

Very well said. Definitely, that case was won in jury selection. When you hear them interviewed, it's scary how they all repeat defense talking points and COMPLETELY ignored anything presented by the Prosecution. Assuming nothing sinister occurred, you can hear from these people that they weren't the brightest bulbs in the tanning parlor, and the defense picked them brilliantly. When you statistically look at how the majority of people everywhere feel she was guilty of something (to lesser or greater extent), you see how staggering it was that they loaded this jury with dodos. The math doesn't add up given that every one of the jurors bought the story of the defense. But, buy it they did. Also, the charts and presentation that was long on emotion was perfect for this jury that wanted their food pureed in the blender down to baby food. So sad.

Thanks, Missy. I am glad you found my anaysis useful. I have stopped following the trial aftermath (partly because I am in Europe at the moment, and Casey Anthony seems to be unknown on the other side of the Atlantic) but it does not surprise me to learn that juror number 3 was not the only juror who failed to undestand that a probability anaysis can provide the most powerful evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Three days before the jury starting deliberating my husband said this is a bad jury, I didn't want to hear it but he looked at their backgrounds. Several had dui's, worthless check charges (Juror 3) one women's husband had been in prison. One of the jurors grandsons were in jail etc. etc. not exactly stellar members of the community. The alternate had been arrested for dui as well. Anyhow as this article says...stupid jurors. She lucked out. They were not pro-prosecution types. The worst of Pinellas County as far as I'm concerned.