Stupid Jurors-Jurors and Casey Anthony, Anthony Case Not Proving Murder, RIP Caylee Anthony
Posted: Sunday, July 10, 2011
by Steve Kovacs
The Kovacs Perspective
I was a cop for over 20 years. I was involved in and saw hundreds of trials from misdemeanors to serious felonies. I have seen and been at the losing side of cases that I knew for a fact, the person was guilty but the jury found innocent. A few times, I was livid with juries who I knew got it completely wrong. There were times I became as angry as many of the observers are now over the Casey Anthony not guilty murder verdict. As most every one knows this is the case where a young mother, Casey, was charged with killing her two-year old daughter, Caylee. Many are saying the jurors were stupid, lacked common sense, and generally were on another planet not in the court room in Florida where this high profile case played out. Many observers cannot believe the jurors saw the same trial they did. They cannot believe they found the mother innocent. I have been there, done that and felt that way myself.
During the reading of the Casey Anthony trial I was in a dental chair getting ready for the dentist to do some minor work on my pearly-whites. It is one of those offices where they have a flat screen TV 18 inches from your face. Well, the dentist and his assistant stopped what they were doing and watched while they started to read the verdict. I quickly blurted out that I'd bet them both that she'd be found not guilty. I told them that I didn't watch the trial very closely and my bet was more of a guess, a roll of the dice, but I had doubts that the prosecution proved their case. When the first verdict for the most serious charge was read as not guilty, I knew the other death related charges would have to be not guilty as well. The prosecution did not prove their case. They simply did not. No manner or cause of death and many other little things that added up to the inability for 12 men and women to make a decision to find her guilty.
Common sense tells us that a mother, like Casey Anthony who apparently did not call authorities for a month when her child "went missing" is up to something weird, illegal or insane. That along with Anthony's lying however, are not legal proof of murder. I will not go through the different points the prosecution or defense brought up as my intent in this article is to talk more in the generalities of trials and juries.
Our legal system is not flawless by any means but the rule of law must be followed. I feel terrible for the beautiful two year-old child dead at such a young age with no finality, truth, or justice for her. My heart prays for her to rest in peace. However, our system works on the fact that the government must make it clear that someone is guilty. Someone being immoral, classless and even very suspicious does not add up to guilt. Our system may have gotten it wrong this time, however, with the facts that were presented the jurors made a reasonable decision. They may have felt in their guts that this mother was guilty but there simply was not enough factual evidence to prove it. Jurors are generally not stupid and they are on target as to coming to the correct legal decisions. A gut feeling is not enough for them. However, there are problems for jurors called the CSI Effect where jurors expect the fantastic technical evidence seen on TV to save the day and have lock-tight solutions in cases. This is largely nonsense. Television programs show unrealistic scientific evidence used much too often. Not that there are not fantastic scientific ways to solve crime, however, they are not always available, or often it simply is not enough to completely solve the case. Prosecutors must work much harder to make it clear to jurors that those fantastic scientific solving of trials seen on flat-screen TVs is not factual.
It is my feeling that most jurors do their best, take their job seriously and do a great job. The burden is on prosecutors and defense attorneys who must do the best for their clients by bring the facts to the table. Jurors will do the right thing given the opportunity.
Common sense tells us that a mother, like Casey Anthony who apparently did not call authorities for a month when her child "went missing" is up to something weird, illegal or insane. That along with Anthony's lying however, are not legal proof of murder. I will not go through the different points the prosecution or defense brought up as my intent in this article is to talk more in the generalities of trials and juries.
Our legal system is not flawless by any means but the rule of law must be followed. I feel terrible for the beautiful two year-old child dead at such a young age with no finality, truth, or justice for her. My heart prays for her to rest in peace. However, our system works on the fact that the government must make it clear that someone is guilty. Someone being immoral, classless and even very suspicious does not add up to guilt. Our system may have gotten it wrong this time, however, with the facts that were presented the jurors made a reasonable decision. They may have felt in their guts that this mother was guilty but there simply was not enough factual evidence to prove it. Jurors are generally not stupid and they are on target as to coming to the correct legal decisions. A gut feeling is not enough for them. However, there are problems for jurors called the CSI Effect where jurors expect the fantastic technical evidence seen on TV to save the day and have lock-tight solutions in cases. This is largely nonsense. Television programs show unrealistic scientific evidence used much too often. Not that there are not fantastic scientific ways to solve crime, however, they are not always available, or often it simply is not enough to completely solve the case. Prosecutors must work much harder to make it clear to jurors that those fantastic scientific solving of trials seen on flat-screen TVs is not factual.
It is my feeling that most jurors do their best, take their job seriously and do a great job. The burden is on prosecutors and defense attorneys who must do the best for their clients by bring the facts to the table. Jurors will do the right thing given the opportunity.
This Article has been viewed 746 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (6 total)Well, I have been following the trial daily and happen to be an individual who was convinced by the prosecution that Casey has a grave amount of guilt in the untimely death of her daughter. Had I been on the jury, I would have voted guilty - manslaughter. There was enough evidence to convict her and the only doubt I had was the possible premeditation aspect although the computer searches showed some intent. There was no accident - accidents are not ever thrown away like trash. This child was thrown out, in bags along with all the other trash at that site. I have no doubt at all that the Casey's parents had no involvement whatsoever. I am not considering Casey's behaviors as why I think she is guilty. In any case, this is a huge travesty, just like OJ and a number of other obvious cases where for some reason or another the purps got off. I hate it. And one thing is for sure, I would never want to get into her head!Hi Old Gray Mare,
I figured that I may get many folks totally disagreeing with me on this. I did not see the entire trial by a long shot however, from what I saw it seemed clear to me that they simply did not prove their case. A famed criminologist with a name I cannot remember or not enough to spell it here just said on TV that with the facts presented the jury did a good job. However, many other people, the vast majority, disagree with him and me. I have seen many cases get the wrong verdict. OJ is a whole other article in its own right and there are many low profile cases that have been screwed up as well.
As for accidents, I disagree with you. They do get thrown in the trash sometimes by human trash as Casey seemed to be. In the total picture, I did not see the entire case and many attorneys will not even venture a guess on a case unless they are in the courtroom every day--so I am on thin ice.
I appreciate your opinion and passion for the truth and the young girl. As for Casey, I would not want to live in the same city as her--she gives me the creeps.
Thanks,
Steve
You wrote a fine piece. I'm creeped out by Casey too and would not want to ever run into her. In her case I might just wish to ask her, "What are you thinking? Why would you not just leave Calee with your mother and play and carry on. Was it necessary to be forever drastic in your solution?" or something else. I simply cannot wrap my head around any of this because the behavior is so foreign to me. My word, I go nuts if my little Pomeranian is a little slow running back into the house after business. Good grief, I'd freak out and I'd make everybody else nuts around me. I'm so fierce about my people and also my animals. I often wonder how people can bear the grief others cause them - I'm thinking about Casey's parents.
Right on, sir. You nailed it. The 'experts' get it wrong so often, it is a wonder the public still buys their shill. Great job!Thanks Mike and great to see you around again. There are tons of experts that aren't. It took me about a million years to figure that out and also that politicians aren't better than the average person...never said I was very bright! Thank you sir....
Steve
I must admit, I thought she would be found guilty, but, I had not kept up with the trial. It seemed that the state of Florida had a better case.
Still, they made a good point, saying that "no one tries to make an accident look like murder." True, but not enough for a conviction.
I know that Caylee is in the presence of Jesus, and that her mother will stand before God for what she has done, as will we all.
Great job, Steve. Not just this article, but for all you do and have done.Hi Ken,
I'm not so sure someone wouldn't try to make a deadly accident look like a murder--I'm not saying it happened here but I can see it happening in some instances--but my mind may be a little twisted!!
I too believe she is somewhere good and her mom or her mom and someone else or whomever was involved has a lot of terrible stuff to answer for or deal with.
You and Teresa have a way of saying the right things at the right times to me--don't know why, but it is true. It's my pleasure to have met both of you and to consider you friends.
Thanks
Steve
Steve: Not many have commented on this, so I must be looking at something ignorantly. However, could the prosecution have sought to go after "abuse" or "negligent manslaughter" or some other more minor crime? Or is it just the nature of these departments to go for the top crime, even if it is a reach? Sorry to ask you. You need not respond, but I just wonder if it were more minor, the jury would have felt bolder about dealing with a weaker set of facts.Hi Chris,
She was charged with lesser chares as well: aggravated manslaughter and aggravated child abuse. She could have been found guilty on those lesser charges instead or in addition but the jury found her not guilty on those too. Some experts feel that charging her with the "big" charge and making it a death penalty case made the jury strive to a higher level before they would convict. That does not make much sense to me because they could have found her guilty on the lesser--non death penalty charges. It was obvious if they could not prove the initial "main charge" to the jury they could not prove the lesser two--but that is just my opinion.Also, it is common for departments to stack more or many charges on top of each other on the defendant. One of the reasons this is done is for plea bargaining capabilities for the prosecution..
Thanks for reading,
Steve
Steve,
This is a good article and I understand your point of view. It saddens me, however, that a child is dead and the mother will be free to 'party on.' One sometimes must question justice.I agree with you 100% And justice simply does not occur quite often by the justice system....now those who believe in a higher power etc....that might be a different thing. Thanks for writing.
Steve
I disagree and I was and still am livid with this jury. You say the state did not prove murder yet:
1) Casey, instead of leading them to her baby who was in a horrible "accident" found it vital to convince the nation Caylee was still alive.
2) Casey sold pictures of the child she knew was dead to the news stations, made 200,000 dollars off it, bragged about it, all the while entreating everyone to find Caylee, because she was alive.
3) Casey was the last person seen with Caylee. The numbers of "coincidences" regarding her car is staggering.
A) Her car smelled like death COINCIDENTALLY RIGHT AROUND THE TIME CAYLEE WENT MISSING.
B) A hair belonging to either Casey or Caylee was COINCIDENTALLY discovered in the trunk, with length relative to Caylee's. It showed no signs of being color-treated or dyed. It had a death band on it. It was consistent with the hairs found on the skull on Suburban, but in a much earlier stage of decomp.
C) Two cadaver dogs COINCIDENTALLY dogs hit on the trunk of Casey's car.
D) Coffin flies were COINCIDENTALLY found in Casey's car.
E) Caylee's baby doll in the front car seat COINCIDENTALLY smelled of death, a pair of Casey's pants in the backseat were stained and smelled of death.
F) Casey snuck home, backed her car into the garage on two separate occasions, buying a shovel. 2 cadaver dogs hit in the backyard.
Going by this evidence, it gives us more than a rough idea of how Caylee's body got in the woods, and it also points to the fact that Casey was the one who disposed of the body and she did it by herself. George was not involved, unless you think he'd fit in that pair of death smelling pants in the back.
If what you're saying is this was a horrible accident, she triple bagged her baby and threw her baby in the woods and went partying, you don't believe any of the lesser charges apply? You don't think that callously dumping your child's body in the woods to be chewed up by animals isn't at the very least child abuse? It's fair to just let her go and give her the possibility of profiting from selling her story?
You believe she sat in the jail with the death penalty hanging over her head instead of telling them the truth and leading them to Caylee's body so they could affirm it? You don't believe there is a reason that she refused to lead them to Caylee's body, you know, WAY BACK WHEN SHE WAS CALLING IT A KIDNAPPING?
Her story was tailored only after the body was found and well after the forensics came in. Before that, isn't it reasonable to consider the fact that the kidnapping was a blanket story because when they found the body, there might be some evidence remaining that would point to murder?
For example, the duct tape found on Caylee's skull and around the remains site. The defense put their spin on things, but it slipped off the bag and ended up at the point where it held her mandible together and there was still a full set of teeth.
Her behavior points to her guilt, but somehow she is special and should get a pass?
The jurors were drooling idiots and they let a monster go.
You seem to know a lot of fine details about the case--more than me. You also put your facts together well and write it out great. Her behavior certainly points to guilt but pointing does not and should not mean guilt. From what I saw, the prosecutors put the case together leaving possibilities for them to be wrong--kind a like throwing facts at the wall hoping something will stick and the defense capitalized on it. She probably is a monster. Did the prosecution prove it? Not to many people and not to the jury. Can an entire jury be idiots and be that blind...yes, and maybe you are right. There's a saying that says something like if 10 guilty people are set free because of the lack of correct evidence presented at trial and only one innocent person is not found unjustly guilty it's okay--it's our system--sucks in a way but has great merit too. Terribly sad for the child....all of it...the child....Thanks for taking the time to put your comments together and commenting.
Steve
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.