lf2

Why the jury did what it did and why we recoil from Casey Anthony

This excellent analysis was written by a former FBI agent. Read The not so obvious lessons from the Casey Anthony Trial on PsychologyToday.com.



Comment on this article

44 Comments on "Why the jury did what it did and why we recoil from Casey Anthony"

Notify of

Excellent article…..yep, the defense doesn’t want anyone with an IQ bigger than their shoe size on the jury. In the case of Casey Anthony, frankly I think they succeeded in keeping the jury confined to the “thinking impaired.”

Great article. The jurors I heard quoted or saw speaking out said signing the not guilty verdict made them feel sick to their stomach. At some point everyone has a visceral reaction to psychopathy, and that reaction is described in this article. Too bad the jurors didn’t trust their guts.

I wish more had used the trial to educate the public about psychopathy/sociopathy. And that grief expert did a real disservice to justice. As a teacher, I’ve seen young adults laugh and make fun of the death of a close friend. But it is not continuous. They also break down and grieve with tears too, and certainly could not have maintained a false face under police interrogation.

I’m not so concerned about what happens to Casey, as we know that psychopaths think they’ve won no matter what. She is nothing, and we can’t bring her daughter back. But I am concerned that the I hear few cries for jury selection reform and little education about psychopaths.

After reading this article I see where the defense carefully selected jurors without conscience or empathy – go figure – spaths are a dime a dozen I guess…

Hens, I don’t think those jurors were spaths, I just think they were GULLIBLE DUPES, STOOPID to the max and willing to be led like “sheeple” by the fast talking defense team.

Spaths need their minions. Did think Anthony’s attorney was so slick he was slimey… spathy? When I watched his antics on tv, I sure came away with that dread feeling in my stomach. He chose that jury like my spath husband chooses his minions.

🙂 @ KatyDid: ‘minions’. Yah, that’s what it sure seems like; hm?

Hi all. It’s been awhile since I logged on.

I happened to see the article and think the author makes a lot of valid points. One point that gets overlooked in all the non-stop yapping about this case is that we have to remember that what we hear courtesy of the likes of idiots llike Nancy Grace and what the jury, which was sequestered hears, which is limited to what is presented in court, are two entirely different sets of information.

Do I agree with the jury’s verdict? I’ve thought about this case, since, as some of the old-timers on this site know, I used to be a criminal defense attorney and now play for the other team. Part of the problem for the jurors is that this is what is called a “dry bones” case. And, as the author of the article points out, jurors are conditioned to expecting a CSI type ending in which everything is all tied together. And he is also right in that while everybody is called to jury duty, the attorneys will use their preemptions to get the jury that they want – translation – those that use the space between their ears as more than a resting place for their nose need not apply. That said, I still find it extremely difficult how those jurors could find a way to explain away the duct tape with Ms. Anthony’s fingerprints on it on the victim’s skull. How they couldn’t at least find their way to manslaughter escapes me.

Maybe it goes beyond the CSI syndrome. I really think we have gotten more stupid as a people. When I heard those people outside the courthouse after the verdict shouting “Appeal! Appeal” all I kept thinking was “are you all that stupid that you don’t know that you can’t appeal an acquittal?” Maybe we need to go back to the basics – starting with civics classes where everybody at least learns the basics on how our three branches of government work. And maybe requiring us to go back to the balanced reporting rules. I think the only publication out there that still presents balanced reporting is “The Christian Science Monitor.” And while we’re at it, maybe we should require everybody to take a logic class so they could learn some cognitive skills and learn to think again instead of sitting back passively waiting for everything to be spoon fed to them.

After seeing the fiascos of Casey Anthony and Dominique Strauss Kahn, I am more and more coming down on the side of things being done the way the way they are in Europe – you have a presumption of innocence right up to the trial. So, names aren’t splashed about the press, there are no perp walks, there are no yammering talking heads like Nancy Grace all over the airways. Instead, justice proceeds quietly and after the conviction then the prosecutors get to trot the guilty’s scalp out before the cameras.

Yes, we have a right to know. But, do we really need to know these idiot commentators opinions nonstop 24/7? I remember someone who was once wrongly accused and smeared in the press before the judge threw out the case saying “Where do I go to get my reputation back?” In my book, taking away a person’s liberty takes precedence over our “right to know” – especially when that right to know comes from the likes of Nancy Grace.

But, I guess I dream of an ideal world – kind of like that world where there are no sociopaths like Ms. Anthony.

Hello Matt – I was wondering what your opinion would be about this trial..I do agree with you about Nancy Grace – talk about beating a dead horse…good to read you, hope all is good with you…

Hens:

Things are going okay. At the moment I’m still recovering from surgery I had 3 weeks ago. I can truthfully say that I will kill myself if I ever have to go into a nursing home for one reason — pureed food. In the future, if I can’t identify what’s on my plate, it has no business going past my lips.

I read on another post of yours about wondering if your S-ex is dead or alive. Hand to God, I actually log onto legacy.com periodically and put his name in -it pulls up stuff nationwide. A friend of S-ex’s who became a friend of mine told me that he is over 300 pounds and he didn’t even recognize him the last time he saw S-ex. Amazing that when I met S-ex 4 years ago tonight, he actually looked cute and very trim (like 130 pounds) courtesy of 10 months on the iron-bar diet. But, I still keep checking legacy.com – but, then again, I’m an eternal optimist.

Best wishes with your recovery. My son just had hernia surgery and I have been helping him out as much as I can.. He is still in alot of pain.
I could find out if the X is still alive if I wanted to, I dont need to know cause dead or alive he is history.

Dear Matt,

GREAT TAKE on the lack of knowledge of civics and our constitution among our citizens….AND on the quality of our jurors that get picked now days. Sheesh! It makes ones hair stand on end.

Agree 100 percent about Nancy Grace…that woman is horrible! Makes me grind my teeth.

Well, get well soon….and put more of those bad guys away for us!

Speaking of Casey Anthony: did you see where the Florida judge ordered her back to Orlando w/i 3 days for check fraud?

It’s on CNN. I’m having browser difficulties or would post link. [going to reboot]

Hey, that would be GREAT if she went to jail for check fraud or anything else they can find on her and I do NOT doubt she has some fraud-type stuff floating out there.

Yea, well, she may get off on a “technical” item of whether or not she “served” her probation while she was awaiting trial or not…my P son got out of a probation being revoked because the State of Florida didn’t come get him soon enough….they only had 180 days while he was serving the 2 years of a 5 year sentence for a home invasion in Texas, and they waited too long and so they were not able to take him back to Florida when he was released by Texas….

All this “getting off” on technical aspects frustrates me, but I guess there must be some “rules”—I just wish some of the rules would defend the RIGHTS of the victims, not just the perps.

Frustrating.

Ox: “I just wish some of the rules would defend the RIGHTS of the victims, not just the perps.”

HEAR, HEAR!

TB
I don’t know who put up the link to Berkowitz but I read the story. IN the news report, one of the mass murderers FANS is the Houston Director of the MAJOR CRIME VICTIMS OFFICE. Now with his mindset, how much justice can those in Houston expect. Any surprise they have THOUSANDS in backlogged rape evidence files?

The perps have it made. Justice is RARE.

KatyDid: wow! Things are scary now!

This is an excellent analysis by Joe Navarro of the problems leading to the Casey Anthony verdict. As Matt pointed out too, the fact that our best and brightest citizens are systematically excluded from serving on juries is a serious problem with widespread consequences going far beyond this case alone. It can be especially difficult when the facts of a case themselves are inherently complex—for instance when they involve the cunning financial manipulations of some swindler who embezzles vast amounts of money. Cases of that kind involving large sums of money are often also the very kind where wily and well-heeled defendants can afford not only to put up the best legal defense, but also to force selection of a jury that’s least likely to understand just what tricks they were pulling.

One point about Casey Anthony: I’m not altogether sure just how large this “CSI Effect” is. Is it in fact becoming a systemic problem in criminal trials today, or was it a failing more specific to this trial? To put this more clearly, was there a failure on the part of the Casey Anthony prosecution, or of the judge when instructing the jury, to stress that they were fully entitled to decide the case on circumstantial evidence alone, provided that it was compelling enough? I didn’t follow the details of the trial at the time, so I’m unable to offer an opinion on that, but it is a question worth asking.

P.S. I can’t stand Nancy Grace’s manner either. There’s something about her that makes me want to pour a bucket of water over her and watch her melt into a little puddle on the floor.

The article by Joe Navarro was interesting and informative. Apparently, he has written some books of his own, listed at the end of the article. I plan to read some of his books.

Redwald: EXCELLENT post!!!!!! [regarding jury and Anthony trial]

Casey Anthony said this week that, “Obviously, I didn’t kill my daughter.”

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/47796208/ns/today-today_news/t/casey-anthony-breaks-silence-obviously-i-didnt-kill-my-daughter/

There was nothing obvious.

From what I understand, the jury felt there wasn’t enough evidence to convict. Doubt was still present to convict; that is NOT the same as being found innocent. It means that the legal definition of guilt was not met.

“Obviously, I did not kill my daughter,” is just more P talk, taking advantage of a partial truth (being found not guilty) and spinning it into much more than it really is. This time, though, I hope people will not buy the P’s lies, although if you read the article about her statement, because she said it firmly, the implication is it must be the truth. Gag me.

I wish lawyers would know how to present more science. I applaud Dr. Garavaglia (Dr. G.) for doing the special that she did on the Casey Anthony case that was shown earlier this year on TLC (formerly The Learning Channel.)

http://press.discovery.com/us/tlc/programs/DRG-INSIDE-THE-CAYLEE-ANTHONY-CASE/

Had Dr. G been questioned to present what she did in her TLC special, I believe Casey would have been found guilty.

I don’t know where Dr. G’s TLC program on Casey Anthony can be seen now, but if you get a chance to watch it and you are interested in this case, I highly recommend it.

Yes excellent article by Joe Navarro. Someone else further up the thread mentioned his books. I’d be interested to read further.

How sad and utterly repulsive that Casey Anthony continues to court publicity. She has to “hide” ……is protected by the state presumably?
And the jury! Only 2 of them found her guilty? How in the world did they explain the duct tape on the mouth?

I haven’t read this case before. There wasn’t much coverage here in the uk. It makes me think of another legal “whitewash” …….Amanda Knox.

Rest in peace little Caylee

A couple of years ago a woman was convicted in Belgium solely on circumstantial evidence: she had had an affair with a skydiving instructor who also had an affair with a married woman (the vicitm). The victim died because the ropes of her parachute were cut and she fell to her death. The convicted woman had been shown to have the time and opportunity to cut the parachute, the envy motive, and she didn’t jump herself that day, and instead was the one who found the needle in the haysack: the small chute… with a convulated story of her accidentally finding it. Her response to the death of the woman varied from acted tears to callous instant moving on. And a psychological report showed her to have a personality make-up of lacking empathy, emotional depth, and callously capable of murder, etc … The evidence was totally circumstantial. But the jury convicted her nonetheless. It caused the opposite outrage with people, claiming noone shouldn’t be convicted of 1st degree murder without any direct forensic evidence. But the law only stipulates that a jury must be convinced of the guilt, not by what means. Me: I think they convicted the right person for it.

I was a Moderator on another site, years ago, that began with holistic ideology and dissolved into a rant about this case – I finally resigned, and the site has since been shut down.

The thing that is so unsettling about this particular case is that it stuck to the letter of the law, to a fault. It is an unfortunate miscarriage of justice when a case is decided upon a strictly-black-or-white-basis. There “must be” irrefutable forensic evidence, etc., ad nauseum. Well, if a death sentence is sought, I would have to agree. But, many, many, MANY people sit in prisons languishing solely because of political graft. It’s amazing, disturbing, and just another episode that causes me to question my faith and believe in “justice.”

This case was particularly heinous to me – this is why I had to resign as Moderator. Children do not ask to be born, nor do they have the luxury of choosing whom they will be born to. They do not have a legal “voice,” unless someone advocates FOR them. When children are damaged or lost because of an adult’s betrayals, perversions, or abandonment, it is particularly disturbing to me because they have no choices and must, therefore, endure whatever horrors are perpetrated upon them.

Very, very disturbing, and I hope the mother of this poor child experiences True Karma.

Hear, hear Truthspeak,

Children are supposed to be protected. By us. We failed.

Shame on the people who knowingly defended her while suspecting her guilt.

Strongawoman, this is the crux of the legal system: everyone is entitled to launch a defense, even at the cost of taxpayers. Sometimes, it’s a righteous defense, and other times, it’s inconceivable (O.J.?).

But, Matt posted over a year ago about the “need to know” view that has spiralled out of control over the past 3 decades. There was a time when there was no such thing as Court TV. Televised trials were simply not a part of our daily lives. Now, through mass media, social networks, and technological devices, every detail can be circulated across the Globe in an instant. How is a jury supposed to remain “objective” or “unbiased?” It’s virtually impossible, today, for every prospective juror to have an “unbiased” view on any case that they’ve been called on to hear.

In THIS case, the Prosecution failed, miserably. I don’t need to know the details, but there should have been a stronger, harder, and decidedly more intensive investigation and trial. There was SUCH a rush to convict that the prosecution may have overlooked the qualities of the jurors. Who knows? But, the ball was dropped, somewhere.

Dr. G (the medical examiner with the TV series) was put upon the stand and very nearly torn apart because she refused to risk her integrity by rendering a “verdict” on the witness stand that the mother was, without a doubt, and associated by DNA, the murderer of her own child. In a later interview about her testimony, Dr. G. valiantly attempted to explain that TRUE criminal investigations are NOT like CSI series. And, the jurors were psychologically demanding such a case.

Very, very disturbing, and I hope that the mother meets a fitting justice for her sins against humanity.

(hands on hips, voice raised in agitation, and stomping off for more coffee)

TO clarify about O.J. – of course, he PAID for his defense team, but he was still “entitled” to launch a defense, even when everythings pointed at him being a cold-blooded murderer.

Yeh!! Righteous indignation. Love it.

I remember the OJ trial well. . vomit inducing

CSI is Hollywood fantasy and wishful thinking, as are shows like Criminal Minds and Law and Order.

The databases these “investigators” key into and find amazing connections (within seconds!) do not exist. The conclusions that the characters draws are productions of the writers’ fantansies, not real theory. There is a promo for Criminal Minds where one of the female characters is declaring what the perpetrator (unsub) has for personality behaviors. I can’t remember what she says, but I recognize that the traits are pure conjecture and wouldn’t be found together.

Many people, though, take this information for fact. Multiple sources have stated that CSI, in particular, uses FM to solve many of its cases. What’s FM? F-ing Magic.

Real science can take weeks and months to produce results. Clues don’t come with instructions as to their sources.

You don’t happen upon a site, talk three or four sentences, amazingly know what to look at that will provide the link to much needed information or direct the investigators down the right path to find the perp, type in a few words into a laptop, dip a Q-tip into something and get a test result, and get an instant answer two sentences later. No wonder it’s FM.

Truthspeak, was the case on your site the Casey Anthony one? It wasn’t clear to me which case you were referring to.

G1S, yes it was. I understood the outrage and the desire to see justice prevail, but what began as a source of holistic ibformation and simple living spiraled into a very negative and angry site.

Grace,
from what I’ve read, CSI and the other shows have caused more harm than good. Criminals watch the shows to help them come up with clever ways to beat the system. Jurys watch the show and can’t reconcile why they aren’t being handed a doubt-proof, gift-wrapped case of guilt.

I don’t watch those shows because, as my BF says, “Be careful what you let into your mind.” He also says, “Why do you think they call it ‘programming’?”

TV is a cesspool of contamination. It doesn’t reflect reality, it demands that reality reflect IT. Isn’t that the definition of a spath?

Truth,
isn’t it interesting how many sites end up that way? Spaths lurk everywhere, seeding dissent and evil.

What’s even more interesting, is that despite the numerous spaths that have come here to LF, we still manage to maintain our mostly welcoming and loving spirit. I wonder how that is?

Is it because spath victims just naturally tend to be forgiving? Or is it because we are just better at spotting spaths?

sky,

I think it’s because when we realize it’s a spath, we don’t take it personal anymore, and refuse to engage any further.

The hardest thing for many in a discussion or debate is not to take it personal (example: two weeks ago, a senior friend strangled his other senior friend over a political debate in Belgium… I only know of one party that could cause such a vitriolic debate from both sides between otherwise good friends). And as long as you regard the other as an equal, who’s honestly sharing an opinion, persons tend to take it very seriously.

But spaths? We know first hand in the spath relationshit they’ll say anything to get under our skin. Once you accept and know this, why take whatever they spout serious?

Skylar, online forums are a “new” venue in human history. It provides a cloak of anonymity that few othe conventional methods of communication can. A person can present ANY persona that theywish to, often with multiple ID’s and email accounts. These people have found the interwebs to be the MOST perfect of all trolling grounds.

Additionally, online trolls can harass, bully, and intimidate in a way that they would not be able to in Real Life.

Darwinsmom,
yes, you’re right. We know when someone is just trolling better than most people do, I believe.

That story about the seniors reminds me of my spath. Hehad no political beliefs or cares when I met him, but when radio stations began to broadcast “Hot Talk”, he suddenly became very interested. He realized that politics could be a way to enrage other people, like nothing else could. He chose the conservative republican platform to work from because those are the ones who use “hot talk” radio shows in our country.

Then he proceeded to train himself and his buddy, H, to use the “talking points” just to get people mad.

He said, “people shouldn’t get welfare because it makes them lazy and then they don’t want to work when everything is handed to them. For example someone like me, wouldn’t work if I got welfare.”

I said, “but spath, you don’t work, all you do is sell drugs.”

He said, “Well, that’s work.”

Later, when I started a business, he still wouldn’t do anything legally. He had to break the law no matter what he was doing. Even if it would have been easier to follow the rules, he would do the opposite. I just thought he was extremely stupid and hoped he would eventually grow up if I kept helping him.

There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t wish someone, ANYONE, had told me about spaths. 🙁

Edit:
Truth, we posted over each other.
Yes, it never ceases to amaze me how many people are actually spaths online. They use the pity ploy to make us care, then cognitive dissonance kicks in. Cog diss makes us say to ourselves, “I care about her so she must not be a spath, because I wouldn’t care for a spath.”

That’s the basis for almost all the tricks that the spath pulls. He understands cog/diss.

Skylar, I think I agree that they somehow “understand” the cog/diss, on some level. Either by instinct, or by education, it is a useful tool for spaths.

Oddly enough, the exspath began reading spath books a few years ago after I had read a few to help me sort out other issues. For the exspath, they were textbooks in how to launch crazy-making and gaslighting, as well as all of the other known tactics. What he didn’t have on an instinctual level was ramped up by “researching” sociopathy.

G1 – I’m glad you found this and posted. I did not see this way back when it was originally posted.

I really enjoyed the article by Navarro and I too want to read his books. If anyone did read them and can give a thumbs up or down I’d be interested. Matt’s feedback was great and I believe what he said about educating the public. Civic lessons, a functional knowledge of the history of our country and the philosophy behind it and most definitely logic are so important. It is truly a missing component and I won’t start another political rant here but I do believe that dumbing down education is intentional as it makes the general public more controllable.

Funny enough I read about a “Tobisha” National No-Print Day on a blog for graphic designers and printers earlier today (I am in that industry as well as political work) and from a history perspective print has been the key to raising the standard of living of humanity. It was the (I hate to say this) but the priesthood and the feudal lords that wanted to keep the written word and knowledge to themselves in order to control the serfs. The printing press made mass education possible and allowed us as human beings to not have to constantly reinvent the wheel but to be able to build upon the knowledge that came before – and to share it with the greater world. Back when the world was run by S/N/P’s and regular people barely had a fighting chance to rise up from the muck.

Truth – your comments about children not getting to choose whom they are born to makes me feel teary eyed. I am sure you all remember that Susan Smith who was in Texas I think and rolled her two baby boys strapped in the car into a lake to drown them. I was in college at the time and kept thinking to myself – I wish I had known – I would have taken them – I would have raised those precious children. It still upsets me to this day to think of them.

I hate to say that now – after the knowledge I have gained here at LoveFraud – I do sometimes wonder if the children of the N/S/P’s would not have also turned out to be the same to some degree and so taking them in would not have saved them so much as allowed them to in turn harm others – which is a terrible thing to wonder – but the thought has occurred. If Donna or Liane reads this I would love for you to add your thoughts about that.

Anyone else watched the Youtube video of Penelope Soto and her courtroom visit? It sent chills down my spine. She reminded me so much of Casey Anthony. The same arrogance, her failure to take court seriously, the lack of remorse or embarrassment, and after her behavior earned her a trip to jail, the smartass comment. I swear, she coulda been Casey.

lol, yes I saw that, if that judge had been judge judy she would of got life~!
It didnt make me think of Casey but it did remind me of Lindsay Lowhand.

moondancer. did you think she came off as spathy? she seemed creepy to me.

she definatley came off as stupid, spoiled..reminds me of a rich spoiled brat..
not spathy but narcissist for sure..

Send this to a friend