PDA

View Full Version : Casey Anthony Got Off



WMR
07-05-2011, 04:34 PM
I'm dying to read some reaction from the RZ faithful...

Hard to believe, IMO, and how quickly they reached such a verdict!! :eek:

BuckeyeRed27
07-05-2011, 05:13 PM
I think she probably killed her.

I don't think the prosecution proved that.

bigredmechanism
07-05-2011, 05:17 PM
I think she probably killed her.

I don't think the prosecution proved that.

Yep. Not beyond a reasonable doubt.

WMR
07-05-2011, 05:25 PM
Considering all the facts and circumstantial evidence, I was expecting at least a finding of Manslaughter and Felony Child Abuse. That she got neither is pretty appalling.

BuckeyeRed27
07-05-2011, 05:35 PM
Considering all the facts and circumstantial evidence, I was expecting at least a finding of Manslaughter and Felony Child Abuse. That she got neither is pretty appalling.

But that's all it was...circumstantial.

The prosecution got too aggressive. They should have gone for a lesser charge and they probably would have gotten it. They went big and didn't have the smoking gun so to speak.

WMR
07-05-2011, 05:37 PM
But that's all it was...circumstantial.

The prosecution got too aggressive. They should have gone for a lesser charge and they probably would have gotten it. They went big and didn't have the smoking gun so to speak.

I agree that the prosecution shot too high, but the jury would have been well within their rights to find her guilty on lesser charges. The fact that the verdict was reached so quickly tells me this option wasn't even given serious debate (if it was debated at all).

Slyder
07-05-2011, 05:42 PM
But that's all it was...circumstantial.

The prosecution got too aggressive. They should have gone for a lesser charge and they probably would have gotten it. They went big and didn't have the smoking gun so to speak.

Thats what happens when someone covers up the death for a month.

1990REDS
07-05-2011, 06:33 PM
At times it seemed like the prosecution was to busy trying to prove to the jury that she was a liar, and forgot to prove to them that she was a murderer.

LvJ
07-05-2011, 08:17 PM
I think she probably killed her.

I don't think the prosecution proved that.

This.

/thread.

WMR
07-05-2011, 08:48 PM
Anyone who looks at the evidence in this case, and everything that is known, and says there is reasonable doubt is blind or stupid.

Casey Anthony is a pathological liar.....Fact. That means any story she tells will be a lie. What exactly did she ever tell the truth about?

The condition in which the body or skeletal remains were found rule out accidental death. The presence of duct tape found to have been wrapped over the child's mouth prove homocide. If she had drown placing duct tape on her mouth serves no purpose.

George Anthony was a cop, if she had accidentally drown in his care, the charges would have been minor compared to what occurred and he would have known this. Implausible he would have attempted to cover it up. Also Casey is a pathological liar did I mention that.

Casey Anthony's behavior during the period of Caylee's disappearance as well as testimony of her friends that she partied with were not that of a grieving mother. Even if Caylee had accidentally drown, she would not be getting tattoos of "Beautiful Life" and partying with smiles.

Cadaver dogs don't hit on garbage. They can detect human decomposition underground, does anyone believe they couldn't hit on a car trunk. Do you doubt their accuracy. These animals are used for a reason they are highly accurate.

One of the foremost experts in the field found evidence of human decomp, as well as substantially high levels of chloroform. Defense experts say otherwise but of course they aren't going to put someone on the stand that agrees with prosecution. Fact still remains Chloroform present human decomp present.

In short it takes a complete fool to acquit in this case. And it is sad that these people let a murderer off the hook because they were afraid to put her to death. This was less about reasonable doubt and more about how much our country has turned into a bunch of cowards. Charles Manson never killed anyone, but ordered others to do so, and he will never be released as well he shouldn't IMO. However, another psychopath who murdered her child and told a million lies, will walk free because 12 people were too stupid to use their brain to see what was in front of them. Where was the remorse or even a shred of emotion. Her child is dead and she doesn't care. Why? Because she murdered her, and wanted her dead. She just didn't want to pay the consequences. And thanks to the jackasses in Florida she won't have to. I just hope if she is sentenced to any time, one of the inmates suffocates the life out of her. Then Justice will be served.



There are convictions all the time without a murder weapon or eye witnesses or finger prints or any other direct proof.

Look at Scott Peterson in California. Look at Thomas Capuano in Delaware -- there wasn't even a trace of a body.

This was simply a jury of numbskulls who got confused by a defense team of charlatans and who weren't helped by a prosecution team that made the evidence much too complicated.

Her daughter -- in her direct care -- vanished and she didn't inform anyone for more than a month while she engaged in wanton partying. When the body was found it was clear the child was chloroformed and taped up. The mother has no plausible explanation for how that happened -- or why she wasn't pounding on the door of the police station for an investigation on the first minute the child vanished.

That is plenty of circumstantial evidence for a conviction -- if the jury understood the concept of "reasonable doubt." It doesn't mean a mathematical certainty.

bigredmechanism
07-05-2011, 08:57 PM
At times it seemed like the prosecution was to busy trying to prove to the jury that she was a liar, and forgot to prove to them that she was a murderer.

Yep, exactly.

Spitball
07-05-2011, 10:52 PM
I believe the prosecuters needed to work harder to prove motive. It would have been difficult. Maybe it is too difficult to prove in these kind of cases.

Caveat Emperor
07-05-2011, 11:09 PM
Yep. Not beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury instructions for reasonable doubt from a trial I had:

"...reasonable doubt is not just any kind of doubt, but is instead doubt that is based upon reason and common sense and not based purely upon speculation..."

People are misunderstanding the burden of the State -- it is not incumbent upon the State to erase all doubt from the minds of the jury or to account for all possible defense theories of the case. The State merely must prove all elements of the offense to such a degree that any common sense doubt or doubt based upon reason is erased from the mind of the jurors.

Doubt exists with everything. Confessions can be doubted. Eyewitness testimony can be doubted. The question is whether or not your common sense and reason, as a juror (or as a armchair juror, sitting at home following from afar), leads you to conclude that doubt exists.

Where is the reasonable doubt in this case? Where is the alternative theory of the case that fits with reason and common sense? Call me biased, but I just don't see it. I can get behind reasonable doubt on the premeditation element of the offense -- I don't know that the State presented enough evidence to convince me that this was all planned out in advanced -- but the underlying crime? Incredibly guilty. I just don't see where the common sense, reasoned doubt exists in this case.

TeamSelig
07-05-2011, 11:09 PM
I haven't been able to watch the news, anybody want to give me a run down of the case? Everyone I've talked to have mentioned how obvious it was that she was the killer.

ervinsm84
07-05-2011, 11:21 PM
The jury instructions for reasonable doubt from a trial I had:

"...reasonable doubt is not just any kind of doubt, but is instead doubt that is based upon reason and common sense and not based purely upon speculation..."

People are misunderstanding the burden of the State -- it is not incumbent upon the State to erase all doubt from the minds of the jury or to account for all possible defense theories of the case. The State merely must prove all elements of the offense to such a degree that any common sense doubt or doubt based upon reason is erased from the mind of the jurors.

Doubt exists with everything. Confessions can be doubted. Eyewitness testimony can be doubted. The question is whether or not your common sense and reason, as a juror (or as a armchair juror, sitting at home following from afar), leads you to conclude that doubt exists.

Where is the reasonable doubt in this case? Where is the alternative theory of the case that fits with reason and common sense? Call me biased, but I just don't see it. I can get behind reasonable doubt on the premeditation element of the offense -- I don't know that the State presented enough evidence to convince me that this was all planned out in advanced -- but the underlying crime? Incredibly guilty. I just don't see where the common sense, reasoned doubt exists in this case.


do i think its likely she killed or knows who did or what happened? yes. The problem is the prosecution did not have:

1. cause of death
2. witnesses of the death
3. location of the death
4. murder weapon
5. confession

im not a lawyer, but w/o at least 1 or 2 of those things its pretty much impossible to get a murder conviction, and I pray it stays that way.

Caveat Emperor
07-05-2011, 11:36 PM
m not a lawyer, but w/o at least 1 or 2 of those things its pretty much impossible to get a murder conviction, and I pray it stays that way.

Murder convictions are obtained, routinely, around the nation with none of the 5 thing you listed.

The only one of the 5 that would give me a moment's pause would be the cause of death, but the circumstantial evidence involved (not the least of which was the fact that the corpse was found with duct tape over her mouth) would lead me to pass that over as a major issue with the State's case.

JaxRed
07-05-2011, 11:46 PM
Best line I heard was that even OJ was shocked.

ervinsm84
07-06-2011, 12:31 AM
Murder convictions are obtained, routinely, around the nation with none of the 5 thing you listed.

The only one of the 5 that would give me a moment's pause would be the cause of death, but the circumstantial evidence involved (not the least of which was the fact that the corpse was found with duct tape over her mouth) would lead me to pass that over as a major issue with the State's case.


whether they are "routinely obtained" without a single one of those 5 things doesnt change whether or not there was reasonable doubt in this case.

It's well within a rational jury member to conclude that lacking those 5 things with the set of facts presented that there is reasonable doubt.

GAC
07-06-2011, 07:50 AM
Most of you have already brought up points as to why this woman got off, so there is no sense in belaboring any of that.

I didn't really follow this case. I don't understand why this case got so much national attention, as if it was something special or unique, when similar situations like this (sadly) happen daily in this country? 200 mothers a year kill their children in this country. Does the media just pick one and decide they'll make this one the new "reality show" to entertain?

The woman murdered her daughter. The facial expression on her face as they were getting ready to read the verdicts showed this woman herself felt she was going down.

They convicted her of lying. But what did she lie about? That's the key as far as I'm concerned. The lies were all about the whereabouts of her daughter. Besides the glaring fact her daughter was missing for almost a month and she didn't even report it , but was out partying, is pretty damning evidence IMO. How could any mother do that?

One of the problems I have with our legal system is that you have to prove guilt without a shadow of a doubt to get a conviction. And all the defense has to do is inject "theories" into the minds of those jurors to feed reasonable doubt. Defense attorneys argued that the little girl accidentally drowned in the family swimming pool, and that Anthony panicked and concealed the death because of the traumatic effects of sexual abuse by her father. Now the judge rejected that because they presented NO EVIDENCE of that. But again, all the defense is trying to do is inject anything that can promote doubt.

I think the prosecution presented enough evidence, even circumstantial, to get a conviction.

IMO, this jury screwed up, and this woman got away with murder.

So what's next for her? A book and movies deal? Disgusting.

frenetic wave
07-06-2011, 07:58 AM
There was an interview on the radio news that mentioned that they believed the court system's goal isn't to nab every guilty person but to protect innocent people from being found guilty- even at the cost of a minority of guilty people getting off free due to insufficient evidence.

bucksfan2
07-06-2011, 12:36 PM
There was an interview on the radio news that mentioned that they believed the court system's goal isn't to nab every guilty person but to protect innocent people from being found guilty- even at the cost of a minority of guilty people getting off free due to insufficient evidence.

I agree 100% with this. IMO it is much more severe of a crime to convict an innocent person than it is to let of a guilty one. There have been too many cases of innocent people exonerated by DNA evidence and overzealous prosecutors to make me feel any different.

As for this trial I didn't pay attention to it.

Roy Tucker
07-06-2011, 05:21 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anthony_trial/casey-anthony-juror-sick-stomach-guilty-verdict/story?id=14005609

Hoosier Red
07-07-2011, 01:24 AM
I agree 100% with this. IMO it is much more severe of a crime to convict an innocent person than it is to let of a guilty one. There have been too many cases of innocent people exonerated by DNA evidence and overzealous prosecutors to make me feel any different.

As for this trial I didn't pay attention to it.

I believe Chief Wiggum said it best, "I'd rather let 100 guilty men go free than chase after them."

WVRed
07-07-2011, 11:14 AM
She did get four years in prison for perjury, although in the court of public opinion, that is nowhere near enough.

I guess I am somewhat desensitized to this case because its just like Scott Peterson, Anna Nicole, or any other high profile story that has been beaten to death by cable news.

I mean, when you turn it on MSNBC, CBS, Fox News, and they have analysts who are bringing in people to analyze every facial expression by Casey Anthony, it really loses its interest.

LoganBuck
07-07-2011, 07:14 PM
Why couldn't they charge her with abuse of a corpse, evidence tampering, concealment, or obstruction of justice?

I hate that she walked, but I feel that the prosecutors went all in holding a pair of tens. Too big a gamble based on the evidence.

AtomicDumpling
07-08-2011, 12:32 AM
I would bet the number of people that are murdered by killers that were released after beating a murder rap greatly outnumber the number of innocent people imprisoned for murder.

In other words, your chances of being murdered by someone that should have been imprisoned for life on a previous murder charge but was mistakenly found not guilty are much greater than your chances of being falsely convicted of murder.

Being falsely imprisoned would be awful, but I think that happens far, far less often these days than it did before the advent of DNA evidence, modern forensics and ubiquitous video cameras -- all of which provide compelling evidence that is often more accurate than eyewitness testimony. Most of the false convictions of previous decades were based on faulty witness identifications of the defendant.

AtomicDumpling
07-08-2011, 12:36 AM
I believe Casey Anthony accidentally murdered the child, then hid the body, then lied repeatedly about the child's death and disappearance for more than a month, and continued to party and live her life like nothing had happened. She got a large team of defense attorneys eager to work the case and bask in the media attention. Those attorneys were able to sow so much confusion and disinformation in the minds of the jury that the mentally challenged jurors were unable to process it all and decided to hide behind "reasonable" doubt instead of spending days or weeks thoroughly processing all the testimony and evidence.

I know if my child were to disappear I would contact the authorities immediately and spend every single waking moment frantically trying to locate her. I would not spend my time renting movies and partying at nightclubs while my daughter was missing.

RBA
07-08-2011, 12:27 PM
Cincinnati connection?

http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/casey-anthony-trial-verdict-elicits-jurors-not-welcome-sign-at-skyline/1179343

Jurors not welcome at a Skyline Chili franchise.

WMR
07-08-2011, 12:47 PM
"The fact that this sign is displayed makes me over-joyed," she wrote. "This makes me even more proud of the fact that I have the Skyline Chili logo tattooed on my right bicep."

That's hot. :eek:

Sea Ray
07-08-2011, 01:22 PM
do i think its likely she killed or knows who did or what happened? yes. The problem is the prosecution did not have:

1. cause of death
2. witnesses of the death
3. location of the death
4. murder weapon
5. confession

im not a lawyer, but w/o at least 1 or 2 of those things its pretty much impossible to get a murder conviction, and I pray it stays that way.

You get convictions all the time without that stuff. In the case locally here of Erica Baker in 1999 they never even recovered the body yet got a murder conviction

Sea Ray
07-08-2011, 01:29 PM
I don't understand those that say there was not enough evidence to convict her. I agree the evidence was shaky to convict her of 1st degree murder but there was all kinds of evidence that she was responsible for her daughter's death.

1) FBI expert testified that there was chloroform in her trunk
2) Many folks including her Mom testified that her trunk smelled like a dead body
3) Her behavior. She acted as if she had something to cover up
4) Lots of searches on her computer for chloroform
5) She was the last person to see her daughter alive
6) Duct tape was indicative of a crime, not an accidental drowning

The early returns are showing that the jury didn't understand the evidence and that's very troubling

At the very least this should have been a manslaughter

traderumor
07-09-2011, 12:17 AM
I don't think you have to go any further than the 31 days to report and then the lies when she became the suspect really tell it all. The rest was just window dressing. The foreman must have been a very persuasive person to pull off the sales job to get a unanimous verdict.

Sea Ray
07-09-2011, 08:52 AM
I don't think you have to go any further than the 31 days to report and then the lies when she became the suspect really tell it all. The rest was just window dressing. The foreman must have been a very persuasive person to pull off the sales job to get a unanimous verdict.

I think his/her sales pitch was "It's the 4th of July weekend. What are we doing here?"

Tony Cloninger
07-09-2011, 08:37 PM
Said it exactly right. Pathetic work by the jury to let someone off beacuse she might be put to death.

fearofpopvol1
07-09-2011, 09:34 PM
Most of you have already brought up points as to why this woman got off, so there is no sense in belaboring any of that.

I didn't really follow this case. I don't understand why this case got so much national attention, as if it was something special or unique, when similar situations like this (sadly) happen daily in this country? 200 mothers a year kill their children in this country. Does the media just pick one and decide they'll make this one the new "reality show" to entertain?

The woman murdered her daughter. The facial expression on her face as they were getting ready to read the verdicts showed this woman herself felt she was going down.

They convicted her of lying. But what did she lie about? That's the key as far as I'm concerned. The lies were all about the whereabouts of her daughter. Besides the glaring fact her daughter was missing for almost a month and she didn't even report it , but was out partying, is pretty damning evidence IMO. How could any mother do that?

One of the problems I have with our legal system is that you have to prove guilt without a shadow of a doubt to get a conviction. And all the defense has to do is inject "theories" into the minds of those jurors to feed reasonable doubt. Defense attorneys argued that the little girl accidentally drowned in the family swimming pool, and that Anthony panicked and concealed the death because of the traumatic effects of sexual abuse by her father. Now the judge rejected that because they presented NO EVIDENCE of that. But again, all the defense is trying to do is inject anything that can promote doubt.

I think the prosecution presented enough evidence, even circumstantial, to get a conviction.

IMO, this jury screwed up, and this woman got away with murder.

So what's next for her? A book and movies deal? Disgusting.

This is the part that really gets me. Anyone could argue for or against her being a murderer. However, there is no doubt that she was an awful mother who repeatedly lied and more than likely played a part in her murder. The fact that she, as well as her defense team, the jurors and all of the media are likely to profit from the death of a little girl (the media already has) makes me incredibly sick and sad.

LoganBuck
07-09-2011, 10:25 PM
This is the part that really gets me. Anyone could argue for or against her being a murderer. However, there is no doubt that she was an awful mother who repeatedly lied and more than likely played a part in her murder. The fact that she, as well as her defense team, the jurors and all of the media are likely to profit from the death of a little girl (the media already has) makes me incredibly sick and sad.

If I heard correctly she was tagged with the cost of the prosecution, investigation, and the court costs. Any money from media deals will go to the state. An estimate I heard for this case was around $3 Million.

Sea Ray
07-10-2011, 02:10 PM
Does anyone here agree with Geraldo Rivera that she was a good mother?


Geraldo Rivera had the nerve to claim Casey Anthony is/was a good mother.
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2011/07/05/geraldo-rivera-says-casey-anthony-was-a-good-mother/

Where does he get off saying these things?

Sea Ray
07-10-2011, 02:12 PM
If I heard correctly she was tagged with the cost of the prosecution, investigation, and the court costs. Any money from media deals will go to the state. An estimate I heard for this case was around $3 Million.

Geraldo says the plan is for her to declare bankruptcy to get out from having to pay these judgements and then years later make her book/movie deals. Let's hope it doesn't work out that way. She really ought to finish high school first...

Mutaman
07-10-2011, 02:30 PM
[QUOTE=Sea Ray;2433946
Where does he get off saying these things?[/QUOTE]

From what I understand, witnesses testified to this fact at trial.

Mutaman
07-10-2011, 02:41 PM
I didn't really follow this case.

The woman murdered her daughter. The facial expression on her face as they were getting ready to read the verdicts showed this woman herself felt she was going down.

I think the prosecution presented enough evidence, even circumstantial, to get a conviction.


This seems like a typical reaction and I don't get it. If you din't really follow the case , much less be present in the courtroom to hear the testimoney and the cross examinations, or hear the charges from the judge, how can you flately say that the prosecution presented enough evidence and that the woman murdered her daughter? Because of your interpretation of the facial expressions on the woman's face?

fearofpopvol1
07-10-2011, 05:35 PM
From what I understand, witnesses testified to this fact at trial.

They may have, but I think the point that's being made is what good mother doesn't report her child missing for 31 days? And partying and having a good time while the child is allegedly missing?

Mutaman
07-10-2011, 06:01 PM
They may have, but I think the point that's being made is what good mother doesn't report her child missing for 31 days? And partying and having a good time while the child is allegedly missing?

Obviously a good mother doesn't. But Geraldo made it clear that he was stating that the evidence showed she was a good mother prior to the child's disappearance. The woman is obviously suffering from serous emotional problems, but you do not convict her of a capital crime solely on the above facts. Particularly when it was unclear how the child died.

fearofpopvol1
07-10-2011, 06:19 PM
Obviously a good mother doesn't. But Geraldo made it clear that he was stating that the evidence showed she was a good mother prior to the child's disappearance. The woman is obviously suffering from serous emotional problems, but you do not convict her of a capital crime solely on the above facts. Particularly when it was unclear how the child died.

For the record, I never said she should have been convicted. I simply don't know all the facts and didn't follow everything in the case. I just think you could make a pretty compelling case to say that she was not a good mother, regardless of what the witnesses testified for pre-disappearance.

Mutaman
07-10-2011, 06:38 PM
For the record, I never said she should have been convicted. I simply don't know all the facts and didn't follow everything in the case. I just think you could make a pretty compelling case to say that she was not a good mother, regardless of what the witnesses testified for pre-disappearance.

Geraldo made a good point that I agree with based on my experiences in the miserable family court arena: there were no signs of neglect or abuse prior to the child's disappearnce- no cigarette burns, no marks or signs of beatings, no complaints to child wellfare. In fact all the evidence was to the opposite effect. Moreover, if Anthony wanted to kill her daughter, why not just smother her with a pillow when she was sleeping? Why go through all this with cloroform and duct tape? Too many questions, too many issues. I wasn't in the courtroom. I won't criticise the jury.

fearofpopvol1
07-10-2011, 07:32 PM
Geraldo made a good point that I agree with based on my experiences in the miserable family court arena: there were no signs of neglect or abuse prior to the child's disappearnce- no cigarette burns, no marks or signs of beatings, no complaints to child wellfare. In fact all the evidence was to the opposite effect. Moreover, if Anthony wanted to kill her daughter, why not just smother her with a pillow when she was sleeping? Why go through all this with cloroform and duct tape? Too many questions, too many issues. I wasn't in the courtroom. I won't criticise the jury.

All it takes is 1 incident to diminish everything. No parent is perfect and all parents make mistakes, but when you're talking about a parent not reporting their child missing for 31 days, that to me is beyond comprehension. Any "good" parenting in the past goes out the window when you make a poor decision like that in my book.

WMR
07-10-2011, 07:45 PM
C'mon guys there's plenty of "good mothers" out there who conduct internet searches for chloroform, duct tape, and neck breaking and allow their daughter's "disappearance" (lol) to go unreported for 31 days.

Plenty of people duct tape and chloroform an accidentally drowned baby. :rolleyes:

Mutaman
07-10-2011, 09:13 PM
All it takes is 1 incident to diminish everything. No parent is perfect and all parents make mistakes, but when you're talking about a parent not reporting their child missing for 31 days, that to me is beyond comprehension. Any "good" parenting in the past goes out the window when you make a poor decision like that in my book.

WE're not in disagreement. She's obviously nuts. But that doesn't make her guilty of murder.

Mutaman
07-10-2011, 09:27 PM
C'mon guys there's plenty of "good mothers" out there who conduct internet searches for chloroform, duct tape, and neck breaking and allow their daughter's "disappearance" (lol) to go unreported for 31 days.

Plenty of people duct tape and chloroform an accidentally drowned baby. :rolleyes:


"Casey Anthony's mother, Cindy, may have turned her daughter's murder trial on its head when she testified late Thursday afternoon that she, not Casey, used the family's computer to search for “chloroform” on the Internet"


http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/06/23/casey-anthony-trial-bombshell-mother-searched-internet-for-chloroform/

WMR
07-10-2011, 09:30 PM
"Casey Anthony's mother, Cindy, may have turned her daughter's murder trial on its head when she testified late Thursday afternoon that she, not Casey, used the family's computer to search for “chloroform” on the Internet"


http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/06/23/casey-anthony-trial-bombshell-mother-searched-internet-for-chloroform/

So it was the grandmother who chloroformed her grandchild. Not a mother lying trying to save her daughter from a lethal injection. Gotcha.


Prosecutors had also drawn attention to web searches for “chest injuries” and “neck breaking,” claiming that they spoke to Casey's homicidal intentions and state of mind. Cindy took responsibility for those searches, too, saying she searched about injuries after a friend was in a car crash and searched about broken necks when she saw a YouTube video about a skateboarder doing a “neck-breaking stunt.”


:rolleyes:

dabvu2498
07-10-2011, 10:01 PM
Prosecutors had also drawn attention to web searches for “chest injuries” and “neck breaking,” claiming that they spoke to Casey's homicidal intentions and state of mind.

See. To me, that's a huge leap.

Fwiw, I've heard the jury was 10-2 against 1st degree murder and 8-4 against manslaughter. And what would they know? They only sat there and listened to every second of testimony.

fearofpopvol1
07-10-2011, 10:40 PM
WE're not in disagreement. She's obviously nuts. But that doesn't make her guilty of murder.

I never said she was guilty of murder, though I do believe at a minimum she was involved. I just said I believe she wasn't a good mother, regardless of what Geraldo said.

Mutaman
07-10-2011, 10:45 PM
So it was the grandmother who chloroformed her grandchild. Not a mother lying trying to save her daughter from a lethal injection. Gotcha.:rolleyes:


I have no idea. Like you, I wasn't in the courtroom and don't know that much about the case. Unlike you I'm not going to criticise the 12 members of the jury who were and who heard all of the evidence presented.

Sea Ray
07-10-2011, 11:45 PM
From what I understand, witnesses testified to this fact at trial.

Those witnesses obviously are a poor judge of character. Does a good mother go off partying? Does a good mother have traces of chloroform in her trunk?

Sea Ray
07-10-2011, 11:51 PM
"Casey Anthony's mother, Cindy, may have turned her daughter's murder trial on its head when she testified late Thursday afternoon that she, not Casey, used the family's computer to search for “chloroform” on the Internet"


http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/06/23/casey-anthony-trial-bombshell-mother-searched-internet-for-chloroform/

It was later reported that it couldn't have been Cindy because she was at work at those times. For that reason she could be brought up on perjury charges.


Cindy Anthony's claim that she carried out the many chloroform searches occurred at a time when her time card as a nurse showed that she was working. Cindy Anthony claims she left work early on those days.

"We already know that on the state's witness list they've got the record keeper for Cindy's work. ... If they have her computer records, they're going to be able to show she was absolutely at work and if the defense set her up for a perjury charge, it's on them," former prosecutor Nancy Grace said today on "Good Morning America." http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey-anthonys-mother-charged-perjury/story?id=13921276

When it comes to lying the apple doesn't fall far from the tree

Sea Ray
07-10-2011, 11:54 PM
I have no idea. Like you, I wasn't in the courtroom and don't know that much about the case. Unlike you I'm not going to criticise the 12 members of the jury who were and who heard all of the evidence presented.

As these jury folks come out and do interviews, it's fair game to criticize them just like with OJ's jury. The early returns are this jury didn't understand the evidence or the judge's intructions

WMR
07-10-2011, 11:59 PM
As these jury folks come out and do interviews, it's fair game to criticize them just like with OJ's jury. The early returns are this jury didn't understand the evidence or the judge's intructions

Pretty much this exactly.

That they didn't find her guilty of Felony Child Abuse and Manslaughter at the MINIMUM is appalling.

WMR
07-11-2011, 12:01 AM
It was later reported that it couldn't have been Cindy because she was at work at those times. For that reason she could be brought up on perjury charges.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey-anthonys-mother-charged-perjury/story?id=13921276

When it comes to lying the apple doesn't fall far from the tree

Exactly why her parents were so stoic upon hearing the "not guilty" verdict.

They know in their hearts they were complicit in covering up the killing of their granddaughter. I hope that little girl's memory haunts all 3 of them for the rest of their days and beyond.

Mutaman
07-11-2011, 12:26 AM
The early returns are this jury didn't understand the evidence or the judge's intructions

What early returns?

savafan
07-11-2011, 01:01 AM
Does a good mother have traces of chloroform in her trunk?

This hasn't been proven.

Sea Ray
07-11-2011, 09:51 AM
What early returns?

The first jurors who've been given interviews.

You admit you haven't followed this closely. Was it news to you that Cindy Anthony was at work when she claimed to have been using Casey's computer for chloroform searches?

Sea Ray
07-11-2011, 09:54 AM
This hasn't been proven.

The FBI forensics expert testified that his tests revealed chloroform in the trunk:


Rickenbach, however, remained steadfast that chloroform was found inside the trunk – a constant theme among the testimony of prosecution experts during the trial.

“Residues of chloroform were detected on that specimen,” said Rickenbach, referring to a carpet sample taken from the trunk.http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-national/fbi-expert-testifies-at-casey-anthony-trial-surprised-at-presence-of-chloroform

Why have you chosen not to believe him?

Slyder
07-11-2011, 10:01 AM
The FBI forensics expert testified that his tests revealed chloroform in the trunk:

http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-national/fbi-expert-testifies-at-casey-anthony-trial-surprised-at-presence-of-chloroform

Why have you chosen not to believe him?

Didn't cadaver dogs hit on the trunk too?

Sea Ray
07-11-2011, 10:15 AM
Didn't cadaver dogs hit on the trunk too?

Absolutely

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20500758,00.html

I honestly can't see how any juror can say that evidence was lacking for a manslaughter conviction

RedFanAlways1966
07-11-2011, 10:25 AM
Cindy Anthony's claim that she carried out the many chloroform searches occurred at a time when her time card as a nurse showed that she was working. Cindy Anthony claims she left work early on those days.


Sounds like someone should be fired for falsifying a time card. Of course she probably was at work. Is it too long of time for the hospital to have video evidence? If so and she was seen at the hospital on video, then proceed with the perjury charge.

RBA
07-11-2011, 11:06 AM
The FBI forensics expert testified that his tests revealed chloroform in the trunk:

http://www.examiner.com/crime-in-national/fbi-expert-testifies-at-casey-anthony-trial-surprised-at-presence-of-chloroform

Why have you chosen not to believe him?


Dr. Michael Sigman, a chemistry professor at the University of Central Florida, testified Wednesday that the trunk of Casey’s Pontiac Sunfire showed tracess of gasoline, chloroform and other chemicals. Those chemicals are associated with human decomposition, but they are also linked to onions, cabbages and Chlorox. The doctor testified that the compounds “gave very low responses”.
He told the defense attorney, “I cannot conclusively determine that there had been human remains in the trunk of the car.”
http://earsucker.com/2011/casey-anthony-car-evidence-found-inconclusive-according-to-expert/

I am not an expert in chloroform, but isn't it use to knock people out and not kill them? This is what I learned by wathing TV/Movies. However, I think Casey Anthony did use it. I think she was using it to knock her child out so she can go out partying. But something went wrong with her plan.

Sea Ray
07-11-2011, 11:25 AM
I am not an expert in chloroform, but isn't it use to knock people out and not kill them? This is what I learned by wathing TV/Movies. However, I think Casey Anthony did use it. I think she was using it to knock her child out so she can go out partying. But something went wrong with her plan.

I think that's very plausible hence a manslaughter or Murder 2 conviction. I don't understand the jury aquitting on all the charges of being responsible for this kid's death

RBA
07-11-2011, 11:46 AM
I think that's very plausible hence a manslaughter or Murder 2 conviction. I don't understand the jury aquitting on all the charges of being responsible for this kid's death

And I don't understand the prosecution going for Murder 1 and the Death Penalty. I think the media (Nancy Grace) and social media got the best of them.

Sea Ray
07-11-2011, 01:59 PM
And I don't understand the prosecution going for Murder 1 and the Death Penalty. I think the media (Nancy Grace) and social media got the best of them.

They can go for whatever they want but that didn't limit what the jury could come back with.

top6
07-11-2011, 06:37 PM
I didn't follow this case one way or the other, but these sort of personal attacks on the jurors (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2013371/Casey-Anthony-juror-60-quits-work-flees-town-fear-life.html) are disgusting.

I put people who would personally attack a juror for rendering a verdict that they disagree with on the same level as people who would yell at soldiers returning from war because they don't like U.S. foreign policy. It's disgusting, it's un-American (as much as I usually hate that phrase), and the people doing it are as bad as that Reverend Phelps creep.

Mutaman
07-11-2011, 07:18 PM
The first jurors who've been given interviews.

You admit you haven't followed this closely. Was it news to you that Cindy Anthony was at work when she claimed to have been using Casey's computer for chloroform searches?


As I understand it, there was a major issue as to whether someone other that Casey had performed the web search, and therefore it was not unreasonable for the jury to feel that the web search issue was not significant. Particularly when there was also a major issue as to whether chloroform was even involved in the death. In any event, I was responding to the staement in post #46 that it was an established fact that Casey had performed this search. It wasn't.

Just curious- is there anybody here who can say they followed this case closely?

Mutaman
07-11-2011, 07:23 PM
Pretty much this exactly.

That they didn't find her guilty of Felony Child Abuse and Manslaughter at the MINIMUM is appalling.

Just curious- what is the applicable Abuse Law and what was the judge's charge on this issue?

fearofpopvol1
07-11-2011, 07:39 PM
I didn't follow this case one way or the other, but these sort of personal attacks on the jurors (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2013371/Casey-Anthony-juror-60-quits-work-flees-town-fear-life.html) are disgusting.

I put people who would personally attack a juror for rendering a verdict that they disagree with on the same level as people who would yell at soldiers returning from war because they don't like U.S. foreign policy. It's disgusting, it's un-American (as much as I usually hate that phrase), and the people doing it are as bad as that Reverend Phelps creep.

I agree with this 100%. I think it's okay to disagree with a jury's finding, but to verbally attack them in the manner that some have is disgusting.

Sea Ray
07-11-2011, 08:58 PM
As I understand it, there was a major issue as to whether someone other that Casey had performed the web search, and therefore it was not unreasonable for the jury to feel that the web search issue was not significant. Particularly when there was also a major issue as to whether chloroform was even involved in the death. In any event, I was responding to the staement in post #46 that it was an established fact that Casey had performed this search. It wasn't.

Just curious- is there anybody here who can say they followed this case closely?

Who else could have done the search? 2 yr old Caylee?

My staff had it on all day at work so yes, I'd say I do qualify as someone who watched it closely.

These are the facts as I understand them:

Casey's computer did a lot of searches for chloroform and there's evidence that chloroform and a dead body was in the trunk of her car.

Do you doubt any of those facts?

Mutaman
07-11-2011, 11:21 PM
My staff had it on all day at work so yes, I'd say I do qualify as someone who watched it closely.



You watch TV at work? You let your staff watch TV at work?

Mutaman
07-11-2011, 11:31 PM
Who else could have done the search? 2 yr old Caylee?
?

See post # 48

Mutaman
07-11-2011, 11:33 PM
Do you doubt any of those facts?

Don't know- didn't hear the testimoney, see the documentary evidence, or observe the demeanor of the witnesses. I don't watch TV when I'm working

frenetic wave
07-12-2011, 02:35 AM
As confident as I am in my ability to know everything, I still have to concede that the jurors probably saw and witnessed more than I did (or ever will) so I have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they thought about it and aren't horrible abusers of the system who just wanted to leave early so they could light fireworks and eat BBQ.

Sea Ray
07-12-2011, 08:37 AM
See post # 48

It couldn't have been Cindy. See post #54

Mutaman
07-12-2011, 01:39 PM
As confident as I am in my ability to know everything, I still have to concede that the jurors probably saw and witnessed more than I did (or ever will) so I have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they thought about it and aren't horrible abusers of the system who just wanted to leave early so they could light fireworks and eat BBQ.

You may just be lacking in certain talents. From what I'm reading here, there are people who can simultaniously talk to clients, fill out reports, post on Red Zone every few minutes, and carefully observe the demeanor of all witness in the Anthony trial on their television. Not to mention ignore all of the bunk from cable and the tabloids like the sequestered jury did.

BoydsOfSummer
07-16-2011, 07:43 PM
I watched practically every minute of it (yes I have no life). I would still be there arguing manslaughter.

Sea Ray
07-19-2011, 11:13 AM
I watched practically every minute of it (yes I have no life). I would still be there arguing manslaughter.

I totally agree with you. As you see there's no one here who can defend otherwise based on the evidence presented. If she didn't have something to do with it then why was there chloroform in her trunk? I haven't heard a juror or anyone else answer that

bigredmechanism
07-19-2011, 12:44 PM
I totally agree with you. As you see there's no one here who can defend otherwise based on the evidence presented. If she didn't have something to do with it then why was there chloroform in her trunk? I haven't heard a juror or anyone else answer that

The problem here is that possessing chloroform does not prove that Casey Anthony committed murder. Suspicious? Of course it is. But substantial? Not at all.

The burden of proof is on the state. Suspicion is not enough to prove wrong doing. While I personally think she probably did it, I'm not 100% positive what the case looks like from a jurors standpoint. Keep in mind that they didn't hear many of the things we did, if they were deemed inadmissible. They certainly did not hear the same sensationalist allegations that we could have on TV and in print, for the same reasons. The prosecution likely dropped the ball here, but there is no reason to blame the jury for the prosecutions failings.

Sea Ray
07-19-2011, 04:19 PM
The problem here is that possessing chloroform does not prove that Casey Anthony committed murder. Suspicious? Of course it is. But substantial? Not at all.

The burden of proof is on the state. Suspicion is not enough to prove wrong doing. While I personally think she probably did it, I'm not 100% positive what the case looks like from a jurors standpoint. Keep in mind that they didn't hear many of the things we did, if they were deemed inadmissible. They certainly did not hear the same sensationalist allegations that we could have on TV and in print, for the same reasons. The prosecution likely dropped the ball here, but there is no reason to blame the jury for the prosecutions failings.

Your problem is "reasonable doubt". There's no reasonable reason for Casey Anthony to have a dead body and chloroform in her car.

1)She was the last person to see Caylee alive
2)She lied repeatedly about the whereabouts of her daughter
3)She never reported her missing
4)Evidence of Chloroform and a dead body in her trunk

There's no reasonable explanation for Caylee's death that doesn't involve her mother, only far fetched theories.

If I'm guilty I want someone like you on the jury. All I have to do is get rid of the body for awhile so they can't do an autopsy and hope no one has a videotape of it and I'm golden

Mutaman
07-19-2011, 04:31 PM
The problem here is that possessing chloroform does not prove that Casey Anthony committed murder. Suspicious? Of course it is. But substantial? Not at all.

The burden of proof is on the state. Suspicion is not enough to prove wrong doing. While I personally think she probably did it, I'm not 100% positive what the case looks like from a jurors standpoint. Keep in mind that they didn't hear many of the things we did, if they were deemed inadmissible. They certainly did not hear the same sensationalist allegations that we could have on TV and in print, for the same reasons. The prosecution likely dropped the ball here, but there is no reason to blame the jury for the prosecutions failings.


Kudos to you on an intelligent summary of the issue.

bigredmechanism
07-19-2011, 07:54 PM
Your problem is "reasonable doubt". There's no reasonable reason for Casey Anthony to have a dead body and chloroform in her car.

1)She was the last person to see Caylee alive
2)She lied repeatedly about the whereabouts of her daughter
3)She never reported her missing
4)Evidence of Chloroform and a dead body in her trunk

There's no reasonable explanation for Caylee's death that doesn't involve her mother, only far fetched theories.

If I'm guilty I want someone like you on the jury. All I have to do is get rid of the body for awhile so they can't do an autopsy and hope no one has a videotape of it and I'm golden

They did not find a dead body in her car, and nothing on that list you made proves that she killed that poor little girl. Suspicious facts are not enough to convict; you need evidence. Any lawyer could tell you that this case was mishandled from jump street. Pressing charges that you can't prove is the first rule in the prosecutors list of 'don'ts.'

Being the last person to see someone alive does not show guilt. Lying, while suspicious, does not prove guilt. Even not reporting something doesn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And again, no body was recovered from her trunk. I'm not sure where you heard that, as the body was recovered outside in a field/woods area. "Reasonable reason," whatever that is supposed to mean, has nothing to do with the justice system.

You had better believe you want someone like me on the jury if you ever went to trial, as I would be able to do my job as a juror in the manner it was intended: to provide a fair trial.

If there was sufficient evidence that she was in fact guilty, she would have been found as such.

Sea Ray
07-19-2011, 08:40 PM
They did not find a dead body in her car, and nothing on that list you made proves that she killed that poor little girl. Suspicious facts are not enough to convict; you need evidence. Any lawyer could tell you that this case was mishandled from jump street. Pressing charges that you can't prove is the first rule in the prosecutors list of 'don'ts.'

Being the last person to see someone alive does not show guilt. Lying, while suspicious, does not prove guilt. Even not reporting something doesn't prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And again, no body was recovered from her trunk. I'm not sure where you heard that, as the body was recovered outside in a field/woods area. "Reasonable reason," whatever that is supposed to mean, has nothing to do with the justice system.

You had better believe you want someone like me on the jury if you ever went to trial, as I would be able to do my job as a juror in the manner it was intended: to provide a fair trial.

If there was sufficient evidence that she was in fact guilty, she would have been found as such.

You'd be a horrible juror because you can't even comprehend what I wrote. You seem to think I wrote that they found a dead body in the trunk whereas I said they found evidence of a dead body in the trunk. You need to understand the difference before you can properly judge this case.

A cadaver dog detected odor of a dead body in her trunk. So tell me, how likely is it that a dead body odor and chloroform was found in her trunk and she just so happens to have a missing daughter and she didn't have anything to do with it? Do you have chloroform in your trunk? Have you done 84 searches for it on your computer?

I agree we cannot jump to 1st degree murder here but a lesser charge is clearly warranted

Sea Ray
07-19-2011, 08:42 PM
If there was sufficient evidence that she was in fact guilty, she would have been found as such.

Oh it's that simple? Is that why OJ walked? Were they lacking evidence? No, sometimes juries do get it wrong

savafan
07-19-2011, 08:49 PM
Oh it's that simple? Is that why OJ walked? Were they lacking evidence? No, sometimes juries do get it wrong

It's not about right or wrong, it's about proving beyond a reasonable doubt. Did the OJ prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt? That's an arguable question, no matter what we feel now personally. If you can't see that, then you'd make a horrible juror also.

757690
07-19-2011, 08:53 PM
http://www2.tbo.com/news/news/2011/jul/19/anthony-chloroform-searches-overstated-software-de-ar-244913/

Looks like it would have been a mistrial anyway. Hiding key evidence is very serious offense.

bigredmechanism
07-19-2011, 09:41 PM
You'd be a horrible juror because you can't even comprehend what I wrote. You seem to think I wrote that they found a dead body in the trunk whereas I said they found evidence of a dead body in the trunk. You need to understand the difference before you can properly judge this case.

A cadaver dog detected odor of a dead body in her trunk. So tell me, how likely is it that a dead body odor and chloroform was found in her trunk and she just so happens to have a missing daughter and she didn't have anything to do with it? Do you have chloroform in your trunk? Have you done 84 searches for it on your computer?

I agree we cannot jump to 1st degree murder here but a lesser charge is clearly warranted

I'll put your condescending attitude aside for a moment.

I bolded "evidence of a dead body in the trunk" because it does not mean the same thing to you and I, apparently. Cadaver dogs, much like any dogs, can send off false positives. Until there is a body in the trunk, it's not evidence. Do you really want to rely on a dog to draw conclusions alone? Defense attorneys would rip you to shreds on an argument like that.

I bolded the question you posed because I would like to point out that this is not how the justice system works. This is not Law & Order here, Sea Ray, this is real life. The answer to that question is entirely irrelevant, as it is based on emotion and personal speculation and provides no solid evidence to the point you wanted to make.

I bolded the last sentence because that is the exact point I had been making since this thread started, and I find it funny that you are trying to make that point now. If they didn't have the evidence for murder, they should not have ran with it. This is Law 101.


4)Evidence of Chloroform and a dead body in her trunk
You see, this could be worded better. It's very confusing trying to follow your train of thought. I bolded it so you can see it.

RedFanAlways1966
07-19-2011, 10:09 PM
http://www2.tbo.com/news/news/2011/jul/19/anthony-chloroform-searches-overstated-software-de-ar-244913/

From the "are you kidding me" file...

Where ever Anthony is, her attorneys said life will not be easy.

"She's going to need a period of solitude, of prayer, of quiet reflection, of consultation with those she trusts. She's not only lost her child, she's lost the rest of her family," Charles Greene, Anthony's civil attorney, told CBS News.

"She is a virtual Hester Prynne of our society with a scarlet letter, a well-known face. So she is still in many ways confined."

Mutaman
07-19-2011, 10:54 PM
http://www2.tbo.com/news/news/2011/jul/19/anthony-chloroform-searches-overstated-software-de-ar-244913/

Looks like it would have been a mistrial anyway. Hiding key evidence is very serious offense.

I guess they won't be pursuing the perjury claim against Cindy after all.

bigredmechanism
07-19-2011, 11:35 PM
Oh it's that simple? Is that why OJ walked? Were they lacking evidence? No, sometimes juries do get it wrong

Prosecution dropped the ball on that one as well, and Cochran was all over them for it. Made them look like amateur hour.

"If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit."

Mutaman
07-20-2011, 12:16 AM
Prosecution dropped the ball on that one as well, and Cochran was all over them for it. Made them look like amateur hour.

"If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit."

Bingo! It was obvious that Marsha Clark had done little preperation for the trial. Her direct examininations were an embarresement. She didn't deserve a winning verdict. If you've ever read "Helter Skelter", you get an idea of the incredible amount of time a litigator must devote to preparation for a trial. Bugliosi has since said it appeared as if Clark had started preparing her summation an hour or so before she delivered it.

Whenever someone complimented the old lawyer Louis Nizer on what a great trial lawyer he was, he would say: "you should see me in my library at 12:30 AM on a Sunday morning. That's when I'm at my best."

Todd Gack
07-20-2011, 12:29 AM
I guess they won't be pursuing the perjury claim against Cindy after all.

Obviously this is just a circumstantial question, but wouldn't searching 'chloroform' just once be hard enough evidence to relate to Casey or whomever else was involved in the child's death? I would think reading something once would be good enough too.

Side question: How the hell is Google releasing search results from her computer? Aren't there some kind of privacy issues involved? Serious question.

bigredmechanism
07-20-2011, 12:52 AM
Obviously this is just a circumstantial question, but wouldn't searching 'chloroform' just once be hard enough evidence to relate to Casey or whomever else was involved in the child's death? I would think reading something once would be good enough too.

Side question: How the hell is Google releasing search results from her computer? Aren't there some kind of privacy issues involved? Serious question.

First question (is it hard evidence?): No, it is not. For all we know, Casey Anthony may have been getting into amateur chemistry and wanted to make her own Teflon with which to coat cooking surfaces. You can't actually prove anything just by the presence of CHCL3. You can speculate, but again, that is not admissible in court.

Second question (the serious one):

We have a good faith belief that access, use, preservation or disclosure of such information is reasonably necessary to (a) satisfy any applicable law, regulation, legal process or enforceable governmental request, (b) enforce applicable Terms of Service, including investigation of potential violations thereof, (c) detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or technical issues, or (d) protect against harm to the rights, property or safety of Google, its users or the public as required or permitted by law.

Basically if you used their program to do something, and it has legal standing, it will be asked for and permitted.

Sea Ray
07-20-2011, 09:37 AM
It's not about right or wrong, it's about proving beyond a reasonable doubt. Did the OJ prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt? That's an arguable question, no matter what we feel now personally. If you can't see that, then you'd make a horrible juror also.

The OJ prosecution had a mountain of evidence. If you didn't think so then you'd never find anyone guilty

Sea Ray
07-20-2011, 09:45 AM
I'll put your condescending attitude aside for a moment.

I bolded "evidence of a dead body in the trunk" because it does not mean the same thing to you and I, apparently. Cadaver dogs, much like any dogs, can send off false positives. Until there is a body in the trunk, it's not evidence. Do you really want to rely on a dog to draw conclusions alone? Defense attorneys would rip you to shreds on an argument like that.

I bolded the question you posed because I would like to point out that this is not how the justice system works. This is not Law & Order here, Sea Ray, this is real life. The answer to that question is entirely irrelevant, as it is based on emotion and personal speculation and provides no solid evidence to the point you wanted to make.

I bolded the last sentence because that is the exact point I had been making since this thread started, and I find it funny that you are trying to make that point now. If they didn't have the evidence for murder, they should not have ran with it. This is Law 101.


You see, this could be worded better. It's very confusing trying to follow your train of thought. I bolded it so you can see it.

So you don't trust an FBI investigator who tested and found traces of chloroform or dogs/ Cindy Anthony and others who all reported smelling a decomposing body in the trunk. I suppose you'd need a picture of the dead body in the trunk to believe it. This is the problem. You want beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you don't think cadaver dogs and others are "evidence" of a dead body then you shouldn't be on a jury.

As to your last point, perhaps they shouldn't have asked for a murder conviction but that has nothing to do with the jury not finding a conviction on the lesser charges.

Sea Ray
07-20-2011, 09:51 AM
Prosecution dropped the ball on that one as well, and Cochran was all over them for it. Made them look like amateur hour.

"If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit."

Nonsense. The glove obviously shrunk after all it'd been through. Later on in the trial they had OJ try on a brand new glove--same size and style-- and it fit beautifully. You had blood all over his Bronco including Ron Goldman's and a ton of other evidence.

You are consistent and this proves my point. You think convictions should only happen in cases of beyond a shadow of a doubt. You want to be 100% certain and that's not "reasonable doubt". If you don't think OJ was guilty based on the testimony there then I do understand where you're coming from here.

757690
07-20-2011, 02:44 PM
There was plenty of evidence to convict OJ. The police, prosecutors, judge and jury all skewed the pooch on that one. Regardless of whether the gloves fit ot not, one bloody one was found at the crime scene, the other at OJ's place. A frame job is the only explanation other than OJ being guilty, imo.

The Casey Anthony case was a closer call. I can see the non-conviction for murder, but there seemed to be plenty of evidence for at least child negligence that leads to a child's death.

Sea Ray
07-20-2011, 03:12 PM
There was plenty of evidence to convict OJ. The police, prosecutors, judge and jury all skewed the pooch on that one. Regardless of whether the gloves fit ot not, one bloody one was found at the crime scene, the other at OJ's place. A frame job is the only explanation other than OJ being guilty, imo.

The Casey Anthony case was a closer call. I can see the non-conviction for murder, but there seemed to be plenty of evidence for at least child negligence that leads to a child's death.

Well put. In the OJ case, evidence wasn't the issue. I agree that it came down to a choice between guilt or a frame job. Savafan thinks its arguable that there was sufficient evidence to convict and anyone who doesn't think so would make a bad juror. I guess you and I both fall in that category. Personally I think someone who carefully studies the evidence and comes to a conclusion is an excellent juror

GoReds
07-20-2011, 04:00 PM
It was a difficult case to prosecute without eyewitness accounts and the reliance on Casey's ex-boyfriends (be they several) who were dubious, at best. It's easy to speculate here, because we are not confined to the evidence and the evidence only. All of us are influenced, in some regard, with what we hear outside the courtroom.

As a juror, there was no evidence related to Casey being guilty of child neglect, per se. A juror is not allowed to speculate or fill-in-the-blanks. From a personal perspective, it's difficult for me to believe that Casey wasn't consistently knocking Caylee out with Zanex or something similar and leaving her in the trunk overnight to spend time with her boyfriends, go partying, etc. But that's not proper evidence for a juror. The prosecution had no basis in which to bring that into evidence.

757690
07-20-2011, 04:07 PM
It was a difficult case to prosecute without eyewitness accounts and the reliance on Casey's ex-boyfriends (be they several) who were dubious, at best. It's easy to speculate here, because we are not confined to the evidence and the evidence only. All of us are influenced, in some regard, with what we hear outside the courtroom.

As a juror, there was no evidence related to Casey being guilty of child neglect, per se. A juror is not allowed to speculate or fill-in-the-blanks. From a personal perspective, it's difficult for me to believe that Casey wasn't consistently knocking Caylee out with Zanex or something similar and leaving her in the trunk overnight to spend time with her boyfriends, go partying, etc. But that's not proper evidence for a juror. The prosecution had no basis in which to bring that into evidence.

The child disappeared, then was found dead, while under Casey Anthony's supervision. Usually that alone is enough to get a child negligence conviction. She could have been mother of the year until then, it doesn't make any difference.

RBA
07-20-2011, 08:43 PM
The child disappeared, then was found dead, while under Casey Anthony's supervision. Usually that alone is enough to get a child negligence conviction. She could have been mother of the year until then, it doesn't make any difference.

But what is the maximum penalty in Florida for child neglect?

GAC
07-21-2011, 05:41 AM
I'm not 100% positive what the case looks like from a jurors standpoint. Keep in mind that they didn't hear many of the things we did, if they were deemed inadmissible. They certainly did not hear the same sensationalist allegations that we could have on TV and in print

But the jurors did hear from the defense this scenario of the possibility this little girl died in a tragic accident. And while the Judge did not allow that to go further, because of a lack of evidence to support it, the "damage" was already done because the defense succeeded in being able to "inject" that into the minds (thinking) of the jurors to promote "reasonable doubt". And when one juror was interviewed she even publicly stated that was the reason she voted the way she did.

Yes, the burden of proof should be on the state. But in the same sense I think too much leeway is given to the defense to throw out various "theories", knowing there is no evidence to support it, but simply because all they have to do is plant that "seed" somehow of reasonable doubt to influence a jury.

I have my "problems" with jury trials. Not advocating another system, but only that I have my problems with it.

I didn't follow this trial that much. But was the defense ever questioned as to WHY Anthony didn't report the child missing for a month, and lied to investigators about her whereabouts? IMO, that's pretty damning evidence.

Sea Ray
07-21-2011, 09:35 AM
But the jurors did hear from the defense this scenario of the possibility this little girl died in a tragic accident. And while the Judge did not allow that to go further, because of a lack of evidence to support it, the "damage" was already done because the defense succeeded in being able to "inject" that into the minds (thinking) of the jurors to promote "reasonable doubt". And when one juror was interviewed she even publicly stated that was the reason she voted the way she did.

Yes, the burden of proof should be on the state. But in the same sense I think too much leeway is given to the defense to throw out various "theories", knowing there is no evidence to support it, but simply because all they have to do is plant that "seed" somehow of reasonable doubt to influence a jury.

I have my "problems" with jury trials. Not advocating another system, but only that I have my problems with it.

I didn't follow this trial that much. But was the defense ever questioned as to WHY Anthony didn't report the child missing for a month, and lied to investigators about her whereabouts? IMO, that's pretty damning evidence.

Since she didn't take the stand all we can go on are opening statements (which by definition are not facts) where her attorney said it was due to her being sexually abused as a kid. She learned to lie and make things up. She also had huge fears imbedded in her from that abuse making her afraid to come forward

GAC
07-22-2011, 04:48 AM
Since she didn't take the stand all we can go on are opening statements (which by definition are not facts) where her attorney said it was due to her being sexually abused as a kid. She learned to lie and make things up. She also had huge fears imbedded in her from that abuse making her afraid to come forward

But the defense never offered one shred of proof she was abused by her father. I'm no legal expert, but it seems to me, when it comes to the opening arguments, neither side should be able to throw out positions (theories) unless they intend to present evidence in the trial to support that supposition. And IMO the defense never intended to do so. They threw that out there just to plant that seed of "reasonable doubt" in the minds of those jurors, but again, with no evidence to back it up. That's wrong.

Sea Ray
07-22-2011, 08:37 AM
But the defense never offered one shred of proof she was abused by her father. I'm no legal expert, but it seems to me, when it comes to the opening arguments, neither side should be able to throw out positions (theories) unless they intend to present evidence in the trial to support that supposition. And IMO the defense never intended to do so. They threw that out there just to plant that seed of "reasonable doubt" in the minds of those jurors, but again, with no evidence to back it up. That's wrong.

You're absolutely right, hence my comment that by definition are not facts. This was explained by the judge (that opening statements are not considered evidence) so any juror that took it as so was a sorry juror

savafan
07-25-2011, 05:30 PM
Well put. In the OJ case, evidence wasn't the issue. I agree that it came down to a choice between guilt or a frame job. Savafan thinks its arguable that there was sufficient evidence to convict and anyone who doesn't think so would make a bad juror. I guess you and I both fall in that category. Personally I think someone who carefully studies the evidence and comes to a conclusion is an excellent juror

Savafan has worked in the legal field for five years, what do you do for a living?

fearofpopvol1
08-04-2011, 03:23 PM
Lock up the kids, Ohio...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/lock_up_the_kids_ohio_it_casey_zGBhWUuyWvGSEHkx2DH W3J

Sea Ray
08-17-2011, 09:54 AM
They never said where in Ohio, did they?

savafan
08-18-2011, 08:15 PM
They never said where in Ohio, did they?

Columbus. Apparently she has family there.

Sea Ray
01-12-2012, 11:26 AM
How 'bout a Casey Anthony update to spice things up a bit here? Well some new information has been released that pertains to the paternity of her daughter Caylee:


Casey Anthony told a psychiatrist that she became pregnant with her daughter, Caylee, after passing out at a party when she was 18 years old, according to depositions in which the doctor said tests gave no indication that Anthony was mentally ill as she faced her murder trial.
The 25-year-old Anthony was acquitted last July of killing her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee, in a trial that captured the nation's attention. Anthony didn't know who fathered Caylee, the psychiatrist, Jeff Danziger, recounted in a deposition that was unsealed by a Florida judge and released Wednesday. Danziger interviewed Anthony five times over two years but never testified at her murder trial.

"Two beers, possibly given another drug. Woke up passed out," said Danziger, reading from notes he took during an interview with Anthony in November 2010. "Don't remember anything at a party, age 18. This is how she said she got pregnant."



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/casey-anthony-says-she-be_n_1200722.html?icid=maing-grid10%7Chtmlws-main-bb%7Cdl8%7Csec3_lnk1%26pLid%3D126975#s294277&title=Casey_Anthony_Personal

I don't know if she's telling the truth or not but this would explain why she was/is so messed up. That would screw up any teenage girl. It would also explain why no one has come forward, even rumored, as the father.

Her mistake was keeping the kid. She should have either aborted it or put it up for adoption. Raising a kid with that burden is not going to turn out well.

puca
01-13-2012, 09:01 AM
How 'bout a Casey Anthony update to spice things up a bit here? Well some new information has been released that pertains to the paternity of her daughter Caylee:



I don't know if she's telling the truth or not but this would explain why she was/is so messed up. That would screw up any teenage girl. It would also explain why no one has come forward, even rumored, as the father.

Her mistake was keeping the kid. She should have either aborted it or put it up for adoption. Raising a kid with that burden is not going to turn out well.

Either Casey or her lawyer have also tossed out the theory that Caylee might have been a product of incest (brother and father). I believe a paternity test was even done on her brother. The term pathological liar comes to my mind.