Turn Off Ads?
Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 114

Thread: Casey Anthony Got Off

  1. #91
    For a Level Playing Field RedFanAlways1966's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Oakwood, OH
    Posts
    11,725

    Re: Casey Anthony Got Off

    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."
    Small market fan... always hoping, but never expecting.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #92
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    4,438

    Re: Casey Anthony Got Off

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    http://www2.tbo.com/news/news/2011/j...-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.

  4. #93
    always ask questions bigredmechanism's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    2,232

    Re: Casey Anthony Got Off

    Quote Originally Posted by Sea Ray View Post
    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."

  5. #94
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    4,438

    Re: Casey Anthony Got Off

    Quote Originally Posted by bigredmechanism View Post
    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."

  6. #95
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    1,839

    Re: Casey Anthony Got Off

    Quote Originally Posted by Mutaman View Post
    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.

  7. #96
    always ask questions bigredmechanism's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    2,232

    Re: Casey Anthony Got Off

    Quote Originally Posted by Todd Gack View Post
    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):
    Quote Originally Posted by the google privacy policy
    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.
    Last edited by bigredmechanism; 07-20-2011 at 01:10 AM.

  8. #97
    Member Sea Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    15,546

    Re: Casey Anthony Got Off

    Quote Originally Posted by savafan View Post
    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

  9. #98
    Member Sea Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    15,546

    Re: Casey Anthony Got Off

    Quote Originally Posted by bigredmechanism View Post
    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.

  10. #99
    Member Sea Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    15,546

    Re: Casey Anthony Got Off

    Quote Originally Posted by bigredmechanism View Post
    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.

  11. #100
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    10,280

    Re: Casey Anthony Got Off

    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.
    "Man, the pitch looks fast, even in slow motion." Thom Brennaman on Chapman's fastball.

  12. #101
    Member Sea Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    15,546

    Re: Casey Anthony Got Off

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    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

  13. #102
    Cruisin' for trouble
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Fredericksburg, VA
    Posts
    3,290

    Re: Casey Anthony Got Off

    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.

  14. #103
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    10,280

    Re: Casey Anthony Got Off

    Quote Originally Posted by GoReds View Post
    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.
    "Man, the pitch looks fast, even in slow motion." Thom Brennaman on Chapman's fastball.

  15. #104
    CELEBRATION TIME RBA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    San Marcos, CA
    Posts
    13,984

    Re: Casey Anthony Got Off

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    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?

  16. #105
    THAT'S A FACT JACK!! GAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Bellefontaine, Ohio
    Posts
    26,668

    Re: Casey Anthony Got Off

    Quote Originally Posted by bigredmechanism View Post
    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.
    "panic" only comes from having real expectations


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25