Casey Anthony Got Off

[Mutaman]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Mutaman

See post # 48

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

[Mutaman]

Originally Posted by frenetic wave

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]

I watched practically every minute of it (yes I have no life). I would still be there arguing manslaughter.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by BoydsOfSummer

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]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

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]

Originally Posted by bigredmechanism

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]

Originally Posted by bigredmechanism

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]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

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]

Originally Posted by bigredmechanism

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]

Originally Posted by bigredmechanism

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]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

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]

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.

[bigredmechanism]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

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.

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

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.