PDA

View Full Version : Can you all believe the outcome of the Casey Anthony trial!!!



Pages : [1] 2

Hunter121
Jul 5th 2011, 10:39 PM
It's ridiculous, for those of you who don't know Casey anthony was found not guilty!!!

steelerbabe
Jul 5th 2011, 10:52 PM
I was very surprised and saddened by the verdict. My husband keeps reminding me that whatever the outcome, she will stand before God and give an account.

keck553
Jul 5th 2011, 10:53 PM
The jury was not exposed to the media blitz.

The fact that we who are exposed to the media frenzy have such a dichotemy with the jury who wasn't exposed is scary.

Cornflake
Jul 5th 2011, 10:55 PM
After the verdict at the trial of the rape cops in NYC? Yep.

Just like OJ showed, pick people easily enough confused and....

-SEEKING-
Jul 6th 2011, 12:42 AM
Can't say one way or the other. Didn't follow the case. My boss turned it on at 2:15 to see the verdict. But what he told me was that the evidence was severely lacking. So, if that's the case, then the verdict is right on. Based on the fact that the prosecution did a horrible job.

shepherdsword
Jul 6th 2011, 01:24 AM
Can't say one way or the other. Didn't follow the case. My boss turned it on at 2:15 to see the verdict. But what he told me was that the evidence was severely lacking. So, if that's the case, then the verdict is right on. Based on the fact that the prosecution did a horrible job.

There was a huge hole in their case and it let room for plenty of reasonable doubt.If I was a juror I would have voted not guilty as well. Based on the evidence,not the hype.

the sound
Jul 6th 2011, 01:31 AM
yeah i followed it some.. didn't really know what to make of it... they really didn't have much of a case against her.

Diggindeeper
Jul 6th 2011, 01:41 AM
I felt there was plenty of evidence. She got away with murder. Murder of her own child.

Now, we just sit back and wait a short while and before too long, she WILL be in another
really stinkin' bad mess. She, through her attorneys has ruined her father's life, her
mother's life, and the poor souls are not even wanted in the neighborhood any more.

But she will waltz out of there, get rich on a book deal and a movie, and she WILL do
something really bad again. Just like OJ did. People like that just do things like that.

Just wait and see. One gets away with murder, they get it in their head they can get
away with ANYTHING.

I honestly don't think people today know the difference between a REASONABLE doubt
and just a 'doubt'. She lied and lied until the evidence was hard to prove. She'll go on
lying and lying. But, mark my word. Someday you'll see her in really hot water again.
(And I told you this on July 5, 2011.) She WILL pay the next time.

danield
Jul 6th 2011, 02:08 AM
Someone killed that little girl by the simple fact that there was tape over her mouth. At an age of two, how can anyone not look at the mother as being involved? Caylee was just an adorable child. I just don’t understand how someone could harm someone that innocent. It is just heart breaking.

Matthew
Jul 6th 2011, 03:56 AM
I can believe it. I think she's probably guilty. In fact, I think she's very likely guilty. I'm not sure about beyond a reasonable doubt. I have to defer to the 12 folks who sat through the entire trial and heard the evidence.

Regardless of the verdict, the entire ordeal is simply tragic.

Cornflake
Jul 6th 2011, 05:03 AM
What huge hole was there in the case? I thought the evidence was pretty damning. She didn't report a missing toddler, her trunk smelled of decomposition, there was hair from the kid's dead body found in the trunk, the body was found houses away, she borrowed a shovel, there was duct tape on the skull. Just... what hole in the evidence?

IMINXTC
Jul 6th 2011, 11:28 AM
12 jurors unaminously decide after deliberation. One juror's disagreeing will hang the jury.... a mistrial. ( I've been on juries).

This defendant can easily be convicted of many things, including being quite sick. Circumstantial does not make it in US jurisprudence. (or is not supposed to).

Did she do it? Heaven knows.

People failed to prove.

catlover
Jul 6th 2011, 01:14 PM
Here is what I don't like about this type of thing. Why does the media pick this one case to obsess on. You can't turn the tv or radio on without it being talked about. What about all the other children in the world who "vanish" and are found murdered. Why was this one so special? I got to the point of just not caring about it because of saturation.

And when people say there wasn't enough evidence. What? People have been convicted on alot less. You don't have to actually see the person commit the murder, or have it on camera, or have an eye witness. It just depends on the personalities of the jury. And we live in a soft and weenie society. If that had been my son I guarantee you there would not be one lie I told the police. I would give them so much detail it would make their head spin.

rjwmdw
Jul 6th 2011, 01:18 PM
I followed the case as much as I could and if I were on the jury, I wasn't convinced one bit that Casey committed the murder.

That's not to say that she didn't have anything to do with it, but it is the prosecution's job to prove BEYOND a reasonable doubt that Casey did it. I personally found some gaping holes in the prosecutions claims, and was not convinced that they brought enough real hardcore proof against Casey.

Did Casey do it? Only God knows, and ultimately in the end God will judge and reward her according to her works.

Warrior4God
Jul 6th 2011, 02:12 PM
What huge hole was there in the case? I thought the evidence was pretty damning. She didn't report a missing toddler, her trunk smelled of decomposition, there was hair from the kid's dead body found in the trunk, the body was found houses away, she borrowed a shovel, there was duct tape on the skull. Just... what hole in the evidence?

Exactly. I also heard something about she was off partying and having fun just a few days after her daughter went "missing." Yeah, that's the typical reaction of an innocent mother distraught that her daughter is gone, right? :rolleyes:

Amos_with_goats
Jul 6th 2011, 02:20 PM
The whole thing is puzzling to me.

I did NOT watch the trial, but no one who watches or listens to any news has been able to avoid it, especially in the state the trial took place.

First, it is significant that the US justice system does not find anyone innocent. She was found 'not guilty'... which only means that the prosecution did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As others have said, she will stand before a perfect Judge one day.

The little girl is dead, and whatever the circumstances, that is tragic. There is some significantly disturbing things about the case.

What is puzzling to me are the reactions in the media. I did not see it, but understand some were very upset.

What I happened to see (I was taking my DBW to lunch yesterday when the verdict was released)... they had a TV on in the restaurant.

The 'legal annalist' for CNN sounded giddy to tell the story of her being accquitted of the murder charges. He had clearly left impartiality, and sounded thrilled at the verdict.

What does it mean that a 'not guilty' verdict is received in this way when there are so many inconsistencies, and a dead child?

Jeanne D
Jul 6th 2011, 03:17 PM
Exactly. I also heard something about she was off partying and having fun just a few days after her daughter went "missing." Yeah, that's the typical reaction of an innocent mother distraught that her daughter is gone, right? :rolleyes:

I just don't understand that! She also waited like 31 days to report her daughter missing?
I had two instances where my sons were temporarily missing, one was an adult, the other was 13 and I thought I'd lose my mind with worry!

I hope she doesn't have any more children.

Jeanne

shepherdsword
Jul 6th 2011, 03:28 PM
What huge hole was there in the case? I thought the evidence was pretty damning. She didn't report a missing toddler, her trunk smelled of decomposition, there was hair from the kid's dead body found in the trunk, the body was found houses away, she borrowed a shovel, there was duct tape on the skull. Just... what hole in the evidence?

A verdict of guilty requires that the preponderance of the evidence doesn't lead to a reasonable doubt. Yes,there was strong evidence but 12 jurors of her peers found enough reasonable doubt to render a not guilty verdict. They were there when all of the evidence was presented.All we are getting is the bits and pieces that the media hypes up. Is she a bad mother? Yes. Is she guilty of killing her own child? 12 jurors say no.

Fenris
Jul 6th 2011, 04:19 PM
It seems pretty clear that she did, in fact, do it. But the legal standards necessary to be found guilty were not met.

Cornflake
Jul 6th 2011, 05:15 PM
This defendant can easily be convicted of many things, including being quite sick. Circumstantial does not make it in US jurisprudence. (or is not supposed to).
You can't convict someone of being sick, no, that's not a crime.

Circumstantial evidence is absolutely enough to convict someone. It's certainly 'supposed to' be enough. It's fine and completely appropriate to convict someone based on circumstantial evidence.

Also, reasonable doubt does not mean beyond any shadow of a doubt or that it's not possible that something else happened, it's a standard involving reason and the actual evidence.


A verdict of guilty requires that the preponderance of the evidence doesn't lead to a reasonable doubt. Yes,there was strong evidence but 12 jurors of her peers found enough reasonable doubt to render a not guilty verdict. They were there when all of the evidence was presented.All we are getting is the bits and pieces that the media hypes up. Is she a bad mother? Yes. Is she guilty of killing her own child? 12 jurors say no.

We're not getting bits and pieces - the entire trial was televised, every minute. Many of the people so stunned in the media watched most of it.

I really think the problem here was the CSI effect and that the defense picked an appropriately stupid jury. Same as OJ. Same as the NY rape cops. One of the jurors at that trial said she absolutely believed that the cops were guilty but like, anything is possible. That's not the standard - she clearly did not understand the standard. Which may be the fault of bad jury instruction but it's just...

The CSI effect has also messed up a number of cases - people believe that there has to be DNA evidence or some other wacky physical evidence (as I've seen a bit of that show and some of the 'evidence' they have doesn't exist in real life) to convict, that circumstantial evidence isn't worthy. This is what television and not listening to a judge has done.

notuptome
Jul 6th 2011, 05:30 PM
It seems pretty clear that she did, in fact, do it. But the legal standards necessary to be found guilty were not met.
She did something but exactly what remains a mystery. She lied and did her best to hide whatever the truth is in this matter. She surely has some degree of responsibility in the death of her daughter. It appears that only God will be able to judge her appropriately in this case.

God is not mocked and whatever a man sows of that shall he reap.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Cornflake
Jul 6th 2011, 05:38 PM
Also, not for nothing, but there's more than circumstantial evidence in this case - though circumstantial evidence is enough to convict someone regardless.

There was, again, hair from Caylee's dead body found in her trunk. There was duct tape that ostensibly came from the house on the corpse. Etc.

Fenris
Jul 6th 2011, 05:42 PM
I really think the problem here was the CSI effect Yeah I think we're definitely seeing the CSI effect here. But still, I'm not really sure that the standard of proof necessary for a conviction was met. And I say that even though I am convinced that she did it.

Cornflake
Jul 6th 2011, 05:47 PM
Yeah I think we're definitely seeing the CSI effect here. But still, I'm not really sure that the standard of proof necessary for a conviction was met. And I say that even though I am convinced that she did it.

How so? Like in what ways do you mean.

Warrior4God
Jul 6th 2011, 05:56 PM
She did something but exactly what remains a mystery.

Well, if she didn't kill her daughter, whether accidentally or intentionally, she had somebody else do it, then. There's no way you can convince me that she didn't know what happened to her daughter, why it happened, and who did it. :2cents:

Fenris
Jul 6th 2011, 06:01 PM
How so? Like in what ways do you mean.The evidence is very circumstantial. We don't have a cause of death. We don't have a murder weapon. We don't have witnesses.

Cornflake
Jul 6th 2011, 06:14 PM
The evidence is very circumstantial. We don't have a cause of death. We don't have a murder weapon. We don't have witnesses.
So? This is what I mean about the CSI effect. None of the latter three things are necessary for a conviction, at all. There may not have been any weapon or witnesses besides Casey herself. And again, there's plenty of physical and other evidence that is not very circumstantial.

We have a dead child, whose mother didn't report her missing, lied about a slew of things I'm too lazy to type, who had said child's body in her car trunk, who frantically borrowed shovels, who lived in a house very near where the body was recovered, who lived in a house with rare duct tape found on the child's corpse.

the inside out
Jul 6th 2011, 06:23 PM
I'm not surprised by the verdict. Do I think she did it? I don't know, but I think she and her family know a whole lot more than they're telling. They presented a lot of evidence and provided a lot of information, but through all of that they couldn't prove a crime (equal to the charges) occured, no lines to connect the dots. The had evidence to possibly prove a cover-up, but she wasn't charged with obstruction. I think if the prosecution had taken off the death penalty and the 1st Degree murder charge, then they may have gotten a guilty verdict.

cindylou
Jul 6th 2011, 06:31 PM
There was a huge hole in their case and it let room for plenty of reasonable doubt.If I was a juror I would have voted not guilty as well. Based on the evidence,not the hype.

There was not a huge hole in the case. The jury didn't understand that reasonable doubt /= any doubt. There was a mountain of circumstantial evidence enough to convict her. They didn't understand how to come to a reasonable conclusion. There is nothing "wrong" with circumstantial evidence and there was plenty provided. This idea that circumstantial evidence isn't enough is troubling. People don't know how to put two plus two together anymore without a sign telling them that it equals four.

Cornflake
Jul 6th 2011, 06:36 PM
I think if the prosecution had taken off the death penalty and the 1st Degree murder charge, then they may have gotten a guilty verdict.

They'd stacked charges, They could have convicted her of a lesser murder charge or manslaughter had they not been... confused.


There was not a huge hole in the case. The jury didn't understand that reasonable doubt /= any doubt. There was a mountain of circumstantial evidence enough to convict her. They didn't understand how to come to a reasonable conclusion.

This.

cindylou
Jul 6th 2011, 06:47 PM
The prosecution did establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury just did not understand what reasonable was. IMO they should have been left with instructions as to what reason is and how to come to a reasonable conclusion. You have to accept certain premises as true or false with information. The defense can't just come in with a story that space aliens killed her in their opening statement, or she accidently drowned and then not back it up....and have that count as reasonable doubt. Because, well..that's not reasonable.

Cornflake
Jul 6th 2011, 06:49 PM
The prosecution did establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury just did not understand what reasonable was. IMO they should have been left with instructions as to what reason is and how to come to a reasonable conclusion. You have to accept certain premises as true or false with information. The defense can't just come in with a story that space aliens killed her in their opening statement, or she accidently drowned and then not back it up....and have that count as reasonable doubt. Because, well..that's not reasonable.

Did you follow the NY rape cops trial at all? This seems to be a burgeoning problem. I don't know how to address it besides extended jury instruction but a good defense in a seemingly tight prosecution case is going to pick the stupidest, least informed, least educated jury possible so... sigh.

Giving it to God is sometimes hard.

Jeanne D
Jul 6th 2011, 06:57 PM
I think our legal system is looney tunes.. it just doesn't make sense.

Now, may I ask a stupid question (something I do so well) ?

How is it that this woman got aquitted of murdering her child even though all of the evidence pointed to this, AND Charles Manson was sent to prison for life, when he didn't commit murder. True he motivated his followers to do it, but he wasn't even at the scenes of the crimes?
Don't get me wrong, he is seriously disturbed, but that doesn't make sense to me?


Jeanne

Cornflake
Jul 6th 2011, 07:08 PM
I think our legal system is looney tunes.. it just doesn't make sense.

Now, may I ask a stupid question (something I do so well) ?

How is it that this woman got aquitted of murdering her child even though all of the evidence pointed to this, AND Charles Manson was sent to prison for life, when he didn't commit murder. True he motivated his followers to do it, but he wasn't even at the scenes of the crimes?
Don't get me wrong, he is seriously disturbed, but that doesn't make sense to me?


Jeanne

It's not a stupid question.

Her defense team had the money for a good jury consultant who helped pick them a jury of people who seemingly had a hard time understanding the basics of the case, the law in general, the jury instructions, etc. Same as OJ - that case was won by the jury consultants.

As for Manson, you're right, he didn't actually kill anyone. His conviction was based on a shared-responsibility prosecution, which is the same sort of thing that can convict someone of murder even if they just drove the getaway car or if someone helps plan a crime but doesn't do it. The idea being that the single person pulling the trigger wasn't the only one responsible and/or may not have acted as they did had the others not been involved. I'm iffy on it, personally, but it's not unique to Manson. He was actually given the death penalty, iirc, though it was overturned in one of the grand rebuffs of the death penalty.

It's just the way it works - it's an adversarial system based on the idea that better 100 guilty people go free than one innocent person be locked up. Though, of course, we lock up innocent people all the time (it can be a mess going the other way too, to be fair. Like, juries LOVE eyewitnesses. Love them, believe them like crazy, despite there being masses of science that prove how incredibly untrustworthy eyewitness testimony is).

If more people chose to forego a jury in favour of a judge, it may make more sense but if you were on trial, and guilty, and wanted not to be convicted... you'd probably not choose a judge either.

cindylou
Jul 6th 2011, 07:09 PM
Did you follow the NY rape cops trial at all? This seems to be a burgeoning problem. I don't know how to address it besides extended jury instruction but a good defense in a seemingly tight prosecution case is going to pick the stupidest, least informed, least educated jury possible so... sigh.

Giving it to God is sometimes hard.

No one takes jury duty seriously anymore and the smartest people know how to get out of it. Every once in a while you will find someone who takes it seriously and understands basic concepts, but usually no.

It's like looking out your window and seeing that the pavement is wet but not being able to come to the conclusion that it rained. You could have a meteorologist on the stand explaining how it rains and that jury would have needed to see a picture or stand in the rain to come to the conclusion that there was wasn't any reasonable doubt that it didn't rain (when it clearly did).

Fenris
Jul 6th 2011, 07:36 PM
So? This is what I mean about the CSI effect. None of the latter three things are necessary for a conviction, at all. There may not have been any weapon or witnesses besides Casey herself. And again, there's plenty of physical and other evidence that is not very circumstantial.

This is your opinion. Obviously the jury felt otherwise.

Cornflake
Jul 6th 2011, 07:43 PM
This is your opinion. Obviously the jury felt otherwise.

Yes, because, I'm willing to wager, they didn't understand what they were doing, what the instructions meant, or ...a lot else. None of them have yet spoken, so who knows, maybe there's some grand explanation for this that hasn't been thought of but one alternate did speak and, same as the NY cops, same as OJ, proved they just didn't grasp what was going on or what they were supposed to do.

Fenris
Jul 6th 2011, 07:45 PM
Yes, because, I'm willing to wager, they didn't understand what they were doing, what the instructions meant, or ...a lot else. None of them have yet spoken, so who knows, maybe there's some grand explanation for this that hasn't been thought of but one alternate did speak and, same as the NY cops, same as OJ, proved they just didn't grasp what was going on or what they were supposed to do.So basically, anyone who decides a legal case differently than you is stupid. Gotya.

Cornflake
Jul 6th 2011, 08:01 PM
So basically, anyone who decides a legal case differently than you is stupid. Gotya.

That's neither what I said nor meant.

As I said, maybe there's an explanation for what they did that does land in reason. Lots of people think very differently about lots of things than I do and vice versa. Doesn't make them or me stupid. I know plenty of people I disagree with on matters from the best pizza toppings to politics to philosophical ideas. I don't think they're stupid because they disagree with me, I'd hope they don't think that about me.

If, like, say, the NY cop trial jury, people from the Anthony jury come out and say that from what was presented at trial they absolutely believe that the defendant was guilty but anything is possible, that's a misunderstanding of the meaning of the jury instructions, of reasonable doubt, etc. If they come out and say it was circumstantial evidence and thus they couldn't convict her, that's a misunderstanding of a lot of things.

If they were asked off the street with no help to understand legal concepts I wouldn't think them stupid or misinformed. If, as they did, they have these things explained to them, repeatedly, and still don't get it. Well....

Like I said, we don't know, they haven't spoken. However, yes, I'd wager they did not understand. Not because they didn't agree with me personally, but because I haven't heard any explanation from anyone (because I'd never assume what I knew was all there was to know) that would lead to a blanket acquittal of charges relating to the death in this case. Which also doesn't mean there isn't one that I haven't heard or that other people haven't thought of.

In the NY trial, in the OJ trial, I'm willing to call those jurors uninformed and stupid, based on their own words, yes. Not because they disagreed with me. Jury consultants in tight prosecution trials will actively go after the dumbest jurors they can find. That's just how it is. The majority of the OJ jurors said, during voire dire, that they got their news from Inside Edition, the tv Hollywood gossip tabloid show. That's why they were on the jury, because his consultants looked for people with little knowledge who were easily manipulated. As noted by cindylou, it's common.

Fenris
Jul 6th 2011, 08:06 PM
Like I said, we don't know, they haven't spoken. However, yes, I'd wager they did not understand. Not because they didn't agree with me personally, but because I haven't heard any explanation from anyone (because I'd never assume what I knew was all there was to know) that would lead to a blanket acquittal of charges relating to the death in this case. Uh, you do realize that people are innocent until proven guilty, right?

The jury has no obligation to explain why they acquitted.

Cornflake
Jul 6th 2011, 08:08 PM
Uh, you do realize that people are innocent until proven guilty, right?

The jury has no obligation to explain why they acquitted.
I do, and they don't, no.

Has nothing to do with people's opinions. OJ Simpson hasn't been convicted in a criminal court of killing his wife and Ron Goldman. I still think he's guilty. *shrug*

Fenris
Jul 6th 2011, 08:12 PM
Has nothing to do with people's opinions. OJ Simpson hasn't been convicted in a criminal court of killing his wife and Ron Goldman. I still think he's guilty. *shrug*So do I.

And I think she was guilty in this case. I think she's also a sociopath and a pathological liar.

But the state didn't make their case "beyond a reasonable doubt". It may not have been possible.

Cornflake
Jul 6th 2011, 08:20 PM
So do I.

And I think she was guilty in this case. I think she's also a sociopath and a pathological liar.

But the state didn't make their case "beyond a reasonable doubt". It may not have been possible.

That, that they didn't prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, is what I have yet to hear an explanation of that makes sense to me (which is not to say there can't be an explanation of that does make sense, but not to me, or that there isn't one that would make sense to me; I haven't heard one that makes sense to me, I have yet to hear any pundit or etc. find one that makes sense to them either).

I don't see how, given the mountain of evidence, people found reasonable doubt. And, given that plus what the alternate said, I think they did not understand the concept of reasonable doubt. Same as the NY jury, who proved with their own statements that they did not understand it.

Fenris
Jul 6th 2011, 08:24 PM
That, that they didn't prove this beyond a reasonable doubt, is what I have yet to hear an explanation of that makes sense to me (which is not to say there can't be an explanation of that does make sense, but not to me, or that there isn't one that would make sense to me; I haven't heard one that makes sense to me, I have yet to hear any pundit or etc. find one that makes sense to them either).
Right. But again, they don't have to justify their decision to acquit. That's how the system works.

Do you really think she's going to be able to lead a normal life after this? Go out to clubs, hang out with friends, get a job? Most people think she's guilty. She's a ghoul.

I think her life is pretty much over.

It's not justice handed down by a human court. It's not really justice at all. But it is a punishment. That's how I see it.

Cornflake
Jul 6th 2011, 08:38 PM
Right. But again, they don't have to justify their decision to acquit. That's how the system works.

Do you really think she's going to be able to lead a normal life after this? Go out to clubs, hang out with friends, get a job? Most people think she's guilty. She's a ghoul.

I think her life is pretty much over.

It's not justice handed down by a human court. It's not really justice at all. But it is a punishment. That's how I see it.

They don't have to ever say a word, though I bet some will. But I meant I haven't heard an explanation from ANYONE. It's not like they're the only ones who heard the case.

I think it depends on what she wants. She may enjoy the notoriety, who knows? There are people attracted to infamy, hence the marriage proposals and 'fan' letters that pour in to notorious convicts.

If she really did want a normal life, she could change her name and her face and move. No one much knows where Karla Homolka is or what she looks like, though the media there is more restricted. If Anthony wanted, she could try - she's free.

Cornflake
Jul 6th 2011, 09:31 PM
Aaand a juror has spoken - and said basically that because there's no specific means of homicide listed, they acquitted - "If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

Brilliant. Except that there was no scenario, even presented by the defense, that wasn't covered by the charges available. If they believed Anthony did it on purpose, they had two available counts. If they believed the child drowned, they had four possible counts. If they believe that she was in some way responsible but they didn't know what transpired, they had two to four counts. That's why DAs stack charges.

So, apparently, cindylou is correct. They didn't understand what they were to do and what things meant.

steelerbabe
Jul 6th 2011, 10:16 PM
Will Casey Anthony make money off her story?

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/

shepherdsword
Jul 6th 2011, 10:39 PM
You can't convict someone of being sick, no, that's not a crime.

Circumstantial evidence is absolutely enough to convict someone. It's certainly 'supposed to' be enough. It's fine and completely appropriate to convict someone based on circumstantial evidence.

Also, reasonable doubt does not mean beyond any shadow of a doubt or that it's not possible that something else happened, it's a standard involving reason and the actual evidence.



We're not getting bits and pieces - the entire trial was televised, every minute. Many of the people so stunned in the media watched most of it.

I really think the problem here was the CSI effect and that the defense picked an appropriately stupid jury. Same as OJ. Same as the NY rape cops. One of the jurors at that trial said she absolutely believed that the cops were guilty but like, anything is possible. That's not the standard - she clearly did not understand the standard. Which may be the fault of bad jury instruction but it's just...

The CSI effect has also messed up a number of cases - people believe that there has to be DNA evidence or some other wacky physical evidence (as I've seen a bit of that show and some of the 'evidence' they have doesn't exist in real life) to convict, that circumstantial evidence isn't worthy. This is what television and not listening to a judge has done.

Well,obviously if you were on the jury the verdict would have been different.I am not being critical of you for that. That is how you see it. As for me,I saw no clear and proven cause of death. I saw no clear and proven time of death.Therefore the capitol murder case was weak. How did Casey die? When did she die? Those are important questions to me,especially if I am sending someone to their death.They simply found the body too late.Not a whole lot to go on and I think that is sad.They did prove she is a liar and a bad mother. The state should have gone for negligent homicide. Her negligence,lies and heartless attitude was proven. What they did not prove was that she killed Casey. All they found in the trunk was one hair. I think it's plausible to think it's possible for a child's hair to get found in her mother's car :rolleyes: If there was a "smell of decomposition" in the trunk why wasn't the police called right away? Like I said BIG HOLES in the case.
As has already been stated...Jesus sits as judge and god is not mocked. Justice will prevail but for me? If I err I want it to be on the side of mercy..

AngelNSC
Jul 7th 2011, 12:06 AM
I think she will end up a millionare from the death of her daughter, because she will get book deals and TV deals she will not have to work, she will have so much money she can go wherever she wants...as I see it, the Victim in this case, that sweet little innocent girl was not given "justice", ...but even though the System as once failed again....God is the ultimate judge and oneday she will stand before God...as we all will and I just say "have mercy on her soul""...its very sad the whole situation...and it makes me sad to think about it all....there are so many people that want kids and cant have them and then their are people like this, that could care less about their child...we do live in a "sick" world!!

diffangle
Jul 7th 2011, 04:00 AM
She said she wants to have another baby!!! :no:

Imo, people being tried for murder should be required to sit in the hot seat and be questioned. They said that she drowned in the pool... if she was deceased, why would Casey feel the need to duct tape her mouth and nose before dumping her in a swamp? How did they explain that?

Cornflake
Jul 7th 2011, 04:06 AM
As for me,I saw no clear and proven cause of death. I saw no clear and proven time of death.Therefore the capitol murder case was weak. How did Casey die? When did she die? Those are important questions to me,especially if I am sending someone to their death.They simply found the body too late.Not a whole lot to go on and I think that is sad.They did prove she is a liar and a bad mother. The state should have gone for negligent homicide.

They DID give them that option. The jury had plenty of options. They could have convicted her of that, they chose not to. I have no idea what the time of death would do for you or the prosecution - unless there's a very particular reason it's possible to know, like a plane crash, no one can pinpoint time of death. That's a tv thing, time of death is an hours-long, days-long, weeks- or months-long window and the longer it's been, and more decomposition there's been, the longer the window gets.

But what difference would it make if it was known to happen X day instead of Y day?

Also, just fyi, if they had convicted her on the murder one count, that's not a death sentence, the penalty phase is separate. That'd just qualify her for the death penalty, not impose it. But, again, they had plenty of lesser charges available.


All they found in the trunk was one hair. I think it's plausible to think it's possible for a child's hair to get found in her mother's car

After said child was dead? I dunno about you but that's not particularly plausible in my neck of the woods unless there's some foul play involved.


If there was a "smell of decomposition" in the trunk why wasn't the police called right away?

Because her mother has been protecting her the entire time. I'd like them to string her mother up on perjury charges now, and I don't think it's unlikely they will. Wanting to protect your child is understandable. Hiding that your child killed someone - nevermind your grandchild - and lying on the stand in relation to it? Inexcusable, imo.

I don't know how annoyed the DA is but he can go after her mother, and the judge is apparently incensed enough at the defense atty's shenanigans as to threaten to go after him. This was just ridiculous, right through to the jury.


Imo, people being tried for murder should be required to sit in the hot seat and be questioned. They said that she drowned in the pool... if she was deceased, why would Casey feel the need to duct tape her mouth and nose before dumping her in a swamp? How did they explain that?

You can't force defendents to testify.

They didn't explain that, I don't think they even discussed the drowning thing past bringing it up - and no it makes no sense. Nor did they ever again discuss the defense's ridiculous opening argument claim about her father abusing her. They just threw whatever they could think of - or whatever they could steal from some trashy soap opera - at the wall to see if it stuck.

There's no plausible reason one would duct-tape a corpse's mouth, and even if - IF - the jury believed that drowning randomness, they still could have convicted her. They just... didn't.

IMINXTC
Jul 7th 2011, 04:37 AM
It's the responsibility of the court, the prosecution and defense, all, to ensure thorough instructions to and understanding of the 12 jurors and their alternates. Everyting is on record, including deliberations, and any discrepency here would be grounds for charges against the court and moves to have the verdict thrown out on technicalities. (could happen here)

What the jury is allowed to see and hear and what the media displays are two, entirely different sets of evidence. The jurors are not even allowed to discuss the case among themelves until deliberations.

During deliberations, it's a rare case when circumstantial evidence and probability are not completely shot-down. Preconcieved notions and assumptions will also be subject to stern revue by the other jurors.

It's either unaminous, one way or the other, or it's a mistrial.

Cornflake
Jul 7th 2011, 04:41 AM
I agree there's a problem with the jury instruction, or with people attempting to ascertain if the jury understood their instructions. Same as the NY case. I don't know what to do about it if, as presumably happened, the judge (who in this case seemed a no-nonsense, straightforward guy) gave clear instructions and the jurors indicated they understood them when they appear to have not understood them.


What the jury is allowed to see and hear and what the media displays are two, entirely different sets of evedence.

How do you mean? The media didn't show graphic photos that were entered into evidence of like, the child's corpse, but they didn't show different evidence or anything in lieu of it.

Amos_with_goats
Jul 7th 2011, 04:57 AM
She said she wants to have another baby!!! .

Yes, and she will be a very rich woman. She will be popular with the press, and I am sure her agent will make a comfortable life for her in all this. I wonder if the guy she was dancing for will marry her now?

After the interviews are over, maybe her own reality show? How about as a contestant on dancing with the stars?

--------------------------------

Where do all these people find it within them to get so upset? We murder 42 million innocent children a year in this country EVERY year.
It would seem that this child at least got two years of life....


... I know, this is TERRIBLE... I do not make light of this. I WILL say that this public outrage is not without a hugely overlooked problem that society is largely silent about.

IMINXTC
Jul 7th 2011, 04:59 AM
I agree there's a problem with the jury instruction, or with people attempting to ascertain if the jury understood their instructions. Same as the NY case. I don't know what to do about it if, as presumably happened, the judge (who in this case seemed a no-nonsense, straightforward guy) gave clear instructions and the jurors indicated they understood them when they appear to have not understood them.



How do you mean? The media didn't show graphic photos that were entered into evidence of like, the child's corpse, but they didn't show different evidence or anything in lieu of it.

If there was a failure either of the court, the DA or even the defense to properly instruct the jurors, its highly unlikely that that won't be persued by someone, from either side. It's routine, and the first item to be attacked by those in opposition to the verdict. Could certainly happen here.

Right. I've sat through those graphic photos - jurors are not shielded from them. But whether they amount to evidence for the DA or Defense is usually hotly addressed by either side.

The jury is not allowed to hear the conjecture and hear-say and arguments about probability and circumstatial evidence presented in the media. That's why, often, the entire jury is quarrantined - no TV, newspaper, internet etc.

Diggindeeper
Jul 7th 2011, 05:03 AM
I just don't understand that! She also waited like 31 days to report her daughter missing?
I had two instances where my sons were temporarily missing, one was an adult, the other was 13 and I thought I'd lose my mind with worry!

I hope she doesn't have any more children.

Jeanne

Me too, Jeanne! But its come out now that while in jail she wrote letters to other female inmates there, and in one she said she'd like to have more children. Even talked about possibly adopting a baby in the future! (Unbelievable!)



The evidence is very circumstantial. We don't have a cause of death. We don't have a murder weapon. We don't have witnesses.

Actually there are not many murders committed where there are 'witnesses'. So that's a strawman cause for a 'Not Guilty' verdict.

My husband and I followed much of the trial and here's the facts that were presented:

Cassie was the last one seen with the baby. She left and that very night and most of the next day, she was in bed with her boyfriend. (Where was baby Caylee?) She had told him about a week BEFORE that she would be able to move in with him as of that date. (And she did! But where was Caylee? She was not at her grandparents.

As the days went on, Cindy was calling her asking "Where are you? When is Caylee coming home?" And Cassie was telling her she was at a conference in (I think) Jacksonville. Her mom kept calling every few days, sometimes more than once a day. Cassie lied and lied. They were with 'Zanny the Nanny', they went on a trip with Zanny, Zanny's sister was along too, and she had two children for Caylee to play with. Caylee was having a great time, she told her mom! Then, Zanny was in a wreck and they had to stay over, because Zanny was in the hospital. This went on until the towing company informed the Anthony's that their car had been towed and for them to come and get it. Cassie was the only one driving that car, which ended up (as was proven in testimony) to have HAD a 'decomposing body' in the trunk!

George Anthony smelled it, even said a prayer before opening the stinking trunk, "Dear Lord, don't let that be my Cassie or Caylee." The tow truck driver smelled it. The detectives smelled it. Cadavar dogs hit on trunk! And in the Anthony's back yard. Oh and even Cassie had smelled it. One of her friends testified that Cassie told her, "MY dad must have run over a dead animal and I think its stuck under my car and smelling."

Cassie did not just WAIT 31 days to report her daughter missing! Her family finally set out going to all her friends and to bars, hunting all over the place and finally found Cassie and brought her home. Cassie lied, saying, "I've been trying to find her myself for 31 days." Said, "The babysitter stole her and I've been trying to find her."

It was not even Cassie who reported the child missing after that 31 days! It was her Mom!

When finally found after 5 long months, there was nothing left but little bones of Caylee! Impossible to get DNA or fingerprints after that long. She was found in a wooded area that was a swamp land and under knee deep water for July, August and much of September! Animals, probably dogs, had chewed some of her bones. She had duct tape still clinging to some remaining hair on one side of her skull!

One and a half minutes from the Anthony home! Where the Anthony family had buried some pets in the past.

She was wrapped in a blanket from little Caylee's bed. Put in two trash bags and a laundry bag that belonged to a PAIR from the Anthony garage.

And until the grandmother called the police, Cassie had been sleeping around, going to bars and night clubs, was in a 'beautiful body contest' at one nightspot. Helped out as a 'Shot Girl' for a bar where her boyfriend had connections, stole lots of money from a girlfriend's bank account, and had stolen "hundreds of checks" from her mom and dad's bank account and ran up their charge card!

The day before she was found, she got a tattoo that in Latin said, 'Beautiful Life'. And when he asked "Where's Caylee?" She told him she would bring her in the nezt week when she came for another tattoo!

Now, she was the only one who was driving that car which got to smelling so bad that she abandoned it. She had access to the duct tape. To the Winni the Pooh blanket that the baby was wrapped in. She had access to the laundry bag.

They could not prove exactly how the baby died, BUT...the manner of death was homocide!

That poor baby got in the way of the single life she wanted! She had to get rid of her.

How does any of that add up to Not Guilty???

I agree with Cornflake. I know its been reported that one of the jurors had been arrested for DUI. One for drugs, One had a sister who had been in trouble with the law. Another had a sister who killed his father.

That jury was so incompetent that its a crying shame! One had the audacity to say already that since they couldn't prove the cause of death, she should not get the death penalty. They were not even in the penalty stage!

But the thing is, they did prove it was a Homicide............and Cassie was the only one the evidence pointed straight to! She got away with murder and has NEVER had one ounce of remorse.

But, wait and see. She WILL be in bad trouble again. Just wait and see.

Cornflake
Jul 7th 2011, 05:03 AM
If there was a failure either of the court, the DA or even the defense to properly instruct the jurors, its highly unlikely that that won't be persued by someone, from either side. It's routine, and the first item to be attacked by those in opposition to the verdict. Could certainly happen here.
How? It's a finalized criminal acquittal. The defense won't appeal an acquittal and the prosecution can't.

Nice summary DD, I didn't follow the trial as closely as you did; it seems it only gets more ridiculous the more you know, doesn't it?


When finally found after 5 long months, there was nothing left but little bones of Caylee! Impossible to get DNA or fingerprints after that long.

This is that CSI thing again. I don't doubt someone on this jury would want that, but if they'd found Casey's fingerprints or DNA on Caylee's body, it'd be meaningless, as she was her mother and her DNA and fingerprints would logically be on the child.

I've heard of juries not liking domestic violence cases because the detectives didn't bother taking any fingerprint or DNA evidence. Which most crimes don't warrant to begin with but if two people live together, it's utterly moot as to whether their fingerprints were at the scene of the crime - in the house they inhabit.

IMINXTC
Jul 7th 2011, 05:12 AM
You simply sue the court - in this case, the state - demanding a reopening of the case based upon evidence there had been malfiesance or a failure of the court.

The defendant cannot be re-tried, that would be double-jeopardy. But those responsible would be held accountable and the truth, at least, would become public domain.

Edit: correction from earlier - the defendant remains aquitted.

steelerbabe
Jul 7th 2011, 05:18 AM
Maybe she will spent the rest of her life looking for the real killer, just like OJ:rolleyes: Instead of the golf course, she can scour the bars. With her free time, maybe she can babysit the defense teams children.:B

Diggindeeper
Jul 7th 2011, 05:20 AM
If there was a failure either of the court, the DA or even the defense to properly instruct the jurors, its highly unlikely that that won't be persued by someone, from either side. It's routine, and the first item to be attacked by those in opposition to the verdict. Could certainly happen here.

Right. I've sat through those graphic photos - jurors are not shielded from them. But whether they amount to evidence for the DA or Defense is usually hotly addressed by either side.

The jury is not allowed to hear the conjecture and hear-say and arguments about probability and circumstatial evidence presented in the media. That's why, often, the entire jury is quarrantined - no TV, newspaper, internet etc.

No, when tried for murder and if found Not Guilty, she can NEVER be tried again! That's double jepardly and it cannot happen. They could retry if she had been found guilty. But since the jury gave the verdict they gave, she is now cleared of all charges...except for lying to the police!

It is sickening...........and I definitely blame the dummies on that jury. It really is the second OJ!!

Cornflake
Jul 7th 2011, 05:26 AM
I thought you were suggesting a prosecutorial appeal.

IMINXTC
Jul 7th 2011, 06:53 AM
I'll draw the line where my experience ends. Hard enough being a juror (and that never seems to end):(:)

We're praying here for justice for that little girl. It will come.

Cornflake
Jul 7th 2011, 08:26 AM
From here - (http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey-anthony-verdict-alternate-juror-calls-good-mother/story?id=14005609) Ford is juror #3.


Ford told Moran she thought Casey Anthony's claim that her 2-year-old daughter accidentally drowned and she lied for three years was more believable than the evidence the prosecution presented.

"I'm not saying I believe the defense," she said. "Obviously, it wasn't proven so I'm not taking that and speculating at all. But it's easier for me logically to get from point A to point B" via the defense argument.

Ford said that she couldn't make out "logically" the prosecution's argument because there were too many unanswered questions about how Caylee died, including how Casey Anthony would have used chloroform to smother her 2-year-old daughter, then put her in the trunk of her car without anyone seeing her.

"If there was a dead child in that trunk, does that prove how she died? No idea, still no idea." Ford told Moran. "If you're going to charge someone with murder, don't you have to know how they killed someone or why they might have killed someone, or have something where, when, why, how? Those are important questions. They were not answered."

No idea how she died? She believes a random claim that the child drowned. Those two ideas contradict each other but... ok, despite the cause of death being listed as homicide, she doesn't know how she died. But maybe she drowned! And then someone put duct tape over her nose and mouth. You know, as you do with a corpse. And no, lady. No, you do not have to know how they killed someone.

Also... "if there was a dead child in that trunk?" IF? There are two options. Either the dead child was in the trunk, which seems kind of logical as the trunk reportedly smelled like a dead body - even according to Casey - there was cloroform detected in the trunk, and the hair from the dead child was in the trunk, or somehow the hair from the dead child got on Casey, who then inadvertantly transferred it... to the trunk. The latter seems unlikely but in the spirit of going with nonsense, fine. Either way, Casey had the dead child's body. I don't know what reason there'd be for that that'd get her off every one of those charges and according to the juror, neither does she because she never actually presents any real reason whatsoever.

Like I said, a good defense team will find the stupidest, least informed, least educated jury they can. Apparently two of these people didn't even make it out of high school. We really need to revamp the system or this is going to get even worse. Between this and the NY case it's just...appalling doesn't even cover it.

Fenris
Jul 7th 2011, 11:12 AM
Aaand a juror has spoken - and said basically that because there's no specific means of homicide listed, they acquitted - "If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

Brilliant. Except that there was no scenario, even presented by the defense, that wasn't covered by the charges available. If they believed Anthony did it on purpose, they had two available counts. If they believed the child drowned, they had four possible counts. If they believe that she was in some way responsible but they didn't know what transpired, they had two to four counts. That's why DAs stack charges.
If they didn't know what transpired, they can't find her guilty.

I don't think you understand how the legal system works.

Jeanne D
Jul 7th 2011, 01:09 PM
If they didn't know what transpired, they can't find her guilty.

I don't think you understand how the legal system works.

I'm no expert, but it is el stinko I can tell you that.

The fact that the attorneys can "stack the deck" when it comes to jurors is like cheating IMO.

Talk about corruption... geesh.

Jeanne

IMINXTC
Jul 7th 2011, 01:21 PM
Stacking the deck, so to speak, can amount to jury tampering and a serious crime.

A jury of twelve and alternates is usually finally established out of sometimes hundreds of potential jurors.

Attorneys on both sides choose or dismiss under the ageis of a sitting judge. If a juror is an associate of anyone on the court or defense or anyone having anything to do with the case or even remotely knowing the defendant, they must reveal that info (they'll be dismissed). Failure to reveal that info is contempt of court.

Lawyers on both sides are actually required by law to do everything they can legally do to prosecute their case or defend their client.

So, jury selection is highly critical to both sides. It consists of a defendants peers.

Fenris
Jul 7th 2011, 01:24 PM
The fact that the attorneys can "stack the deck" when it comes to jurors is like cheating IMO.
Only because we didn't like the outcome. If the jury gave us our pound of flesh we would love the system.

Jeanne D
Jul 7th 2011, 01:25 PM
Stacking the deck, so to speak, is jury tampering and a serious crime.

A jury of twelve and alternates is usually finally established out of sometimes hundreds of potential jurors.

Attorneys on both sides choose or dimiss under the agis of a sitting judge. If a juror is an associate of anyone on the court or defense or anyone having anything to do with the case or even remotely knowing the defendant, they must reveal that info (they'll be dismissed). Failure to reveal that info is comtempt of court.

Yes I was disqualified from 2 cases due to the fact that in the one case, I had a family member who had been accused of similar charges in the past, and on the other, I sort of knew one of the witnesses.
Isn't picking the jurors that will most likely produce the desired outcome of the attorneys, "stacking the deck" ?

Jeanne

IMINXTC
Jul 7th 2011, 01:30 PM
Isn't picking the jurors that will most likely produce the desired outcome of the attorneys, "stacking the deck" ?

Jeanne

Both attorneys have equal power in jury selection if the judge has not overruled - which they often do, based on a juror's qualifications.

Still the best system in the world, though not perfect, alas:(

cindylou
Jul 7th 2011, 01:58 PM
lol @ those jurors.

lol @ best system in the world

I was watching the news and people are trying to reconcile this in their heads by now saying they are not sure Anthony did it. LOL!

People can't get it through their heads our legal system is very messed up, and that our world is very messed up. Deal with it!

Jeanne D
Jul 7th 2011, 02:04 PM
Only because we didn't like the outcome. If the jury gave us our pound of flesh we would love the system.

I just want things to be fair and just, and the only time that will ever truly happen, is when we stand before the Almighty.

Jeanne

Fenris
Jul 7th 2011, 02:22 PM
I was watching the news and people are trying to reconcile this in their heads by now saying they are not sure Anthony did it. I think there's a subtlety that you're missing. It seems pretty obvious that she did it. But the legal evidence is not sufficient to convict.

Fenris
Jul 7th 2011, 02:23 PM
I just want things to be fair and just, and the only time that will ever truly happen, is when we stand before the Almighty.
Not even then, if some people are to be believed.

Adstars
Jul 7th 2011, 02:53 PM
It matters not if the legal systems of this world are corrupt or dysfunctional or manipulate able. No one will be able to use legal tricks when they face God at the final judgement. No one will be able to fool God. People may get away with this or that in this world but if they do not have Jesus they will be getting away with nothing on The Day of the Lord.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

diffangle
Jul 7th 2011, 03:22 PM
Where do all these people find it within them to get so upset? We murder 42 million innocent children a year in this country EVERY year.
It would seem that this child at least got two years of life....


... I know, this is TERRIBLE... I do not make light of this. I WILL say that this public outrage is not without a hugely overlooked problem that society is largely silent about. My client the other day made the comment that "now this is going to show everyone that's its okay to murder your child... that you can get away with it". I responded with "people murder their children in this country every day all day long and get away with it... it's called abortion". :(

cindylou
Jul 7th 2011, 03:27 PM
I just want things to be fair and just, and the only time that will ever truly happen, is when we stand before the Almighty.

Jeanne

you can't always have fair and just and live in a world with mercy too...

cindylou
Jul 7th 2011, 03:28 PM
I think there's a subtlety that you're missing. It seems pretty obvious that she did it. But the legal evidence is not sufficient to convict.

Oh no, I'm not missing anything. They think she's innocent now. Maybe it was all a terrible accident!

Fenris
Jul 7th 2011, 03:34 PM
Oh no, I'm not missing anything. They think she's innocent now. No, they don't. They simply didn't find enough evidence to convict.


July 7, 2011 7:45 AM

Casey Anthony jurors explain their thinking


(CBS News)

One of the jurors who acquitted Casey Anthony on charges of murdering her daughter, Caylee, says he wishes the panel could have found her guilty.

Anthony, 25, of Orlando, was found not guilty of first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter in Caylee's death, but guilty of four lesser charges of providing false information to a law enforcement officer.

"I just swear to God... "the juror told the St. Petersburg Times in an exclusive interview as he was, the paper says, overcome by tears."I wish we had more evidence to put her away.

"I truly do ..."

The man, known publicly only as Juror No. 2, and whom the Times says wanted his name withheld to keep himself and his family from media and public scrutiny, told the newspaper, "Everybody agreed, if we were going fully on feelings and emotions, she was done."

But the dozen jurors from Florida's Pinellas County - the Tampa Bay area - knew they couldn't go on emotions and feelings, he said.

"We just wanted to go on the evidence that was presented to us," he said.

And, he explained, there simply weren't enough pieces to convict Anthony.

He says it wasn't an easy decision. But in the end, he said, it was the only decision they could make based on the evidence.

Another juror, 32-year-old nursing student Jennifer Ford, who'd been known as No. 3, expressed similar thoughts to ABC News, saying in a portion of the interview aired Wednesday night, "If you're gonna charge someone with murder, don't you have to know how they killed someone or why they might have killed someone or have something where, when, why, how? Those are important questions. They were not answered."

She added, "In our country ... we have to prove it. You can't just be like, 'Yeah that really looks bad. Smells bad. Looks bad.' I get that. It does:smells bad, looks bad. I get that. But it's someone else's life, and if I'm wrong, and I kill someone else? I can't live with that."

Ford is quoted as saying jurors declined to talk with reporters immediately after Tuesday's verdict because, "We were sick to our stomach to get that verdict.

"We were crying and not just the women. It was emotional and we weren't ready."

Ford said the case was troubling.

"I did not say she was innocent," she said. "I just said here was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

The prosecution didn't paint a clear enough picture of what happened to Caylee, Ford argued in the part of the interview broadcast Wednesday night.

"I have no idea what happened to that child.' Ford said.

Ford acknowledged that Casey's behavior in the weeks after her daughter went missing, including partying, "looks very bad...but bad behavior is not enough to prove a crime."

"I feel she had something to do with it," Ford said of Anthony. "I don't believe it's fair to speculate."

cindylou
Jul 7th 2011, 04:01 PM
I was talking about outsiders, newscasters and journalists not the particular jurors. The jurors did what they thought was the right thing obviously, they just didn't think it through very far. Dead bodies in the back of a trunk is enough to prove a crime. Laundry bag from the house is enough to prove a crime. There are guys sitting on death row right now that had less evidence to convict them. This was all up to the jury and what they considered reasonable. That's it really. :) A sociopath walks free, but hey that's our legal system. It's not about justice, it is about the law. I just lol when people say how awesome it is. It's not really that great if a sociopath like Casey goes free with all that evidence. It's a mad world.

Fenris
Jul 7th 2011, 04:06 PM
I was talking about outsiders, newscasters and journalists not the particular jurors. The jurors did what they thought was the right thing obviously, they just didn't think it through very far. Yes, yes, we all know that those jurors are idiots, because if they were as smart as their critics they would have found her guilty.

Amos_with_goats
Jul 7th 2011, 04:49 PM
A verdict of guilty requires that the preponderance of the evidence doesn't lead to a reasonable doubt....

I am a herdsman, and not a lawyer... I don't even play one on tv. :)

I believe that you are mixing tow legal standards here though, and it might be worth while to understand the difference.

In Criminal law, guilt must be proven 'beyond all reasonable doubt'. So if the defense can establish doubt in the jury's mind the finding of 'not guilty' is the product (important to note that no one is ever found 'innocent' by the courts of men).

In Civil law, (again I am not an attorney) the standard is lower... it is 'the preponderance of the evidence'. More of a 'reasonable man' standard... much easier to prove.

It seems to me that some of the proposed civil suits against Casey Anthony are not likely to go her way... if someone can establish standing, the riches she is looking at may well blow away like dust.

Cornflake
Jul 7th 2011, 04:58 PM
Yes, yes, we all know that those jurors are idiots, because if they were as smart as their critics they would have found her guilty.
They're idiots because they've demonstrated - the two who have spoken so far - that they did not understand what they were charged to do, they did not understand the legal issues at hand.

Saying she didn't know what the crime was makes no sense. Saying that there WAS a dead child in the trunk but that doesn't prove HOW she died so thus they can't convict, makes no sense and demonstrates a misunderstanding of many things. Saying it was easier for her to believe the child drowned, when exactly ZERO evidence about that was presented, than for her to believe a child found wrapped up and dumped with duct tape over her mouth and nose was killed another way? I'm sorry, makes her an idiot.

I am not the one with the misunderstanding of legal issues.

The manner of death in this case was homicide. If they actually wanted to believe the child drowned, or that a unicorn got her, as, given the evidence presented, seems equally likely, they still could have convicted Anthony on one of the charges related to the death.

If she believes the body was in the trunk then what? How did it get there? Why would someone uninvolved have their kid's corpse in their trunk? If she's not uninvolved, then there's a charge they could have used.


If they didn't know what transpired, they can't find her guilty.

Unless they think unicorns got her, they seem to know what transpired. The child was either killed on purpose or somehow died accidentally and THEN someone put duct tape over her nose and mouth. That does not make logical sense. The ME classed the death as a homicide.

But, regardless, if they think the unicorns got her when Casey wasn't looking - they had an available charge. They do not need to KNOW exactly what happened, because no one but Casey knows what happened, same as in most murders. There are usually two witnesses and one is dead. Most juries never know exactly what happened. It has no bearing on their job. There's no requirement for absolute certainty. There's no requirement that a jury be able to suss out a timeline of exact events. There's no requirement that they know exactly how someone was killed, or robbed or raped.

There IS a requirement that, given the evidence at hand and not random things with exactly no evidence offered (like, say, that the child drowned), a reasonable person would come to the conclusion that someone was guilty or not. Reasonable doubt does not, in any way, mean any doubt whatsoever because who knows, unicorns might have gotten her.

Reasonable doubt is based on the EVIDENCE. It means, basically, if you took the EVIDENCE in the case (and this case had plenty, most all of it seriously damning, like having the dead child in her trunk, which is incontrovertible), and look at it and the argument in the case, is there room for reasonable doubt based on that evidence.

Would a reasonable person say - but unicorns MIGHT have done it. The answer to that is no. If this were a different case, reasonable doubt could include something like - the prosecution says this happened during X week, but the defense claims the defendant was in Spain, not Wyoming and the defense has the torn airline ticket stub and a phone call from Spain, though the defendant could have left there early. There is no further evidence about the whereabouts at all from either side. That? Is reasonable doubt because there's an evidenciary requirement that hangs on evidence that a reasonable person could have cause to doubt (could have left Spain early, could have stayed).

That the child is dead, with duct tape over her face, and was in her mother's trunk but you're not sure exactly HOW her mother killed her? That is not reasonable doubt because it doesn't have much bearing on the case. Same as in the NY case when the juror said flat out that she absolutely believed the prosecution but well, anything is possible, that is NOT reasonable doubt, that's a miscarriage of justice because they didn't understand the jury instructions.

Are they pretty dang confident her mother killed her? Is there evidence to hang doubt on? If they are and there's not, it was their duty to convict. So far the ones who've spoken have indicated they are and there's not, but maybe it was uncorns.


Isn't picking the jurors that will most likely produce the desired outcome of the attorneys, "stacking the deck" ?
No, only because both sides have the same ability to do so. At its heart, ours is an adversarial system, predicated on the idea that both sides should have the best representatives possible, who should then battle it out in front of the jury or judge.

In reality, jury consultants cost money. Good ones cost a LOT of money. The state will put money into a case, especially if they know the other side is too, but they're often outgunned. A good jury consultant in a tight prosecution case is looking for simple, uneducated, uninformed people who are easily swayed and don't understand.

Both sides have the ability to reject jurors out of the pool both for and without cause - jury selection can be very tricky, persnickity and adversarial itself - and try to make up a jury they both think will get them the outcome they want. Only one side does though.

The system really does need to be revamped, in that we need to do something about the jury pool and the education level thereof. Judges have taken to sticking in things about 'this is not like tv' and explaining that there doesn't need to be DNA evidence and etc., because people are so confused by television shows not reflecting reality even when the experts in the case explain why, say, there's no need for DNA evidence or there couldn't be DNA evidence, juries still acquit because on the teevee, there's always DNA evidence. That's pathetic, imo, and a sign we need to do something.


In Criminal law, guilt must be proven 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.

It's actually beyond A reasonable doubt.

cindylou
Jul 7th 2011, 05:21 PM
Yes, yes, we all know that those jurors are idiots, because if they were as smart as their critics they would have found her guilty.

I'm really not trying to sound arrogant, and I apologize if that's how I sound. What I'm trying to say is that to have reasonable doubt in THIS case you would have to accept the premise that there was not a homicide. What do they mean they didn't know how Casey died? How did they come to THAT conclusion? I watched the entire case, the only way they could accept that premise as true is to accept the defense opening statement which they claimed it was an accidental drowning which they never backed up with EVIDENCE. The testimony they heard was testimony that Caylee was killed, a homicide backed up by evidence and science and the jury didn't want to believe that based on NO evidence.

What is reason? How does one come to a reasonable conclusion? Did the jury determine not guilty based on reason? No. They did not. If there is one thing that we can not debate is what reason is, and what it is not. You can not have a resasonable conlusion based on a premise that you accept is true based on no evidence. You can have two or more different reasonable conclusions, yes, but you can't have have reason while accepting one or more premises are true based on nothing.

What do you mean they can't prove what the crime was? The state proved Caylee was killed and they jury didn't WANT to believe it because of the seed of doubt based on nothing (more lies from Casey) that the defense claimed in their opening statement.

Now. The jury came to that conclusion whatever whatever, it's over. What I find comical is the people who want to believe in our justice system SO BAD that they now think that MABYE...just MAYBE it was a terrible accident that the family covered up. Surely our legal system wouldn't let a sociopath, psychopath baby killer go free! Uh, well, yes it did. That's the law, it's over.

Cornflake
Jul 7th 2011, 05:29 PM
The juror keeps talking and it's not making her look better.

She said - "It's easier to get to the conclusion that it was an accident than it is to get to the conclusion that it had something to do with chloroform and duct tape, for me."

How? How is that possible, given that there was chloroform found in the trunk and duct tape found on the corpse? There was also exactly zero evidence presented to suggest it was an accident, Zero. The defense didn't even bother. So... how is it easier for her to "get to" that conclusion? I'm pretty sure given five minutes she could have been convinced that maybe it was unicorns. She's not an idiot because she disagrees with me (I don't know that she does disagree with me, she's not exactly explaining any reasoning whatsoever), she's an idiot because she's an idiot.

Fenris
Jul 7th 2011, 05:36 PM
I'm really not trying to sound arrogant, and I apologize if that's how I sound. What I'm trying to say is that to have reasonable doubt in THIS case you would have to accept the premise that there was not a homicide. What do they mean they didn't know how Casey died? How did they come to THAT conclusion? The medical examiner's office doesn't know the cause of death. Do you know something they don't?

Cornflake
Jul 7th 2011, 05:41 PM
The medical examiner's office doesn't know the cause of death. Do you know something they don't?

They know the manner of death - it was a homicide. The cause is fairly immaterial if the jury knows who did it. As of yet, no one has indicated they think it was anyone other than Casey. Those pesky unicorns though...

cindylou
Jul 7th 2011, 05:45 PM
The medical examiner's office doesn't know the cause of death. Do you know something they don't?

The medical examiner testified that the manner of death was homicide. What the medical examiner couldn't determine was how she was killed, but she testified that she was killed. They couldn't determine how because there was nothing left but bones. Testimony from a medical examiner IS evidence. :) The jury didn't believe the medical examiner for whatever unreasonable...reason ;)

cindylou
Jul 7th 2011, 05:49 PM
They know the manner of death - it was a homicide. The cause is fairly immaterial if the jury knows who did it. As of yet, no one has indicated they think it was anyone other than Casey. Those pesky unicorns though...

We know how she died, we just don't know how she was killed.

Fenris
Jul 7th 2011, 05:52 PM
The medical examiner testified that the manner of death was homicide. What the medical examiner couldn't determine was how she was killed, but she testified that she was killed. They couldn't determine how because there was nothing left but bones. Testimony from a medical examiner IS evidence. :) The jury didn't believe the medical examiner for whatever unreasonable...reason ;)No, they just didn't know who killed her, beyond a reasonable doubt.


I did not say she was innocent," she said. "I just said here was not enough evidence. "

I hope I'm never put on trial by this forum. Really.

Cornflake
Jul 7th 2011, 05:58 PM
No, they just didn't know who killed her, beyond a reasonable doubt.
First, neither of the jurors have said they don't know who killed her. They haven't indicated at ALL that they think someone else was involved. The only thing is that the juror has said it was easier for her to believe it was drowning - which also, apparently, as she didn't indicate otherwise, would have involved Casey and they had charges available.

Again, that is NOT REASONABLE DOUBT. Reasonable doubt has to be based on evidence. That they had evidence that this was a homicide and at least this juror decided she believed something with ZERO evidence presented is not reasonable doubt, it's stupidity and ignorance of what was said to her.

Fenris
Jul 7th 2011, 06:01 PM
Again, that is NOT REASONABLE DOUBT. Reasonable doubt has to be based on evidence. That they had evidence that this was a homicide and at least this juror decided she believed something with ZERO evidence presented is not reasonable doubt, it's stupidity and ignorance of what was said to her.Again


I did not say she was innocent," she said. "I just said here was not enough evidence. "

I don't see what's so hard to understand. I know plenty of people in law enforcement who agree with the verdict.

cindylou
Jul 7th 2011, 06:03 PM
No, they just didn't know who killed her, beyond a reasonable doubt.



I hope I'm never put on trial by this forum. Really.

Don't worry. If you don't end up with a body in your trunk for days/weeks you won't have a problem with me. :) Pretty sure I've never ever had a dead body in the trunk of a car that I've ever owned...

Diggindeeper
Jul 7th 2011, 06:04 PM
It seems to me we are getting more illiterate and ill-informed people who serve on jury duty. We also live in an often too tolerant society. The evidence here was not even considered. Its like the one alternate juror who spoke out right away...I heard him 'parroting things that Biaz said. He was using terms like 'accident that spiraled out of control'. A few people on the street or who have called in to the media coverage have made statements like 'She probably had used chloroform before and accidentally overdosed her and then didn't know what to do, so she made it look like a kidnapping." Well duh! First of all, THAT is speculation. Second, even if it was true (but no evidence that proved she had done that before to begin with!), then THAT would be child abuse.
Not a 'bad accident' that spiraled out of control.

You know, I remember Cindy Anthony testifying that Caylee slept with her, except WHEN Cassie was there. Then she would sleep with Cassie. To me, that says that those grandparents had her much of the time. THEY were the ones buying her clothes, her 'Play House' in the back yard, her toys, the food she ate. And Cassie was in the habit of dropping the little girl off at her Mom's place of employment where the little girl had to sit around for an hour or two, because Cassie was saying SHE had to go go work at Universal Studio. In reality, she had not worked there for 2 years...nearly all of the baby's life.

Cassie thought EVERYONE would believe her lies and think the little girl had been 'stolen', thus the 3 strips of duct tape over her mouth AND nose. Cassie was not a good mother. All those FORMER friends who said she was such 'a good mother' had not known her long and only say Caylee a few times with her.

The one hair that was testified about so much...it was proven to be from a dead body. It was also proven that it matched the hair still on the skull and duct tape. That was Caylee's hair in the trunk of that car.

One more thing. Lacey Peterson's husband is now on death row in California for murdering his wife and unborn baby (she was 8 months pregnant), and this was a circumstantial case. Scott Peterson was jos name. Her body was found when it washed ashore, minus her head, which to my knowledge they never found along with other parts of her body. But...the jury weighed the evidence that was presented and found him guilty as charged.

This should have been no different. Now, its coming out that some of the jurors are now getting threats. They didn't know they were stirring up a hornet's nest? Did they think they would now be heroes?

All this...because of the lying Cassey Anthony. Who they set free!

Fenris
Jul 7th 2011, 06:04 PM
Don't worry. If you don't end up with a body in your trunk for days/weeks you won't have a problem with me. :) Pretty sure I've never ever had a dead body in the trunk of a car that I've ever owned...I'm sure the media could whip this place into a frenzy. Guilty! Guilty!!! :lol:

Cornflake
Jul 7th 2011, 06:05 PM
What's so hard to understand is what she wants evidence OF, how it'd make any difference, why she doesn't accept the evidence that was presented, in favour of something with zero evidence presented and why they didn't use any other charge available.

That is what is so hard to understand.

Fenris
Jul 7th 2011, 06:12 PM
What's so hard to understand is what she wants evidence OF, how it'd make any difference, why she doesn't accept the evidence that was presented, in favour of something with zero evidence presented and why they didn't use any other charge available.

That is what is so hard to understand.The jury didn't think there was enough evidence.

Fenris
Jul 7th 2011, 06:13 PM
I already said that I think she did it. I think she's a sociopath. But it hasn't been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

Amos_with_goats
Jul 7th 2011, 06:16 PM
....It's actually beyond A reasonable doubt.

apart from my point, but good catch. I am glad you slept in a Holiday inn last night. :lol:

cindylou
Jul 7th 2011, 06:19 PM
Oh no no no! Space aliens could have done it! There is no evidence WHATSOEVER to suggest that they did it, but they COULD HAVE!!! REASONABLE DOUBT! (remember, a dead body in the back of a trunk is not evidence enough..space aliens could have killed first then she was just trying to dump the body on the side of the road in a swamp like any normal mother would)

NOT GUILTY! :)

the inside out
Jul 7th 2011, 06:32 PM
The medical examiner testified that the manner of death was homicide. What the medical examiner couldn't determine was how she was killed, but she testified that she was killed. They couldn't determine how because there was nothing left but bones. Testimony from a medical examiner IS evidence. :) The jury didn't believe the medical examiner for whatever unreasonable...reason ;)
A juror has said that the CAUSE of death not being determined played a huge factor in their decision. Pretty acceptable and reasonable reason for me. Calling it homicide is pointless if you can't establish how that homicide played out. Someone killed this person, that's all "manner of death" means, but it doesn't say much. Manner of death can't tell you how, where, when, or who. And since this was FIRST DEGREE MURDER, we can add "why" to that list. Manner of death raises more questions and the prosection didn't give any answers, they left the jurors to connect the dots and guess. Duct tape over her mouth as a cause of death doesn't mean anthing if you can't prove she died that way, so saying it was an accident and they tried to cover it up is just as likely (and the best thing, is that the defense doesn't have to prove that theory). They probably didn't disregard the manner of death, but they may have taken that manner of death to mean either it was deliberate or a freak accident caused by someone's negligence, and there's no proof to suggest either one since there is no cause of death, and the prosecution couldn't prove a motive. Their motive was based on pictures after she went "missing", but everything before that showed a loving mother, and nothing to prove a sudden change. Honestly, she was overcharged; and you can convict on circumstantial evidence, but if you don't have a cause of death, motive, or even a place of death you're at a disadvantage.

We have the "luxury" at home to look at the evidence and make guesses, connect the dots, come up with our own theories, and make a judgment based on that. The jury doesn't. They have to look at what's in front of them and make a call based on that. And for them there wasn't enough to find her guilty of the felony charges. Does it mean she's innocent? No. It means that what needed to be there to make a guilty verdict wasn't there. Baez said the word "accident" and the state couldn't prove otherwise.

Fenris
Jul 7th 2011, 06:34 PM
State attorney Lawson Lamar said Tuesday after Anthony was found not guilty of killing her 2-year-old daughter that the case was very difficult to prove.

Not according to the experts here...

cindylou
Jul 7th 2011, 06:38 PM
A juror has said that the CAUSE of death not being determined played a huge factor in their decision. Pretty acceptable and reasonable reason for me. Calling it homicide is pointless if you can't establish how that homicide played out. Someone killed this person, that's all "manner of death" means, but it doesn't say much. Manner of death can't tell you how, where, when, or who. And since this was FIRST DEGREE MURDER, we can add "why" to that list. Manner of death raises more questions and the prosection didn't give any answers, they left the jurors to connect the dots and guess. Duct tape over her mouth as a cause of death doesn't mean anthing if you can't prove she died that way, so saying it was an accident and they tried to cover it up is just as likely (and the best thing, is that the defense doesn't have to prove that theory). They probably didn't disregard the manner of death, but they may have taken that manner of death to mean either it was deliberate or a freak accident caused by someone's negligence, and there's no proof to suggest either one since there is no cause of death, and the prosecution couldn't prove a motive. Their motive was based on pictures after she went "missing", but everything before that showed a loving mother, and nothing to prove a sudden change. Honestly, she was overcharged; and you can convict on circumstantial evidence, but if you don't have a cause of death, motive, or even a place of death you're at a disadvantage.

We have the "luxury" at home to look at the evidence and make guesses, connect the dots, come up with our own theories, and make a judgment based on that. The jury doesn't. They have to look at what's in front of them and make a call based on that. And for them there wasn't enough to find her guilty of the felony charges. Does it mean she's innocent? No. It means that what needed to be there to make a guilty verdict wasn't there. Baez said the word "accident" and the state couldn't prove otherwise.

By saying an accident is just as likely is saying that the EVIDENCE (testimony from the medical examiner; testimony is evidence) was untrue. The medical examiner testified it was a homicide and the jury want to believe (based off no evidence) that an accident was just as likely? How is that reasonable? The jury knows more than the medical examiner and the all of the FBI testimony given that this was in fact a homicide?

cindylou
Jul 7th 2011, 06:53 PM
But if you do have a manner of death and evidence of a dead body in the back of the mother's trunk..that's not enough? I don't understand...

IDK how it works in Florida but here in Missoura if there is a dead body lying around and I have pieces of that dead body in my trunk...I did it. ;)

Fenris
Jul 7th 2011, 06:58 PM
But if you do have a manner of death and evidence of a dead body in the back of the mother's trunk..that's not enough? I don't understand...

IDK how it works in Florida but here in Missoura if there is a dead body lying around and I have pieces of that dead body in my trunk...I did it. ;)Obviously you know more than this guy:


State attorney Lawson Lamar said Tuesday after Anthony was found not guilty of killing her 2-year-old daughter that the case was very difficult to prove.

Diggindeeper
Jul 7th 2011, 06:59 PM
I already said that I think she did it. I think she's a sociopath. But it hasn't been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

They have set free a person who is a danger to society. Yes, she is a sociopath. She is a pathological liar. She is narcissistic. They had enough to convict her on the lesser charges. But...they were not capable of doing that.

keck553
Jul 7th 2011, 06:59 PM
I'm sure the media could whip this place into a frenzy. Guilty! Guilty!!! :lol:

It is far, far more scary that the media could incline 80% of the nation to judge this person than the fact that the preponderance of evidence was insufficient for conviction.

Who's the puppet in this scenario, and who is the puppet master?

Fenris
Jul 7th 2011, 07:02 PM
It is far, far more scary that the media could incline 80% of the nation to judge this person than the fact that the preponderance of evidence was insufficient for conviction.

Yeah I hear you.

Fenris
Jul 7th 2011, 07:03 PM
They have set free a person who is a danger to society. This is a nation of rules and laws that must be applied when someone loses their freedom.

the inside out
Jul 7th 2011, 07:03 PM
By saying an accident is just as likely is saying that the EVIDENCE (testimony from the medical examiner; testimony is evidence) was untrue. The medical examiner testified it was a homicide and the jury want to believe (based off no evidence) that an accident was just as likely? How is that reasonable? The jury knows more than the medical examiner and the all of the FBI testimony given that this was in fact a homicide?
Like I said, homicide can mean different things. It can mean someone deliberately killed Caylee or it can mean someone killed Caylee in an act of negligence (a.k.a accident). The only thing that could make the destinction and actually define homicide in this case would be a cause of death. Calling it homicide with an unknown cause of death doesn't say so-and-so did it and it happened this way for such-and-such reason, it just says "someone did it, but we don't know how and we don't know what happened." Saying the manner of death is homicide doesn't mean much if you can't define what homicide means in this case. "Homicide" was left undefined, and that's where the prosecution lost.

Diggindeeper
Jul 7th 2011, 07:11 PM
Like I said, homicide can mean different things. It can mean someone deliberately killed Caylee or it can mean someone killed Caylee in an act of negligence (a.k.a accident). The only thing that could make the destinction and actually define homicide in this case would be a cause of death. Calling it homicide with an unknown cause of death doesn't say so-and-so did it and it happened this way for such-and-such reason, it just says "someone did it, but we don't know how and we don't know what happened." Saying the manner of death is homicide doesn't mean much if you can't define what homicide means in this case. "Homicide" was left undefined, and that's where the prosecution lost.

In the Scott Peterson case...there was no known 'cause of death'!!

What's happened to OUR understanding and common sense over the few years since then? Tracy Peterson's body was found (or at least parts of her were found) but no one knew HOW she had died. It was enough that her body had been weighted down and thrown into the water. Hey! She WAS dead. Someone threw her into the water. Look at the parallels in these 2 cases. Then look at the two jury's decisions.

Why is the homicide of this little girl any different?

She was in her mother's care when she 'went missing'. No one else had the means and certainly, no one else gained in any way by her death. ONLY her mom benefited. That little girl got in her way.

So, if we just lie hard enough and long enough , then other evidence does not matter? That's all I really get from all this waste of time.

shepherdsword
Jul 7th 2011, 07:15 PM
They DID give them that option. The jury had plenty of options. They could have convicted her of that, they chose not to.
The reason for this is simple..the case was directed towards a murder conviction not negligence.If the case was totally directed to proving negligence they could have made their case.


I have no idea what the time of death would do for you or the prosecution - unless there's a very particular reason it's possible to know, like a plane crash, no one can pinpoint time of death. That's a tv thing, time of death is an hours-long, days-long, weeks- or months-long window and the longer it's been, and more decomposition there's been, the longer the window gets.

A close approximation of the time of the death can narrow the window of opportunity. But they could not even prove the method of death. So here we have case,no one knows when or how the victim died,all we know is,she's dead.


But what difference would it make if it was known to happen X day instead of Y day?

It makes a big difference. It could very well have been another family member that killed her.It would be interesting to know who was where when she was killed.


Also, just fyi, if they had convicted her on the murder one count, that's not a death sentence, the penalty phase is separate. That'd just qualify her for the death penalty, not impose it. But, again, they had plenty of lesser charges available.

I am well of the penalty phase.A guilty verdict carries with it a possibility of death. That is what my concern is based on.



After said child was dead? I dunno about you but that's not particularly plausible in my neck of the woods unless there's some foul play involved.

I have found one of my hairs in an old car of mine years after I used it. I don't see how you can base a murder conviction on one child's hair in her mother's car.
That don't sound right in my neck of the woods



Because her mother has been protecting her the entire time. I'd like them to string her mother up on perjury charges now, and I don't think it's unlikely they will. Wanting to protect your child is understandable. Hiding that your child killed someone - nevermind your grandchild - and lying on the stand in relation to it? Inexcusable, imo.

How are you so sure she was protecting her daughter? She might have been protecting her husband or herself. In any case your opinion about this is pure speculation. We don't convict someone for murder on that in this country.


I don't know how annoyed the DA is but he can go after her mother, and the judge is apparently incensed enough at the defense atty's shenanigans as to threaten to go after him. This was just ridiculous, right through to the jury

I am angry and annoyed as well. I am angry at the DA for a sloppy job. I am angry that Casey's murder has not received any justice. I am angry Casey had lousy parents. Most of all I am angry that the world is so sick.


You can't force defendents to testify.


They didn't explain that, I don't think they even discussed the drowning thing past bringing it up - and no it makes no sense. Nor did they ever again discuss the defense's ridiculous opening argument claim about her father abusing her. They just threw whatever they could think of - or whatever they could steal from some trashy soap opera - at the wall to see if it stuck.

There's no plausible reason one would duct-tape a corpse's mouth, and even if - IF - the jury believed that drowning randomness, they still could have convicted her. They just... didn't.

My personal opinion is that Casey's mom wanted to go out and party,she didn't want to get caught leaving her alone so she duct taped her up and locked her in the trunk. She died as a result of this and that's when the family got involved. But like I said about your opinion,mine is just pure speculation. In this country the prosecution must prove it's case,that wasn't done in my opinion. I know most disagree with me but that's how I see it.

Fenris
Jul 7th 2011, 07:16 PM
In the Scott Peterson case...there was no known 'cause of death'!!

...
Why is the homicide of this little girl any different?

There's no use in comparing cases. Every trial stands on it's own. Even the state attorney said this was a difficult case to prove.

Jeanne D
Jul 7th 2011, 07:23 PM
There's no use in comparing cases. Every trial stands on it's own. Even the state attorney said this was a difficult case to prove.

That's what's so frustrating. It all depends on the attorney you have, the jury you have, the money you may or may not have, not the crime you have commited.

It boggles the mind. I am very disillusioned with our "justice" system. :rolleyes:

Jeanne

teddyv
Jul 7th 2011, 07:26 PM
That's what's so frustrating. It all depends on the attorney you have, the jury you have, the money you may or may not have, not the crime you have commited.

It boggles the mind. I am very disillusioned with our "justice" system. :rolleyes:

JeanneAs bad as it seems at times, I'll still take it over how much of the world's justice works.

Diggindeeper
Jul 7th 2011, 07:28 PM
Like I said, homicide can mean different things. It can mean someone deliberately killed Caylee or it can mean someone killed Caylee in an act of negligence (a.k.a accident). The only thing that could make the destinction and actually define homicide in this case would be a cause of death. Calling it homicide with an unknown cause of death doesn't say so-and-so did it and it happened this way for such-and-such reason, it just says "someone did it, but we don't know how and we don't know what happened." Saying the manner of death is homicide doesn't mean much if you can't define what homicide means in this case. "Homicide" was left undefined, and that's where the prosecution lost.

"Like I said, homicide can mean different things. It can mean someone deliberately killed Caylee or it can mean someone killed Caylee in an act of negligence (a.k.a accident)." Huh?

Was there anything, ANYTHING that pointed to 'a.k.a. accident'? And who puts duct tape over a little 2 1/2 year old child's mouth and nose...3 pieces of duct tape? Why bag her body up and throw it in a swamp because of an imagined accident?

Cassie wanted this to LOOK like a kidnapping. I promise we'd still be in that jury room deliberating if I had been on that jury. Because I would not buldge 1/4 of an inch.

Jeanne D
Jul 7th 2011, 07:30 PM
"Like I said, homicide can mean different things. It can mean someone deliberately killed Caylee or it can mean someone killed Caylee in an act of negligence (a.k.a accident)." Huh?

Was there anything, ANYTHING that pointed to 'a.k.a. accident'? And who puts duct tape over a little 2 1/2 year old child's mouth and nose...3 pieces of duct tape? Why bag her body up and throw it in a swamp because of an imagined accident?

Cassie wanted this to LOOK like a kidnapping. I promise we'd still be in that jury room deliberating if I had been on that jury. Because I would not buldge 1/4 of an inch.

I agree, me too!

Jeanne

shepherdsword
Jul 7th 2011, 07:36 PM
I was talking about outsiders, newscasters and journalists not the particular jurors. The jurors did what they thought was the right thing obviously, they just didn't think it through very far. Dead bodies in the back of a trunk is enough to prove a crime. Laundry bag from the house is enough to prove a crime. There are guys sitting on death row right now that had less evidence to convict them. This was all up to the jury and what they considered reasonable. That's it really. :) A sociopath walks free, but hey that's our legal system. It's not about justice, it is about the law. I just lol when people say how awesome it is. It's not really that great if a sociopath like Casey goes free with all that evidence. It's a mad world.

First of a dead body was never proved to be in the trunk of the car. Second of all,anyone can take a garbage bag out of someone's house.Thirdly,she isn't going free,she will spend the next four years in jail for the charges she was convicted on.
Did Casey get justice? No,and it's a grievous situation. I am saddened by it.I realize most of the mother's on this forum are as well. I just think that when someone is convicted of capitol murder it should be based on strong and irrefutable evidence and not because of the emotional frenzy involved.

The DA failed to do that.

Jeanne D
Jul 7th 2011, 07:46 PM
First of a dead body was never proved to be in the trunk of the car. Second of all,anyone can take a garbage bag out of someone's house.Thirdly,she isn't going free,she will spend the next four years in jail for the charges she was convicted on.
Did Casey get justice? No,and it's a grievous situation. I am saddened by it.I realize most of the mother's on this forum are as well. I just think that when someone is convicted of capitol murder it should be based on strong and irrefutable evidence and not because of the emotional frenzy involved.

The DA failed to do that.

Actually she's supposed to be released next week, July 13th.

Jeanne

shepherdsword
Jul 7th 2011, 07:50 PM
Actually she's supposed to be released next week, July 13th.

Jeanne

In any case,we know this,God is not mocked and we can take solace in that. Casey will be avenged on the day of Judgement.

Diggindeeper
Jul 7th 2011, 08:00 PM
I still say it won't be long before she is back in BAD TROUBLE AGAIN. I can only hope for two things...that she DID somehow put the child to sleep and that she did not just put the tape over her nose and mouth of that little child and shut her up in the trunk of the car. (And by the way, the 2 dogs (cadaver dogs) that 'HIT' on that trunk of Cassie's car had 100% positive on every hit they had ever made. They are trained to 'HIT' on dead bodies and WILL NOT 'HIT' on garbage or dead animals or rotting food or meat. They are trained to find decomposing human scent and that is the ONLT thing they do and they do it very well.

Shepherdsword, are you sure you heard all the evidence presented? Or just bits and pieces, like this jury did?

Warrior4God
Jul 7th 2011, 08:27 PM
Let me get this straight. The hair that was found in the trunk of Casey's car was determined by experts to be from a dead body, and the hair was proven to have come from Casey's daughter, Caylee. If it was just a hair with no way to tell if it was from a dead or live person, then there's room to reasonably wonder about how the hair got in the trunk. Maybe it got in there when a laundry basket was in the trunk containing Caylee's dirty clothes on the way to a laundromat a year ago. However, I heard the hair was somehow determined to have come from a dead body in the trunk. So, the child was dead, and in the trunk of her mother's car, and yet people are actually wondering if Casey had something to do with her daughter's death or not? :confused So, unless Casey had been captured on video killing her daughter, people can't seem to use common sense, coupled with physical evidence, and figure out that Casey was involved in her daughter's death? Seriously?! :confused

shepherdsword
Jul 7th 2011, 08:33 PM
I still say it won't be long before she is back in BAD TROUBLE AGAIN. I can only hope for two things...that she DID somehow put the child to sleep and that she did not just put the tape over her nose and mouth of that little child and shut her up in the trunk of the car. (And by the way, the 2 dogs (cadaver dogs) that 'HIT' on that trunk of Cassie's car had 100% positive on every hit they had ever made. They are trained to 'HIT' on dead bodies and WILL NOT 'HIT' on garbage or dead animals or rotting food or meat. They are trained to find decomposing human scent and that is the ONLT thing they do and they do it very well.

Shepherdsword, are you sure you heard all the evidence presented? Or just bits and pieces, like this jury did?

I just heard bits and pieces. Has anyone in this thread actually watched the whole trial? Did they find any evidence in the trunk except a hair? Was there any decomposition remains found in the car?


Let me get this straight. The hair that was found in the trunk of Casey's car was determined by experts to be from a dead body, and the hair was proven to have come from Casey's daughter, Caylee. If it was just a hair with no way to tell if it was from a dead or live person, then there's room to reasonably wonder about how the hair got in the trunk in normal circumstances. Maybe it got in there when a laundry basket was in the trunk containing Caylee's dirty clothes on the way to a laundromat a year ago. However, I heard the hair was somehow determined to have come from a dead body. So, the child was dead, and in the trunk of her mother's car, and yet people are actually wondering if Casey had something to do with her daughter's death or not? :confused So, unless Casey had been captured on video killing her daughter, people can't seem to use common sense, coupled with physical evidence, and figure out that Casey was involved in her daughter's death? Seriously?! :confused

I think everyone agrees she probably did it. I have posted my own opinion about how. I think the disagreement is about what constitutes reasonable doubt for first degree murder.No time of death,no method of death and debatable circumstantial evidence. However,I don't think we have to worry about justice being done. Casey will be avenged,if not now,then at the judgement. Perhaps even before then,doing something like this opens up a door into the life of the perpetrator. Wouldn't surprise me if the mother was one day found raped and murdered,if she is truly guilty of planning the child's death. I think the skank is probably just guilty of second degree murder and being a heartless,merciless party wh*re.Just my two cents

Warrior4God
Jul 7th 2011, 08:36 PM
I just heard bits and pieces. Has anyone in this thread actually watched the whole trial? Did they find any evidence in the trunk except a hair? Was there any decomposition remains found in the car?

So, hair from a dead body doesn't convince you that a dead body was in, fact, inside the trunk? And the fact that it matched Caylee is insignificant as well?

Amos_with_goats
Jul 7th 2011, 08:41 PM
Casey Anthony will be released from jail July 13 (http://news.yahoo.com/jurors-cried-felt-sick-acquitting-anthony-012228871.html)

The happy mom;

http://bibleforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=9873&d=1310071114

9873

Good times, good times;

http://bibleforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=9874&d=1310071156

9874


Anthony sits with attorney Clay Sims during sentencing at the Orange County Courthouse in Orlando

:cry:

shepherdsword
Jul 7th 2011, 08:56 PM
So, hair from a dead body doesn't convince you that a dead body was in, fact, inside the trunk? And the fact that it matched Caylee is insignificant as well?

It doesn't tell us how Casey died,does it? It doesn't prove first degree murder does it? Can you prove negligent homicide from that? probably. Can you prove second degree murder from that? Maybe. Can you prove first degree murder from that? No and even the state attorney said that would be hard to prove from the start.
They did a lousy job and justice wasn't done. In THIS life.

But keep it up...I am being swayed. Not that it will help Casey now. The trail is over and done. Although I'm not sure how double jeopardy comes into play if the verdict is appealed. Can it be done?

the inside out
Jul 7th 2011, 09:39 PM
"Like I said, homicide can mean different things. It can mean someone deliberately killed Caylee or it can mean someone killed Caylee in an act of negligence (a.k.a accident)." Huh?

Was there anything, ANYTHING that pointed to 'a.k.a. accident'? And who puts duct tape over a little 2 1/2 year old child's mouth and nose...3 pieces of duct tape? Why bag her body up and throw it in a swamp because of an imagined accident?

Cassie wanted this to LOOK like a kidnapping. I promise we'd still be in that jury room deliberating if I had been on that jury. Because I would not buldge 1/4 of an inch.
I already said nothing pointed to or proved it was an accident, but nothing pointed towards Casey murdering her either. That's the problem. There's all these little pieces, but nothing that connects them together. Nothing proves the duct tape killed her and nothing proves it was an accident. Either could be possible, but nothing definitively points towards one or the other. All you can do is guess, and if you have to guess then you need to vote "not guilty". And there was DNA on the duct tape, but it didn't match Caylee, Casey or her grandparents. A witness said the duct tape was placed after decomp, possibly to keep the jaw bone in place, and another said the pieces of tape, one or two of which that weren't found on the skull, COULD HAVE been used to cover the mouth and nose. COULD HAVE isn't good enough.

And if that's your attiude about the case, then you would have been asked to step down during jury selection.

And hair in a trunk doesn't prove she killed her daughter. It proves that her daughter may have been in the trunk. Caylee in the trunk points more to obstruction, tampering, or abuse of a corpse but she wasn't charged with those. But how many people have access to that car? How many people have admitted to driving it at one point. How many sets of fingerprints were lifted off the car. And the hair was consistant with Caylee's but no expert can say for sure that its hers. It's a big jump to murder just because of a hair in car. Hair in a car says she was moved, that's pretty much it.

cindylou
Jul 7th 2011, 09:57 PM
wow.................

cindylou
Jul 7th 2011, 10:37 PM
Obviously you know more than this guy:

Oh yeah, he's not going to say that AFTER the state lost the case how "difficult" it was to prove ;) Plus, no one really wants to say anything bad about jurors. I get it.

cindylou
Jul 7th 2011, 10:38 PM
I already said nothing pointed to or proved it was an accident, but nothing pointed towards Casey murdering her either. That's the problem. There's all these little pieces, but nothing that connects them together. Nothing proves the duct tape killed her and nothing proves it was an accident. Either could be possible, but nothing definitively points towards one or the other. All you can do is guess, and if you have to guess then you need to vote "not guilty". And there was DNA on the duct tape, but it didn't match Caylee, Casey or her grandparents. A witness said the duct tape was placed after decomp, possibly to keep the jaw bone in place, and another said the pieces of tape, one or two of which that weren't found on the skull, COULD HAVE been used to cover the mouth and nose. COULD HAVE isn't good enough.

And if that's your attiude about the case, then you would have been asked to step down during jury selection.

And hair in a trunk doesn't prove she killed her daughter. It proves that her daughter may have been in the trunk. Caylee in the trunk points more to obstruction, tampering, or abuse of a corpse but she wasn't charged with those. But how many people have access to that car? How many people have admitted to driving it at one point. How many sets of fingerprints were lifted off the car. And the hair was consistant with Caylee's but no expert can say for sure that its hers. It's a big jump to murder just because of a hair in car. Hair in a car says she was moved, that's pretty much it.

But there WAS evidence that she was murdered and there was evidence of the decomposing body in a car that Casey Anthony owned. 2 + 2 = 4

She was the last person to be seen with her and lied about who she was with and where she was!~ AAAAAHHHH :D

Warrior4God
Jul 7th 2011, 11:03 PM
And the hair was consistant with Caylee's but no expert can say for sure that its hers. It's a big jump to murder just because of a hair in car. Hair in a car says she was moved, that's pretty much it.

Why can't an expert "say for sure" that the hair in the trunk of the car was Caylee's? Didn't they test the DNA of the hair and make comparisons to hair on Caylee's body? From what I understand, hair contains DNA. If that's the case, I'm confused as to why the experts can't determine if the hair in the trunk was Caylee's or not. They can do some pretty accurate testing of things in labs. After all, they apparently determined the hair in the trunk of Casey's car came from a dead body. I didn't even know something like that could be figured out from hair.

Warrior4God
Jul 7th 2011, 11:22 PM
But there WAS evidence that she was murdered and there was evidence of the decomposing body in a car that Casey Anthony owned. 2 + 2 = 4

She was the last person to be seen with her and lied about who she was with and where she was!~ AAAAAHHHH :D

I hear you. She also acted very "un-motherly" when her daughter disappeared. She partied. She didn't report her daughter's disappearance until a month after she "went missing." This doesn't sound like a mother too concerned about her daughter. There's physical evidence that ties her to her daughter's death. She constantly lied. It was discovered she had been doing research on how to make chloroform, which was found in her car. She didn't want the responsibilities of raising a child. She obviously wanted the party life. There was motive for killing her daughter. If I had been on the jury I would have convicted her. There's no way you could convince me she had nothing to do with her daughter's death and you couldn't convince me her daughter died "accidentally" and she just panicked and didn't know how to properly react to the situation. Her defense attorney claimed Caylee accidentally drowned in the family pool. Was there an autopsy that showed drowning? I mean, there is enough damning evidence to have convicted Casey. Why she wasn't is beyond me. For those who think she's innocent or that the evidence "wasn't good enough to convict," even though others have been convicted on less evidence, like lack of an actual murder victim's body, what would it have to take to show she absolutely murdered her daughter?

Diggindeeper
Jul 7th 2011, 11:28 PM
Let me get this straight. The hair that was found in the trunk of Casey's car was determined by experts to be from a dead body, and the hair was proven to have come from Casey's daughter, Caylee. If it was just a hair with no way to tell if it was from a dead or live person, then there's room to reasonably wonder about how the hair got in the trunk in normal circumstances. Maybe it got in there when a laundry basket was in the trunk containing Caylee's dirty clothes on the way to a laundromat a year ago. However, I heard the hair was somehow determined to have come from a dead body in the trunk. So, the child was dead, and in the trunk of her mother's car, and yet people are actually wondering if Casey had something to do with her daughter's death or not? :confused So, unless Casey had been captured on video killing her daughter, people can't seem to use common sense, coupled with physical evidence, and figure out that Casey was involved in her daughter's death? Seriously?! :confused


I just heard bits and pieces. Has anyone in this thread actually watched the whole trial? Did they find any evidence in the trunk except a hair? Was there any decomposition remains found in the car?



I think everyone agrees she probably did it. I have posted my own opinion about how. I think the disagreement is about what constitutes reasonable doubt for first degree murder.No time of death,no method of death and debatable circumstantial evidence. However,I don't think we have to worry about justice being done. Casey will be avenged,if not now,then at the judgement. Perhaps even before then,doing something like this opens up a door into the life of the perpetrator. Wouldn't surprise me if the mother was one day found raped and murdered,if she is truly guilty of planning the child's death. I think the skank is probably just guilty of second degree murder and being a heartless,merciless party wh*re.Just my two cents

They proved the hair HAD to come either from CASSIE, her mom, or Cindy's mom. That's it! Both Cassie's and Cindy's hair had been COLORED, so that eliminated them. It was a 9 inch long hair. Cassie's was shorter as was Cindy's. Cindy's mom had never been in the car. That leaves ONLY little Caylee! And it matched the little hair on the skull. What more proof does anyone want>

There was a stain that proved to be decomposition (human) on the spare tire cover and the rug in the trunk of the car. It was proven by the experts at The Body Farm. (You can look that up on the internet!)

My husband and I heard all of the trial and saw and heard the evidence.

Why do you think there is such an outrage over this jury and this verdict? I'll tell yoy, those people on that jury saw to it that Cassie Anthony goes scott free in 6 MORE DAYS! UNBELIEVABLE!

Diggindeeper
Jul 7th 2011, 11:40 PM
By the way...I saw a belt in the front seat of Cassie's car. Who's to say she didn't put a belt around her little girl's neck? Or smothered her. Do you realize if that happened to a person...the fingerprints on the belt would be USELESS.

Of course her finger prints would be on it. But what would that prove? It belonged to Cassie Anthony!

Or if the baby was smothered, there would not be any finger prints. And there would be no blood. And all evidence, like bursted veins, or buldging eyes...would NO LONGER BE THERE. Her eyeballs were gone too! Nothing was left but her BONES. :cry:

So if we're gonna go by 'imaginary' evidence that should have been there...lets get real that it was not by accident. :mad: I'll just 'pretend' she was smothered to death or choked with Cassie's belt. Either way, the baby was too decomposed for the prosecutors to get ANY more evidence than they did.

No one but Cassie was driving that car. NO ONE!

Cassie Anthony got away with murder. I am totally convinced and I'm equally convinced that had to be the most illiterate jury I have ever heard of. Well, except for O.J Simpsons jury! Neither actually heard or saw the evidence presented. That's a fact.

notuptome
Jul 7th 2011, 11:43 PM
I believe that the stain on the spare tire cover according to the defense was not decomp but a clear stain. Decomp fluid is black also there was no DNA in the stain area which would need to be present if it were human decomp.

Certainly the truth is yet to be revealed in this matter but God will hold accountable the party or parties responsible. Could well be that God called little Caylee home while she was still innocent since she would not have had much chance for a Christian upbringing in the family. Just a thought.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

catlover
Jul 7th 2011, 11:51 PM
I believe that the stain on the spare tire cover according to the defense was not decomp but a clear stain. Decomp fluid is black also there was no DNA in the stain area which would need to be present if it were human decomp.

Certainly the truth is yet to be revealed in this matter but God will hold accountable the party or parties responsible. Could well be that God called little Caylee home while she was still innocent since she would not have had much chance for a Christian upbringing in the family. Just a thought.

For the cause of Christ
Roger


WHAT !?!?!?! Are you saying that God caused her to be killed? That is CRAZY. There are awful people who do awful things. Don't blame it on God.

notuptome
Jul 8th 2011, 12:11 AM
WHAT !?!?!?! Are you saying that God caused her to be killed? That is CRAZY. There are awful people who do awful things. Don't blame it on God.
How you construe what I said to be accusing God...well your mind works differently from mine. God rescued little Caylees soul. I see this tragic event as having only one very faint glimmer of virtue.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

catlover
Jul 8th 2011, 12:25 AM
How you construe what I said to be accusing God...well your mind works differently from mine. God rescued little Caylees soul. I see this tragic event as having only one very faint glimmer of virtue.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

You said God called her home because she wouldn't have much chance of a Christian upbringing. How am I misconstruing?

Fenris
Jul 8th 2011, 10:02 AM
Oh yeah, he's not going to say that AFTER the state lost the case how "difficult" it was to prove ;) Plus, no one really wants to say anything bad about jurors. I get it.The mob has spoken.

shepherdsword
Jul 8th 2011, 12:07 PM
The mob has spoken.

I think the horror of the situation has stirred a deep emotional response from many. I also think that some need to do some research on "reasonable doubt"
If I am on a jury making a life or death decision I would want to make absolutely certain that the accused was guilty of the actual crime she was tried for.
There is no way to prove premeditation in this case.The evidence strongly suggests that she was involved in her daughter's death. It is in no way conclusive for premeditated murder. I want to add that the whole situation sickens and disgusts me and I can understand the mob mentality. A precious little girl is now dead and without apparent justice. But..God is not mocked. There will be justice. On that I have absolute faith.

I also want to add that what notuptome has said does have some merit. At least Caycee will now for sure,be in the kingdom of our Father. This is the one ray of hope.

Diggindeeper
Jul 8th 2011, 03:49 PM
The state is not required to prove premeditation. Or motive. But the motive was clear. The little girl got in her way.

Fenris
Jul 8th 2011, 04:02 PM
The state is not required to prove premeditation.For murder 1, yes they do.


But the motive was clear. The little girl got in her way.I agree. But the state still didn't make their case.

Warrior4God
Jul 8th 2011, 04:10 PM
There is no way to prove premeditation in this case...I also want to add that what notuptome has said does have some merit. At least Caycee will now for sure,be in the kingdom of our Father. This is the one ray of hope.

Actually, I think the fact that it was discovered that Casey was doing research on her computer on how to make chloroform, which was found in the trunk of her car, the same trunk that had a hair from a dead body, and looked up the terms "neck breaking" and "death" on her computer could reasonably be argued that it shows Casey was premeditating the death of her daughter. As far as where Caylee is, that's great and all, but I still would've liked to see justice meted out to Casey, which I don't believe is what occurred. :2cents:

Warrior4God
Jul 8th 2011, 04:12 PM
I agree. But the state still didn't make their case.

I disagree with this. I believe the problem was that the jury was either extremely dense in the head or they weren't given very good instructions on what to consider as evidence against Casey. :2cents:

danield
Jul 8th 2011, 04:12 PM
This woman was guilty. She killed that little girl plain and simple. I don’t understand how people rationalize how she was not guilty. Casey waited 30 days to tell her mother that Caylee was missing. Listen to her mother on the 911 tape. How can you wait 30 days to tell someone that your child is missing? After a whole month you finally come out and tell someone oh by the way my child is missing. And on top of that you let you mother call the police instead of calling them yourself. And then lie to police to try and disrupt the investigation?

I am sure that it was probably an accident. It could have been she taped the child’s mouth shut with a Chloroform rag inside it so that she would sleep while she went out to party, but that is still murder. There was ample evidence to convict her of the crime. It is coming to the point in where you have to have someone caught on video tape before people render a verdict of guilty on capital punishment cases. It just makes me sick to my stomach seeing the defense lawyer’s gloat over letting someone kill a child. They are just as guilty as anyone else. They are very smart people, who can easily see the truth. It is just a shame how twisted the system has become.


PS: Oh and the jury who let a murderer go free is just insane.I think you need to meet some basic qualification to become a juror. They will be roasted by the media for making such a horrible decision for the rest of their life and they know it. It is why they are staying anonymous.

Fenris
Jul 8th 2011, 04:17 PM
I disagree with this. I believe the problem was that the jury was either extremely dense in the head or they weren't given very good instructions on what to consider as evidence against Casey. :2cents:The state attorney said this was a hard case to prove.

Fenris
Jul 8th 2011, 04:19 PM
This woman was guilty. She did it, I agree.


I am sure that it was probably an accident. It could have been she taped the child’s mouth shut with a Chloroform rag inside it so that she would sleep while she went out to party, but that is still murder. Saying "it was probably an accident" and "It could have been she..." is probably what the jury was considering when they declined to convict.

The state couldn't make the case.

danield
Jul 8th 2011, 04:23 PM
She did it, I agree.

Saying "it was probably an accident" and "It could have been she..." is probably what the jury was considering when they declined to convict.

The state couldn't make the case.

The state did make their case. The Jurors failed to reason some extremely simple facts.

Fenris
Jul 8th 2011, 04:25 PM
The state did make their case. The Jurors failed to reason some extremely simple facts.In your own post you admit that you're not sure what happened. Neither was the jury. That's why they didn't convict.

Warrior4God
Jul 8th 2011, 04:26 PM
The state attorney said this was a hard case to prove.

To me, this is a cop out. It almost seems to imply that you have to catch a murder on video for it to be concrete proof, and that anything less than that "isn't stong enough." Everything I've seen about this case points to her intentionally killing her little girl so she could be free to live the young party life. Nothing shows me that it was likely an accident that she is sorry about having occurred. :2cents:

Fenris
Jul 8th 2011, 04:28 PM
To me, this is a cop out. It almost seems to imply that you have to catch a murder on video for it to be concrete proof, and that anything less than that "isn't stong enough." Everything I've seen about this case points to her intentionally killing her little girl so she could be free to live the young party life. Nothing shows me that it was likely an accident that she is sorry about having occurred. :2cents:You're smarter than anyone on the jury I guess. Or the lawyers at the prosecutor's office.

danield
Jul 8th 2011, 04:30 PM
No I am sure of what happened in areas of final facts. There was a death. A child was concealed and authorities were lied to by the caregiver to disrupt the investigation. The primary caregiver did not report the missing child for over 30 days and this came at the insistence of her mother.

I don’t know exactly how the child died, and we can only guess at that, but that does not stand in the way of understanding that the child is dead, and people in charge of her were disrupting the case.

The statement about the search for chloroform from her home computer was to just fill in the blank about how it was done. She did not die in a swimming pool that is for certain.

Fenris
Jul 8th 2011, 04:33 PM
No I am sure of what happened in areas of final facts. There was a death. A child was concealed and authorities were lied to by the caregiver to disrupt the investigation. The primary caregiver did not report the missing child for over 30 days and this came at the insistence of her mother.

I don’t know exactly how the child died, and we can only guess at that, but that does not stand in the way of understanding that the child is dead, and people in charge of her were disrupting the case.
Yes, that sums up nicely what is known. That fact pattern is not sufficient to convict for murder though.

danield
Jul 8th 2011, 04:37 PM
Yes, that sums up nicely what is known. That fact pattern is not sufficient to convict for murder though.

People are convicted everyday on this evidence. It points directly to the people who cover up the investigation. In this case, it points directly to Casey Anthony. It is why lawmakers are now introducing a new law that states if a caregiver does not disclose a missing child for a certain duration of time then those caregivers are responsible for murder. This is a simple fact that should be known by everyone.

Fenris
Jul 8th 2011, 04:40 PM
People are convicted everyday on this evidence. It points directly to the people who cover up the investigation. In this case, it points directly to Casey Anthony. It is why lawmakers are now introducing a new law that states if a caregiver does not disclose a missing child for a certain duration of time then those caregivers are responsible for murder. This is a simple fact that should be known by everyone.Lawmakers have to write such a law because it doesn't yet exist. Covering up the disappearance of a child does not equal murder.

danield
Jul 8th 2011, 04:43 PM
Lawmakers have to write such a law because it doesn't yet exist. Covering up the disappearance of a child does not equal murder.

They are writing it because people are so stupid they can’t reason out the truth. And covering up a disappearance can make you an accomplice to a crime even murder.

Fenris
Jul 8th 2011, 05:31 PM
They are writing it because people are so stupid they can’t reason out the truth. And covering up a disappearance can make you an accomplice to a crime even murder."Accomplice to murder" is not "murder". And they still haven't proved that it was a murder.

lovex
Jul 8th 2011, 05:45 PM
I don't know? I mean, how fair would it be to put someone in jail for the rest of their life when you're not 100% positive that she did it? So in a huge way, I agree very much with verdict. In the end though, I guess we will never know who killed that beautiful little girl. Seeing what lies can do make me hate sin so much more. If truth could just be told and followed, we wouldn't be here..

Something that I was thinking of though... sorry if this is off topic.
But you know how the majority of people are saying she got away with murder and all that stuff? Look at how much we get away with... in terms of Christ. He took our punishment... do you know what we deserve? Hell. We don't deserve any of His blood, His grace, His mercy.. nothing, but He gave it to us. We get to spend eternity with Jesus Christ... for doing what?... Nothing. So even though we can sit here and say Casey deserves whatever.... so do we. We deserve hell in reality. But because of the death and ressurection of Christ, we are redeemed. Thank you Jesus.

danield
Jul 8th 2011, 05:59 PM
Well let’s put this in another perspective. Some of the guards at the concentration camps had the same evidence testified against them. Should we have let them walk free? How upset would you have been fenris if they would have allowed guilty people walk free to harm others again? Where is the justice?

If you want to bring scripture in this then here ya go….

6 God blesses those who hunger and thirst for justice, for they will be satisfied. (Mat 5:6 NLT)

I don’t think we should be vengeful against Casey Anthony, but we as a society have a duty to protect those who are innocent. This message rings loud and clear that you can get away with murder here in the good ole USA.

Diggindeeper
Jul 8th 2011, 06:18 PM
I've noticed several reporters are having Psychologists give opinions about Cassie Anthony and what is eye opening is that they are saying she is a Sociopath. I've been researching some things and my goodness...I really think they are correct. She is a scary person who most definitely does NOT ever need any more children.

The definitions and descriptions that I am seeing are all in agreement on the 'symptoms' of a Sociopath, often called ASPD...Anti Social Personality Disorder. These people are really dangerous, and that is putting it mildly. One thing that stands out is that they are always artists at 'charming' people. Here are some links for anyone interested:.


Profile of the Sociopath
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

Antisocial personality disorder: Symptoms - MayoClinic.com
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/antisocial-personality-disorder/DS00829/DSECTION=symptoms

How do you know if someone is a sociopath
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_know_if_someone_is_a_sociopath


Sociopathy Questions including "How can you tell if someone is a pathological liar"
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/FAQ/5414

Warrior4God
Jul 8th 2011, 06:21 PM
I don't know? I mean, how fair would it be to put someone in jail for the rest of their life when you're not 100% positive that she did it?

Had I been on the jury, I would've had absolutely no problem convicting her. People have been convicted of murder on less evidence than this case had, so the statements being made by folks that there just "wasn't enough evidence to convict" is completely bogus. If I had been the only person on the jury to say she was guilty, I would've had the ba**s to stick with my decision and let the trial be deadlocked if necessary. :dunno:

Warrior4God
Jul 8th 2011, 06:31 PM
You're smarter than anyone on the jury I guess. Or the lawyers at the prosecutor's office.

I don't think it takes a genius to look at the circumstancial and physical evidence that is against Casey Anthony and reasonably conclude that she intentionally killed her daughter and tried to cover it up. You don't need a confession of guilt or a videotape of the actual killing to determine somebody is guilty. They would be nice, but they're not absolutely necessary. The story the defense attorney gave about Caylee accidentally drowning in the family pool is bogus. I would like to know, is that what Casey herself is claiming happened or did she just let her lawyer make up this story for her? Where's the evidence that she drowned? If she did accidentally drown, why didn't Casey report it immediately? There were accusations brought up that Casey's father molested her when she was little. First of all, what does that have to do with Caylee's death and why aren't any charges being filed for that if it really happened? It sounds like a bunch of stories were concocted to create diversions for what happened to Caylee. :2cents:

keck553
Jul 8th 2011, 07:50 PM
You're smarter than anyone on the jury I guess. Or the lawyers at the prosecutor's office.

This thread presents a good testimony as to why David haMelek choose God as his judge instead of a mob.

I guess Jesus had the same idea in mind when the mob threw that "adultress" at His feet also.

shepherdsword
Jul 8th 2011, 08:07 PM
This thread presents a good testimony as to why David haMelek choose God as his judge instead of a mob.

I guess Jesus had the same idea in mind when the mob threw that "adultress" at His feet also.

As lovex has pointed out,we are sure ready to condemn someone without all of the facts even though all of us are guilty for the murder of Jesus.

danield
Jul 8th 2011, 09:36 PM
Well lets see….

You are saying that she was not responsible for the death of her child.

The evidence is this:
1. The mother did not report a missing child. Her mother Cindy reported the child missing to 911 30 days after the fact.
2. There were searches for cloraphrom on her personal computer.
3. There were also searches of neck breaking on the same computer.
4. There was tape over her mouth found.
5. The child’s body was found in a marsh where decomposition could happen fast.
6. Casey Anthony repeatedly lied to searchers to impede the discovery for her own child.
7. Casey lied about caregivers abducting the child.
8. The smell of death came from the trunk of Casey Anthony.
9. Chemical compositions of tissue decay was present in the trunk of Casey’s car
10. Casey Anthony was the primary care giver of Caylee who was a 2 year old child.


Somehow in someway you guys are saying that she did not do it? And I am a mob mentality?


Well, why don’t you hire Casey Anthony to be your baby sitter and you go on a two week cruise? Put your own children at risk of being under the influence of this woman. She is going to need a job.


The bible says to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. What are you doing to the children that may come into contact with this woman in her life?


This thread presents a good testimony as to why David haMelek choose God as his judge instead of a mob.

I guess Jesus had the same idea in mind when the mob threw that "adultress" at His feet also.

Did Jesus tell the woman that she did not commit adultery? Of course not, He said that her sentence of Death was not appropriate, and asked her to repent of her ways. I don’t think we should kill Casey Anthony, but we should restrict her behavior to not allow this type of crime to happen again to another innocent person.


As lovex has pointed out, we are sure ready to condemn someone without all of the facts even though all of us are guilty for the murder of Jesus.
We did not murder Jesus. Noone alive today murdered Jesus.


The way you guys are putting it is that Christianity is against justice? You have used grace as an excuse to allow lying and murdering to flourish in our community. I think grace was given so that we could repent of those ways and see the proper way to live. We need to encourage people to stop murdering and lying and stealing instead of becoming drunk with the blood of our most chosen saint, Jesus. We should be quick to forgive those who have trespassed against us, but we should still use reason in the decisions of our lives.

shepherdsword
Jul 8th 2011, 10:29 PM
Well lets see….

You are saying that she was not responsible for the death of her child.

The evidence is this:
1. The mother did not report a missing child. Her mother Cindy reported the child missing to 911 30 days after the fact
....the time of death is unknown

2. There were searches for cloraphrom on her personal computer
. ...and this proves what? that a search for cloraphorm was made form her computer.

3. There were also searches of neck breaking on the same computer
....the cause of death isn't even known.

4. There was tape over her mouth found.
.... There was also a third DNA result found,not from the mother or the child

5. The child’s body was found in a marsh where decomposition could happen fast.

...and this proves the mother did it,how?

6. Casey Anthony repeatedly lied to searchers to impede the discovery for her own child.

...as did here parents,who was protecting who?

7. Casey lied about caregivers abducting the child.
see point above.

8. The smell of death came from the trunk of Casey Anthony.

..why wasn't it taken to the police right away?

9. Chemical compositions of tissue decay was present in the trunk of Casey’s car.
..proving a body had been moved a while after death.Who else had access to the car?


10. Casey Anthony was the primary care giver of Caylee who was a 2 year old child.

...the fact is,she spent a good portion of her time with the grandparents.



Somehow in someway you guys are saying that she did not do it?

I haven't heard anyone that posted in this thread say didn't do it. What has not been proven is pre-meditated murder.


And I am a mob mentality?
A mob takes justice into it's own hand. I guess the real question is what would you do if you could get your hands on her?



Well, why don’t you hire Casey Anthony to be your baby sitter and you go on a two week cruise? Put your own children at risk of being under the influence of this woman. She is going to need a job.

look out,the real you is coming out.




The bible says to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Yes,and if i was ever accused of such a heinous act I would want to be proven guilty. It's not the jury's fault the DA didn't make his case.


What are you doing to the children that may come into contract with this woman in her life?

We are doing nothing to these children,the decision was made by 12 other people.




Did Jesus tell the woman that she did not commit adultery? Of course not, He said that her sentence of Death was not appropriate, and asked her to repent of her ways. I don’t think we should kill Casey Anthony, but we should restrict her behavior to not allow this type of crime to happen again to another innocent person.

Do you think anyone will ever trust her alone with a child again? Some future husband? Her life is as good as finished. She is marked like Cain the rest of her days.



We did not murder Jesus. Noone alive today murdered Jesus.

Are you a sinner? Did Jesus die for your sins? Are you not responsible in some way for his death? After all he died in your place.



The way you guys are putting it is that Christianity is against justice?

No,that's the way YOU put the way we are putting it.


You have used grace as an excuse to allow lying and murdering to flourish in our community.

Have you ever lied? Have you ever hated someone in your heart? If you have then you are a murderer and a liar too. But that's not the point,the point is that I don't want to judge a situation when the facts can be interpreted two ways.If I err,I want it to be on the side of mercy,because you know why? God is in control and believe me,this little girl will get her justice one day.



I think grace was given so that we could repent of those ways and see the proper way to live. We need to encourage people to stop murdering and lying and stealing instead of becoming drunk with the blood of our most chosen saint, Jesus. We should be quick to forgive those who have trespassed against us, but we should still use reason in the decisions of our lives.

Jesus is more to me that my "most chosen saint" Is that all he is to you? As for using reason,I see a reasonable doubt for pre-meditated first degree murder. I think she is responsible in some way for her daughter's death. The lack of justice in the case is due to a botched investigation and a faulty method of arriving at justice,namely,attempting to convict her of first degree murder in the first place. They should have focused primarily on negligent homicide and not try to stack the charges while focusing on proving first degree murder. There were several places the ball was dropped in this whole affair. Trying to place all the blame on a "stupid and misinformed" jury isn't using reason.

keck553
Jul 8th 2011, 11:00 PM
As lovex has pointed out,we are sure ready to condemn someone without all of the facts even though all of us are guilty for the murder of Jesus.

That's exactly correct. The problem Jesus had with the mob that brought the Adultress to him was that the mob wasn't following God's Laws by their actions any more than the adultress was following God's Laws.

God's Law clearly and consisely demands due process with testimony from worthy witnesses in the presense of proper authority. None of these procedures which are commanded by God were done by this mob.

And that's what makes the mob who wants to lynch this woman exactly like the mob who brought the adultress before Jesus.

keck553
Jul 8th 2011, 11:03 PM
....Jesus is more to me that my "most chosen saint" Is that all he is to you?

Indeed. This caught my eye. In fact, He chose us, not the other way around, otherwise that is all He will be to some.....

Warrior4God
Jul 8th 2011, 11:20 PM
As lovex has pointed out,we are sure ready to condemn someone without all of the facts even though all of us are guilty for the murder of Jesus.

Not sure why you say this when there were plenty of facts to show what Casey did and why. I, unlike some people, don't bother to bury my head in the sand to the obvious out of being uncomfortable with calling a murderer a murderer, which apparently is so "judgmental." :rolleyes: I think the jury, in their heart of hearts, felt she likely did kill her daughter, even most likely intentionally, but because they weren't "100%" sure of it, they washed their hands of the whole thing to be done with it and they acquitted her. :2cents:

Warrior4God
Jul 8th 2011, 11:40 PM
...and this proves what? that a search for cloraphorm was made form her computer.

And chloroform was found in her trunk of her car. The same car that had a dead body in it at one point. Are you going to tell me that somebody else killed the little girl and is "framing" Casey by putting the chloroform and body in her car without her knowing about it? :rolleyes:


....the cause of death isn't even known.

Well, maybe chloroform being used and suffocation of duct tape over the mouth and nose? Or maybe she actually had a stroke and died from natural causes at the ripe old age of 3? :rolleyes:

danield
Jul 8th 2011, 11:55 PM
Shepardsword,

You start out your post making excuses for every fact there is. Things like the time of death was unknown…. Well she died a long time ago without notifying police.

The matter of the cloraphrom and neck breaking on her computer…. Well who else would be typing on her personal computer…. Excuse after excurse is made to try and make someone innocent when the innocence is in the child.


A mob takes justice into it's own hand. I guess the real question is what would you do if you could get your hands on her?

You are trying to say that I would do something to this girl? I have harmed no one in my life but a murderer got away with killing her own child and you want to suggest something about my character as a person that I want to harm someone? So someone who has done nothing is guilty and someone who has a dead child under their care is innocent? Wow, you have got things so backwards. I think she should be in jail to protect others from falling in the wake of her deceit. It is as simple as that. Now that she is free I just hope she doesn’t have the opportunity to prey again on other children. She is an attractive girl I am sure she will have a future somewhere.


look out,the real you is coming out.

You better believe the real me is out. I stand up against those who support deceit. I do not like it one bit. Anyone who abuses the innocent and gets away with it is my enemy. If a preacher is abusing children like the Catholic Church priests have done, I am against them…. Don’t hide behind the church to get set up to continue abusing children again after things have cooled down… You (as in abusive priests or mothers who kill their own children) are a wolf in sheep's clothing, and I am going to let you know about it. This means that I will speak out as loudly as I can about the matter and say that it is wrong.


Yes, and if i was ever accused of such a heinous act I would want to be proven guilty. It's not the jury's fault the DA didn't make his case.

The case was proven and the Jury botched the decision. They will catch an ear full in the months ahead.


We are doing nothing to these children,the decision was made by 12 other people.

You are supporting the decision of this juror. In essence you could have been on that same jury and made the same decision. There is a dead child and no one is to blame….


Do you think anyone will ever trust her alone with a child again? Some future husband? Her life is as good as finished. She is marked like Cain the rest of her days.

I bet she has a boyfriend in a matter of months when she is settled in. I hope that she has a change of heart. I hope she does not hurt anyone ever again.



Are you a sinner? Did Jesus die for your sins? Are you not responsible in some way for his death? After all he died in your place.
Jesus died 2000 years ago by people who lived back then.


Nowhere in the bible does it say that I am to be blamed for his death. This is a tactic used by people to make others feel guilty to sway their emotions. Christ lived for you and I 2000 years ago so that he could teach us how to live for the Lord. He freed us from guilt not condemning us of it. His death was a great gift to you and I not the condemnation of guilt.



No,that's the way YOU put the way we are putting it.

Where is your justice?


Have you ever lied? Have you ever hated someone in your heart? If you have then you are a murderer and a liar too. But that's not the point,the point is that I don't want to judge a situation when the facts can be interpreted two ways.If I err,I want it to be on the side of mercy,because you know why? God is in control and believe me,this little girl will get her justice one day

Mercy is very important. It is why I hope that Caylee and her mother can be united in heaven one day. I don’t want to see the Lord have anger against Casey in anyway, and exclude her from heaven. Casey has learned that she can get away with murder if she lies cleverly enough. If she is rewarded for lying there is a high probability that she will continually lie and deceive others throughout her life. I feel deception is from Satan, and it belong in his kingdom. I hope that somehow she can see what destruction has come to her life because of it.


Jesus is more to me that my "most chosen saint" Is that all he is to you?

I hope you love Christ more than me.



As for using reason,I see a reasonable doubt for pre-meditated first degree murder. I think she is responsible in some way for her daughter's death. The lack of justice in the case is due to a botched investigation and a faulty method of arriving at justice,namely,attempting to convict her of first degree murder in the first place. They should have focused primarily on negligent homicide and not try to stack the charges while focusing on proving first degree murder. There were several places the ball was dropped in this whole affair. Trying to place all the blame on a "stupid and misinformed" jury isn't using reason.


I am glad to see that you do lay some responsibility on her for her child’s death. As far as premeditated. The searches on the computer and the heart on the duct tape over her mouth really stirred my heart on the matter. Then the continual lying on her behalf on what happened did not help the issue. I guess the final straw would have been the smell of death in her car. When I see deceit from anywhere, I don’t like it one bit and I stand up against it as hard as I can. I guess when you have been lied to by others and see the wake of destructing in your life from it, you develop a real zeal against deceit. It also draws you very close to Christ because he stands for truth.

Jeanne D
Jul 8th 2011, 11:57 PM
Ironically I received a juror's eligibility questionaire today. I am not being summoned.... yet.

Carry on...


BTW, did I miss something .. what about child abuse/neglect... she wasn't charged with either one of those, was she?

Jeanne

danield
Jul 9th 2011, 12:06 AM
That's exactly correct. The problem Jesus had with the mob that brought the Adultress to him was that the mob wasn't following God's Laws by their actions any more than the adultress was following God's Laws.

God's Law clearly and consisely demands due process with testimony from worthy witnesses in the presense of proper authority. None of these procedures which are commanded by God were done by this mob.

And that's what makes the mob who wants to lynch this woman exactly like the mob who brought the adultress before Jesus.






Indeed. This caught my eye. In fact, He chose us, not the other way around, otherwise that is all He will be to some.....

So now I am not good enough to be a Christian? You side with a murderer and condemn your fellow Christian Brother who has dedicated his life to Christ? I say something out of place with such a fine detail that it brings criticism from you about my walk in faith but you can’t see how someone killed a child? My walk with Christ is solid…. And I can easily see this girl had great guilt in her child’s death.

Jesus knew that the adulterer was guilty. She did not deny the fact that she was an adulterous. There was no due process needed and is never mentioned in the bible about due process in the incident at all. Christ could see into people’s hearts and see the truth. Stoning a woman for an adulterous affair was wrong because it says tho shall not kill. Two wrongs do not make a right. She was forgiven and I like to think she repented.

shepherdsword
Jul 9th 2011, 12:17 AM
So now I am not good enough to be a Christian? You side with a murderer and condemn your fellow Christian Brother who has dedicated his life to Christ? I say something out of place with such a fine detail that it brings criticism from you about my walk in faith but you can’t see how someone killed a child?

Jesus knew that she was guilty. She did not deny the fact that she was an adulterous. There was no due process needed and is never mentioned in the bible about due process in the incident at all. Christ could see into people’s hearts and see the truth. Stoning a woman for an adulterous affair was wrong because it says tho shall not kill. Two wrongs do not make a right. She was forgiven and I like to think she repented.

Look who's talking? On one hand you accuse me of being some child molesting preacher and then turn around and get all offended when someone questions the lack of christian character in your judgment. Let me tell you something buddy,I have never abused a child nor have I ever been accused of such a thing. You need to watch your mouth. You can complain about the verdict all you want,you can even be of the opinion,which I don't share,that she has been proven guilty of first degree murder. That's your prerogative but don't dare suggest that someone is a secret child molester because they don't share your questionable views...got it?

danield
Jul 9th 2011, 12:37 AM
Look who's talking? On one hand you accuse me of being some child molesting preacher and then turn around and get all offended when someone questions the lack of christian character in your judgment. Let me tell you something buddy,I have never abused a child nor have I ever been accused of such a thing. You need to watch your mouth. You can complain about the verdict all you want,you can even be of the opinion,which I don't share,that she has been proven guilty of first degree murder. That's your prerogative but don't dare suggest that someone is a secret child molester because they don't share your questionable views...got it?

I have never called you a child abuser. I made the statement about abuse in the Catholic Church because I will stand against abuse of children everywhere even within the church. There are people who will stand up for them as strongly as you are standing up for the verdict in the Anthony case.

Someone abused and killed this little girl and put hearts on the duct tape to keep her mouth shut. I do not think you are an abuser of children, but you are making every excuse for the death of a child. Someone killed that little girl that is a fact. Someone should speak up for her now that she is dead.

lovex
Jul 9th 2011, 12:47 AM
I think this is going way off topic.

What can we do now? The verdict has been read and it is over. Now we can have relief that it is up to the final Judge who is going to see Casey Anthony face to face.

I can't help the way that I feel towards this case... I tried not to even get to much involved in it. There are hundreds of these cases and this one just made it to the television.

I guess without proof, I don't feel it's right to send someone to jail for the rest of their life. What would that do? Either way, in this case, someone gets away.
If Casey went to jail and didn't do it, the person that did do it is out living their life.
If Casey doesn't go to jail, a murderer is still left living their life.


God will deal with it.

danield
Jul 9th 2011, 01:06 AM
I don’t know lovex. The thing is you can be called to a jury at any time to make these exact decisions. I noticed several states are putting in new laws reflecting the outrage on this verdict. I believe it allows the states to bring severe criminal charges in neglect of children against caregivers. I am certain there will still be mistakes, but this to me misses the mark on so many levels.

shepherdsword
Jul 9th 2011, 01:15 AM
I have never called you a child abuser. I made the statement about abuse in the Catholic Church because I will stand against abuse of children everywhere even within the church. There are people who will stand up for them as strongly as you are standing up for the verdict in the Anthony case.

Someone abused and killed this little girl and put hearts on the duct tape to keep her mouth shut. I do not think you are an abuser of children, but you are making every excuse for the death of a child. Someone killed that little girl that is a fact. Someone should speak up for her now that she is dead.

I am not "making an excuse for the death of a child". It's a tragic thing but it will one day be avenged. I'm being critical of the way the case was handled.
If the DA would have focused on a lesser charge then the outcome would have probably been different. If a guy like me can poke holes in the evidence then just imagine what even an average attorney could do. The state attorney himself said it would be a hard case to prove and yet he erred in judgement and tried to go for the homerun when he should have stopped at second or third base.The investigation was botched. The DNA evidence on the tape presented the possibility of a third person involved. There was no proven cause of death or time of death. Big holes that leave room for reasonable doubt in a capitol case.
I'm done with arguing about it. I'm sick of being insulted by someone who obviously has problems reading.

Reynolds357
Jul 9th 2011, 02:19 AM
It's ridiculous, for those of you who don't know Casey anthony was found not guilty!!!
Goes to show that there are at least 12 stupid people in this world.

Reynolds357
Jul 9th 2011, 02:23 AM
Can't say one way or the other. Didn't follow the case. My boss turned it on at 2:15 to see the verdict. But what he told me was that the evidence was severely lacking. So, if that's the case, then the verdict is right on. Based on the fact that the prosecution did a horrible job.
The prosecution did just fine. Too many jurors watch CSI and all these other shows and actually believe that L.E. can put together cases like they see on TV. The evidence was there. If I were a juror, I would find her guilty simply for the fact the cadaver dogs indicated on her car and for the fact she was out partying like crazy when her daughter was missing.

danield
Jul 9th 2011, 02:47 AM
No one has insulted you Shepardsword unless you take exception to me saying that you are standing up for this verdict. I have made sure my personal pronoun is directed in the proper way.

The first ten thoughts of your post 165 directly mitigates guilt of Casey Anthony on every level. How else am I to take what you are saying? Putting hearts on duct tape is not an act of a stranger. Some of this stuff should be closely considered instead of trying to explain away important issues. This is the kind of stuff (OJ Verdict and the Anthony case) will make history books describing our time. Blaming it on the prosecution every time only goes so far.

Diggindeeper
Jul 9th 2011, 05:06 AM
I have signed the petition for our legislatures to enact a bill called 'Caylee's Law'. This would make it a criminal offense NOT to report the death of a child within a REASONABLE time and also a crime not to report a MISSING child within a REASONABLE time.

States are already passing their own laws concerning this. I put the thread in Breaking news.

Lyndie
Jul 9th 2011, 03:32 PM
The two things that bother me the most about the jury is 1. they did not even look over the evidence even though it was in the deliberation room with them. 2. A juror said to the effect of 'we were all weeping, we know she did it, but the state didn't prove the case.' Then how do you know she did it? That doesn't even make sense. At least one of the jurors won't miss their cruise.

Warrior4God
Jul 9th 2011, 03:45 PM
I have signed the petition for our legislatures to enact a bill called 'Caylee's Law'. This would make it a criminal offense NOT to report the death of a child within a REASONABLE time and also a crime not to report a MISSING child within a REASONABLE time.

States are already passing their own laws concerning this. I put the thread in Breaking news.

I applaud something like this. Well, no matter what any of us think in regards to the guilt or innocence of Casey Anthony, the fact is she's going to be a free woman soon. I believe she's guilty and unless someone can logically prove to me that somebody else killed Caylee or Caylee really did die accidentally like it's been claimed, I will always believe Casey Anthony is a murderer. I've heard about too many things that point the blame to her. I hope that someday some evidence comes forth that shows her to be guilty and she can be charged with a different level of murder so as prosecutors don't violate the "double jeopardy" laws against trying a person for the same crime that they've already been acquitted of. I also hope she doesn't make a dime off any books, movies, interviews, etc., from this case. Of course, that's wishful thinking on my part as I'm sure those kinds of things will eventually occur. It just makes me want to barf, to be quite blunt. :giveup:

Warrior4God
Jul 9th 2011, 03:50 PM
The two things that bother me the most about the jury is 1. they did not even look over the evidence even though it was in the deliberation room with them. 2. A juror said to the effect of 'we were all weeping, we know she did it, but the state didn't prove the case.' Then how do you know she did it? That doesn't even make sense. At least one of the jurors won't miss their cruise.

I get so irritated with people that keep claiming "the state didn't adequately make their case," or "there just wasn't enough evidence to convict." The evidence I'm aware of adequately painted her guilty in my view, so, all you armchair lawyers, a question for you...what exactly would it have to take to "prove" Casey Anthony's guilt? A home video of her killing Caylee, perhaps? :rolleyes:

danield
Jul 9th 2011, 04:41 PM
You know years ago I think the jury system in some counties had in place where only land owners could serve as jurors. It was thrown out because of discrimination, and people did use it for discriminating cases. But the underlying purpose was not to be used for discriminating a segment of the population, it was set up to try and achieve a level of competence in the juror system. I think the way the law state is that you are judged by your peers. Well trials today are judged by people who are not aware of many things.

Case in point: On civil cases involving extremely complex issues people without high school education are asked to understand critical cases. Attorneys have a field day manipulating the evidence to get millions awarded to them and in turn it changes the way in which we do business in a very inefficient way. Doctors are heavily burdened with insurance claims for trying their best to save their patients life.

You know I forgot about the Robert Blake trial. Our judicial system is messed up when it repeatedly makes bad calls on so many important cases. If stuff like this continues, I bet you the way our government works will be changed. People will become so outraged of people playing the system that action will happen.

Reynolds357
Jul 9th 2011, 11:45 PM
The two things that bother me the most about the jury is 1. they did not even look over the evidence even though it was in the deliberation room with them. 2. A juror said to the effect of 'we were all weeping, we know she did it, but the state didn't prove the case.' Then how do you know she did it? That doesn't even make sense. At least one of the jurors won't miss their cruise.
As I said, too many jurors watch too much television and expect evidence to be presented that simply does not exist in the real world.
They think DNA evidence should be available in every trial. It is absolutely crazy. DNA is usually not available when decomposition is present. I have seen a rape case lost where DNA was not present. The offender had a vasectomy. Despite detailed information from a Doctor about why DNA would not be present, those nuckle heads could not find him guilty because there was no DNA.

Reynolds357
Jul 9th 2011, 11:49 PM
I get so irritated with people that keep claiming "the state didn't adequately make their case," or "there just wasn't enough evidence to convict." The evidence I'm aware of adequately painted her guilty in my view, so, all you armchair lawyers, a question for you...what exactly would it have to take to "prove" Casey Anthony's guilt? A home video of her killing Caylee, perhaps? :rolleyes:
That is what jurors want. They actually expect you to come up with a crime lab technician who will say that the flea found on the body was 19 days and three hours old, if fed on blood from a bird that is native to only one place in the world, 27 minutes prior to biting the victim. They watch so much TV, that actually think that L.E. is supposed to come up with stupid crap like that because they saw it on TV.

Cornflake
Jul 10th 2011, 12:25 AM
Time and cause of death don't matter. She was killed or she wasn't. I have no idea why it would matter if she was strangled vs. smothered vs. her neck snapped. Time of death, also meaningless in this case as she was in her mother's care and then was gone and, again, it's impossible to determine time of death with any specificity and in cases with skeletonized remains, it can be exceedingly complex. A corpse that'd take 4 years to skeletonize to bleached bone in one circumstance can end up that way within a month in another, and many MEs are not competent to make those types of touchy determinations, though Florida should be better. However, again, meaningless.

As for random other people theoretically possibly killing Caylee, the defense didn't even try that. Their only defenses were to mention random ridiculousness and even they didn't try that someone else did it.

As for being 100% sure - that's neither a requirement nor an expectation in a case. The jury doesn't have to be 100% sure - how could they be? No one would be convicted of anything if 100% certainty was the requirement. The standard is reasonable doubt, not all doubt.

In addition though I think searching for cloroform online and then having cloroform found in the same trunk as the child's dead body seems pretty premeditated, I don't believe premeditation would have been a requirement for cap in Fla. given the child's age. They had the other charges regardless, and their responsibility was to consider every one, carefully, as related to the evidence. Instead, as someone above noted, they said they were convinced she did it but acquitted her of everything which is not just nonsensical but stupid. All they saw was the evidence and testimony presented at trial. If that convinced them that she did it....


I believe that the stain on the spare tire cover according to the defense was not decomp but a clear stain. Decomp fluid is black also there was no DNA in the stain area which would need to be present if it were human decomp.

There are many fluids involved in decomposition and that will seep out of a corpse, not all of them are black or coloured and whether DNA can be found rests on a lot of things. There's often more available DNA in a worn t-shirt than on a toothbrush or hairbrush, though people wouldn't think so.

sburdine
Jul 10th 2011, 12:57 AM
I was listening to a talk radio show which had the host and two guess, one who thought she was guilty and the other thought that the jury made the right decision. I did not follow the trial and know little about it. The one thing that stood out in my mind though was that the host said that no one could prove how the child died nor whether it was an accident or murder. If that was the case, how can you say there is no reasonable doubt that she killed the kid when you have doubts whether there was even a murder?

Diggindeeper
Jul 10th 2011, 01:02 AM
I still say she will be back in BAD trouble before very long. We have NOT see the last of Cassie Anthony! And I still say she fits the profile of a Sociopath. The is from Answers.com:

Here is a list of ways to identify a sociopath. This list is from "Profile of a Sociopath." Is is a pretty good list of sociopathic indicators.

How do you know if someone is a sociopath?
Glibness/superficial charm
Manipulative and conning
Grandiose sense of self
Pathological lying
Lack of remorse, shame or guilt
Shallow emotions
Incapacity for love
Need for stimulation
Callousness/lack of empathy
Poor behavioral controls/impulsive nature
Early behavior problems/juvenile delinquency
Irresponsibility/unreliability
Promiscuous sexual behavior/infidelity
Lack of realistic life plan/parasitic lifestyle
Criminal or entrepreneurial versatility
Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
Authoritarian
Secretive
Paranoid
Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
Conventional appearance
Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
Incapable of real human attachment to another
Unable to feel remorse or guilt
Narcissism, grandiosity (self-importance not based on achievements)
May state readily that their goal is to rule the world

I think the only ONE that does not fit Cassie Anthony is that she has not yet stated that her goal is to 'rule the world'.

Once you can identify the pattern you will begin to "see the light." Sociopaths are charming at first and may seem charming and normal to everyone around them. But they have an almost scary need for control. They will isolate you from friends and family and you will be tangled in your web before you know it.

The key characteristics of a sociopath include:
(1) having no conscience,
(2) inability to treat others as human beings, with feelings and rights
(3) inability to learn from experience, from life. One result of this last is gross immaturity, though it may be hidden unless one knows the person well.
(4) A sociopath behaves as if he/she were the only person in the whole world and as if everyone else just existed for their benefit and had no existence in their own right.
(5) Sociopaths treat other people as toys and hanker after the power to control and [B]hurt their "nearest and dearest."
(6) Many are monumentally self-important: They may pretend to be millionaires, when in reality they are sliding towards financial disaster. Or are not employed, but will talk as if they have a high paying, high responsibility
(7) Habitual dishonesty.

He will charm his way into your life and heart, then take complete advantage of you - your emotions, your finances, your intellect. He will make you think you are the crazy one. Your friends will see right through him. He will isolate you from your friends and possibly your family. He cannot hold a job and will probably commit crimes - theft, fraud, forgery, and spend time in jail or prison. He will abuse drugs or alcohol. He may abuse you.

It is very difficult to recognize a sociopath but in a nutshell, a sociopath is a parasite. There is no help because a sociopath does not want to be helped. A sociopath will attract you with his charm and bring you to his side, then he will toy with you, lie and show no remorse. Sometimes there will be a fake smile in his face while he engages in his malicious ways. When confronted, he will deny any responsibility, then back away from you and blame you for whatever wrong he did. What is worse, everybody will believe him because he is able to gain sympathy in a cunning and calculating way.

Are you involved with a psychopath (extreme sociopath)?

You may not know because they can be very charming and friendly and can appear to be altruistic, until you get close and inevitably they do something threatening or immoral and then you must set limits that disappoint them. The near-constant state of frustration and dissatisfaction felt by a true psychopath is the source of not only their rages but those eerie, on-and-off-like-a-faucet tears.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_know_if_someone_is_a_sociopath#ixzz1Rey Oz7L2

Cornflake
Jul 10th 2011, 01:11 AM
I was listening to a talk radio show which had the host and two guess, one who thought she was guilty and the other thought that the jury made the right decision. I did not follow the trial and know little about it. The one thing that stood out in my mind though was that the host said that no one could prove how the child died nor whether it was an accident or murder. If that was the case, how can you say there is no reasonable doubt that she killed the kid when you have doubts whether there was even a murder?
The ME classified it as a homicide. Any doubt that it was a murder is just wishful thinking by the defense.

Though even if the jury did believe - with zero evidence to support that belief - that it was an accident, there were charges available to convict her of. They didn't.

cindylou
Jul 10th 2011, 06:11 PM
I've noticed several reporters are having Psychologists give opinions about Cassie Anthony and what is eye opening is that they are saying she is a Sociopath. I've been researching some things and my goodness...I really think they are correct. She is a scary person who most definitely does NOT ever need any more children.

The definitions and descriptions that I am seeing are all in agreement on the 'symptoms' of a Sociopath, often called ASPD...Anti Social Personality Disorder. These people are really dangerous, and that is putting it mildly. One thing that stands out is that they are always artists at 'charming' people. Here are some links for anyone interested:.


Profile of the Sociopath
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

Antisocial personality disorder: Symptoms - MayoClinic.com
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/antisocial-personality-disorder/DS00829/DSECTION=symptoms

How do you know if someone is a sociopath
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_know_if_someone_is_a_sociopath


Sociopathy Questions including "How can you tell if someone is a pathological liar"
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/FAQ/5414

I was in a relationship with someone who was a narcissist at the least, probably a sociopath. The reason I was so interested in this case is because she had the exact same mannerisms and even patterns of speech than my man had and it was like they were the same person. It was the most chilling experience in my life, even thinking about it on this hot summer day makes me shiver like I have a fever. I just had to grab a blanket and cover up...I was duped...charmed at first, never realizing he didn't have the capacity or the ability to love me back, or feel anything at all. It was like he was missing his soul.

I have read every book on the sociopath that's been written (almost lol) :(

bob
Jul 11th 2011, 12:19 AM
That is what jurors want. They actually expect you to come up with a crime lab technician who will say that the flea found on the body was 19 days and three hours old, if fed on blood from a bird that is native to only one place in the world, 27 minutes prior to biting the victim. They watch so much TV, that actually think that L.E. is supposed to come up with stupid crap like that because they saw it on TV.

Worth repeating.

Cornflake
Jul 11th 2011, 03:35 AM
I agree the CSI effect was at play here but I don't think it's all there is or, I suppose, I don't think on its own it can do this. I really think this, like OJ, hangs heavily on the consultants having found some seriously uneducated, not bright jurors.

Going on about they don't know how she died, specifically, as the alternate and the juror who spoke did, may be part CSI effect, especially when they talked about a 'smoking gun' like there was going to be video or... I don't even know what they'd want, honestly, it's so beyond.

However, there was also a lack of ability to reason through that there are only two options - homicide or not and the ME classified it as a homicide, and sat on the stand and explained how and why she came to that determination. So either you believe that expert in her determination or you do not, and if you do not, there should be a specific reason to dismiss an expert opinion that was not, in any way, challenged by the defense. It's not like they had competing experts testifying on that point. That's not a CSI thing.

We're talking about a panel that did not examine a single bit of evidence during deliberations. The CSI effect, I'd think, would have them poring over the stuff, debating the cloroform, thinking there's some test that doesn't exist or that the hair found should actually have a time of death stamp on it or whatever nonsense. They just ignored it all.

There was a serious problem with basic reasoning and thinking that I think were just as big a part, if not bigger, than the CSI effect. The juror talking about not wanting to send someone to death row and the one talking about motive didn't even seem to understand what they were doing and the judge's instructions, entirely aside from them seeming not to comprehend the meaning of reasonable doubt.

Amos_with_goats
Jul 11th 2011, 04:56 AM
:pray:

Father,

Please watch over Your children. Please keep us all from the evil that is in this world.

Lord, please let this little girl's legacy not be anger over the trial of this woman, but let
us somehow celebrate the innocence that was taken. No one can harm this little one any longer.

Father, please help us all to trust in You for the justice that can only ever come from You.
Help us to see beyond the pain and suffering and the evil that is all around us now.

I thank You that You allow us to live in this world, and yet somehow not be of this world.
You alone are able to keep us Lord, we trust in You to to give us the Faith as a child that
we need to keep our eyes fixed on You.

In Your Son's Name I ask,

Amen.

danield
Jul 11th 2011, 12:01 PM
Having an jury that is well educated and has the ability to reason through issues would have made a big difference. I personally believe that the states should have some sort of education requirements in order to serve on more important cases. Like they did 100 years ago with land owners, but instead of land make it mandatory to have at least a bachelor’s or maybe even a master’s degree to render a decision on capital murder cases. I think they should have education restrictions on big civil cases as well. They should pay these jurors a reasonable rate too so it would not be such a big burden on their lives, and even give continuing education credits for time served. Attorneys would have a harder time getting unfair ruling passed through the court system.

cindylou
Jul 11th 2011, 02:17 PM
Having an jury that is well educated and has the ability to reason through issues would have made a big difference. I personally believe that the states should have some sort of education requirements in order to serve on more important cases. Like they did 100 years ago with land owners, but instead of land make it mandatory to have at least a bachelor’s or maybe even a master’s degree to render a decision on capital murder cases. I think they should have education restrictions on big civil cases as well. They should pay these jurors a reasonable rate too so it would not be such a big burden on their lives, and even give continuing education credits for time served. Attorneys would have a harder time getting unfair ruling passed through the court system.

LOL I think that's a little...much.

I am educated and have a couple useless degrees under my belt and working towards my masters. Even I admit that college is pretty much a scam for a lot of people. I don't like education restrictions...that does not sit well with me. Anyone can understand how to come to a conclusion.

Fenris
Jul 11th 2011, 02:44 PM
Well let’s put this in another perspective. Some of the guards at the concentration camps had the same evidence testified against them. Should we have let them walk free? Some of those guards were found guilty. Some weren't. Some received very light prison terms.

But then, there were eyewitnesses to their crimes.

danield
Jul 11th 2011, 05:00 PM
Well, I don’t know what to do. I just see a system that is broken. So many people say it is the best system that there is, and I think they are wrong. In the days of Solemn, he made some really good legal decisions digging into the truth. Right now we pay through the roof for medical expenses, and a big part of it is to pay off all the trial lawyers who can manipulate the jurors to rule how they want in huge civil cases. If you had a group of well informed people that were sharpe as a tack…. Then decisions might be different. I guess we should not complain when we see injustice happen if we do nothing.

As far as the education part, I don’t see why that would not help some. If you had to make a critical decision about anything in society you typically have to have a higher education with a license to allow you to make those decisions, IE a doctor, Lawyer or an engineer just to name a few. I would be much more satisfied with a ruling from a medical civil hearing when a group of people who understood chemistry made the decision than from someone who doesn’t know medicine at all.

All I am saying is that we need a system that delivers better decisions from cases that are very important in our society. I am sure it will not be perfect, but our system has a lot of holes in it. Attorneys will be quick to say how great the system is because they can work it really well. Tort reform is nonexistent because the lawyer’s lobbyist are so strong. They don't want to change a thing!

keck553
Jul 11th 2011, 05:15 PM
So now I am not good enough to be a Christian? You side with a murderer and condemn your fellow Christian Brother who has dedicated his life to Christ? I say something out of place with such a fine detail that it brings criticism from you about my walk in faith but you can’t see how someone killed a child? My walk with Christ is solid…. And I can easily see this girl had great guilt in her child’s death.

Jesus knew that the adulterer was guilty. She did not deny the fact that she was an adulterous. There was no due process needed and is never mentioned in the bible about due process in the incident at all. Christ could see into people’s hearts and see the truth. Stoning a woman for an adulterous affair was wrong because it says tho shall not kill. Two wrongs do not make a right. She was forgiven and I like to think she repented.

I side with a murderer? And you are the judge of that? Based on what? Media frenzy?

Yes, there WAS a due process needed, it is written BY GOD in the Law, and Jesus clearly knew His own Law, don't you think? Jesus proceeded exactly as the Law proscribed. Exactly.

Stoning is proscribed in GOD's LAW for certain offenses, so your 'thow shalt not kill' is out of context. God can not deny Himself. If you read the Hebrew it says "thow shalt not MURDER' - as in what this mob was bent on doing.

I do not question your faith, I merely question the accuracy of your statements against what the Bible says and find them lacking. I think your statements regarding 'thou shalt not kill' and Jesus rebuke of the mob are in error and fall short of the correct context.

Of course Jesus knew everyone's hearts, but that is not primary focus of the lesson, although I understand it's the normal Christian teaching.....

At any rate, no one here has any authority to question either the jurors' qualifications nor condemn the defendent. You are no more qualified to condemn this girl than the mob was to condemn the adultress they threw at Jesus' feet.

cindylou
Jul 11th 2011, 05:15 PM
Well, I don’t know what to do. I just see a system that is broken. So many people say it is the best system that there is, and I think they are wrong. In the days of Solemn, he made some really good legal decisions digging into the truth. Right now we pay through the roof for medical expenses, and a big part of it is to pay off all the trial lawyers who can manipulate the jurors to rule how they want in huge civil cases. If you had a group of well informed people that were sharpe as a tack…. Then decisions might be different. I guess we should not complain when we see injustice happen if we do nothing.

As far as the education part, I don’t see why that would not help some. If you had to make a critical decision about anything in society you typically have to have a higher education with a license to allow you to make those decisions, IE a doctor, Lawyer or an engineer just to name a few. I would be much more satisfied with a ruling from a medical civil hearing when a group of people who understood chemistry made the decision than from someone who doesn’t know medicine at all.

All I am saying is that we need a system that delivers better decisions from cases that are very important in our society. I am sure it will not be perfect, but our system has a lot of holes in it. Attorneys will be quick to say how great the system is because they can work it really well. Tort reform is nonexistent because the lawyer’s lobbyist are so strong. They don't want to change a thing!

I think people are quick to say it's a great system because they don't want to accept that its actually not...about justice at all. MY SO has a law degree and he decided to pursue another career because though I'll never really know why, I believe he became disillusioned with the whole thing.

keck553
Jul 11th 2011, 05:23 PM
Ironically in the time it took people around here to fire up their emotionally charged venom and hand-wringing for justice for the murder of one toddler, 10,000 babies have been legally aborted, put to death without a cause, without prayer, without mourning, without a shout or effective protest for their justice.

danield
Jul 11th 2011, 05:27 PM
At any rate, no one here has any authority to question either the jurors' qualifications nor condemn the defendent. You are no more qualified to condemn this girl than the mob was to condemn the adultress they threw at Jesus' feet.

I think a better statement is that I do not have the right to sentence her to time in prison for this crime. However, I do have the right to look at the facts of the case and make my own decision on whether I think she is guilty or innocent of the crime charged. I can do nothing about her judgment but complain to my elected officials and voice my opinion to try and do something to correct the injustice from repeating itself.

I think the threats against her and the defense team is very wrong, but I also think the defense team toasting Champaign and gesturing vulgar expressions to the media is wrong too. They knew they got someone off for murder. This thing is wrong and too many people know it.

keck553
Jul 11th 2011, 06:07 PM
I think a better statement is that I do not have the right to sentence her to time in prison for this crime. However, I do have the right to look at the facts of the case and make my own decision on whether I think she is guilty or innocent of the crime charged. I can do nothing about her judgment but complain to my elected officials and voice my opinion to try and do something to correct the injustice from repeating itself.

All legitimate concerns. Unfortunately I've been exposed to too much hollywood and too much media hype to 'look at the facts' without bias, so on a personal note, I will admit I am stained beyond any objectivity.

God knows the truth, we all know that, but I don't think that fact satisfies us. Perhaps our lust for vengence will be fed when an unrepentant murderer gets tossed in the lake of fire but this I know - our mourning for righteousness will be fulfilled when we witness Caylee alive and resting in the arms of Jesus and in the presence of God.

I do know this. When I heard the verdict, something ugly and dark rose up in my heart and I had to repent for it.

danield
Jul 11th 2011, 08:02 PM
I do know this. When I heard the verdict, something ugly and dark rose up in my heart and I had to repent for it.

You know it just stuck me, I think you guys are extremely concerned with vengeance but know she is guilty. When I experienced the verdict I had no vengeance in my heart what so ever against Casey Anthony. I don’t want harm to come to her, and I would not want harm come to her if she was found guilty. I want the innocent protected. I want the guilty restricted so that they could not harm someone else.

No one here is beating the drums of vengeance of wanting to put Casey Anthony in the electric chair. I have anger in my heart because I see someone getting away with murder. There is a difference. The bible is full of support for justice in life and in death. You could fill up page after page of how God feels about those who are unjust. Do you really want me to start quoting scripture from the Old and the New Testament? Everyone knows we could fill up page after page of scriptures condemning people abusing others and cheating the system doing it. It is part of what makes a person a Christian.

I don’t think anyone will harm anyone because of this verdict. I am sure they will catch grief, but I highly doubt harm will come their way. Look at OJ and Robert Blake. They are just fine. I think people are just plain outraged of how the system works. Casey Anthony will probably make a million dollars from the fame. Her Attorneys will make fantastic money on future cases because they have proved they can get even the guilty free from any sentence. They will be well rewarded. I don’t like to see people rewarded for doing evil.

I think a good quote to sum it all up is

"The only thing necessary for the triumph evil is for good men to do nothing." By Edmund Burke


Your heart is not ugly for wanting to see justice happen. If you wanted harm to come to Casey Anthony then yea you got a problem, and that is as equally wrong….. However, having justice in a society protects the innocent from harm coming to them.

keck553
Jul 11th 2011, 10:00 PM
It is good this all was threshed out. Yes, I do mourn for righteousness, but when it takes the form of assessing the wisdom and intelligence of jurors, smearing a justice system that would rather err on the side of freeing a guilty person than falsely imprisoning an innocent person that also is an injustice.

It is also a bit of hypocrasy for believers to invoke psychologists when thier theories supports how they want to characterize a person, but rise up against those same psychologists when their theroies do not support their faith. One can not eat out of the worldy wisdom bowl and vomit back out selectively the things that don't fit into their doctrine.

I have also seen the media convict innocent people over and over again, and it's a bit dismaying to see how easily some folks are led around by the soap-opera-entertainment style the media likes to use to lift up its ratings.

Perhaps I have a different perspective because I don't watch television. I read a lot about this case and I thogut what they had was weak. Yeah, from what I read, the mother is of really, really poor character, and the media did a real good "Sarah Palin" job of trashing her, but that's not what was on trial.

Ironcially the mom could have murdered her baby in the womb - and there would be no question as to her guilt in that case - and it would have been perfectly legal in this country.

I don't think it's wrong to mourn for justice of one person, remember God heard Abel's blood cry out from the ground. How much more do you think God hears these days with the near genocide of His unborn creations? It must be a deafening roar.

Cornflake
Jul 11th 2011, 10:36 PM
For the 80th time, many of the people peeved about this verdict weren't "led by the media" "whipped into a frenzy by the media" or whatever other insult. The entire trial was televised. Many people watched the actual trial. I'm sure some people watched some foaming commenters too but those people watch those people regardless and talk about the evil mainstream media while watching Fox news.

As for requiring educated jurors, I don't think it'd work or that that level is necessary. It'd reduce the available juror pool by a considerable amount to begin with and then the people the courts would be trying to get would have more excuses to get out of it and less available time. However, administering some kind of basic reasoning, knowledge test, like a mini IQ test, I could maybe get behind. I wonder if there's a 'jury of your peers' argument to be made on either side.

Also agree that the system is not the best in the world, it's like a tic when people say that, anyone criticizes something about the country and there are people who reflexively start with 'it's the best country/system/whatever in the world!!' it's kind of a mess. There are others that have more judicial panel involvement, etc. Given the populous, it'd be hard and different to revamp ours but ours is a disaster.

The number of cases that ever end up at trial is incredibly small anyway, by necessity, to try to keep the workload remotely manageable, and it's still overloaded, overcrowded and we can see what can happen.

keck553
Jul 11th 2011, 11:09 PM
For the 80th time, many of the people peeved about this verdict weren't "led by the media" "whipped into a frenzy by the media" or whatever other insult. The entire trial was televised. Many people watched the actual trial. I'm sure some people watched some foaming commenters too but those people watch those people regardless and talk about the evil mainstream media while watching Fox news.

For the 81st time, yes the majority was. You and I both know most Americans operate on soundbites and emotion. People who spent time "watching the trial" either have way, way too much time on their hands or they are neglecting something God has for them that is more important than engaging in armchair justice.



As for requiring educated jurors, I don't think it'd work or that that level is necessary. It'd reduce the available juror pool by a considerable amount to begin with and then the people the courts would be trying to get would have more excuses to get out of it and less available time. However, administering some kind of basic reasoning, knowledge test, like a mini IQ test, I could maybe get behind. I wonder if there's a 'jury of your peers' argument to be made on either side.

I've been called to jury duty three times, twice county and once Federal. From what I read, I'm not sure I would fit into some folks high standards around here though...whatever that is specifically.



Also agree that the system is not the best in the world, it's like a tic when people say that, anyone criticizes something about the country and there are people who reflexively start with 'it's the best country/system/whatever in the world!!' it's kind of a mess. There are others that have more judicial panel involvement, etc. Given the populous, it'd be hard and different to revamp ours but ours is a disaster.

Use God's wisdom then. Go back to Moses. God's Law has all the elements of a fair trial in it, if people have the stomach to administer it. But for the most part, we don't, so we compromise and the guilty walk and and the offenders repeat the offense. It shouldn't be a surprise that anything less than God's standards doesn't 'work,' yet when it happens all the professionals come out of the woodwork and complain. It's almost like poking one's eye out with thier thumb and then complaiining God gave them a thumb to do it with.



The number of cases that ever end up at trial is incredibly small anyway, by necessity, to try to keep the workload remotely manageable, and it's still overloaded, overcrowded and we can see what can happen.

mostly repeat offenders. maybe we should go back to Moses and the wisdom of God....

cindylou
Jul 11th 2011, 11:13 PM
For the 81st time, yes the majority was. You and I both know most Americans operate on soundbites and emotion. People who spent time "watching the trial" either have way, way too much time on their hands or they are neglecting something God has for them that is more important than engaging in armchair justice.



I've been called to jury duty three times, twice county and once Federal. From what I read, I'm not sure I would fit into some folks high standards around here though...whatever that is specifically.



Use God's wisdom then. Go back to Moses. God's Law had all the elements of a fair trial in it,



mostly repeat offenders. maybe we should go back to Moses and the wisdom of God....

This forum is worse than a secular forum. I've been insulted personally twice today already for no reason whatsoever.

IMINXTC
Jul 11th 2011, 11:14 PM
At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. Deut 17:6

One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. Deut 19:15

keck553
Jul 11th 2011, 11:17 PM
This forum is worse than a secular forum. I've been insulted personally twice today already for no reason whatsoever.

really? where? I don't see your name on the response you quoted.

keck553
Jul 11th 2011, 11:19 PM
At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. Deut 17:6

One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. Deut 19:15

But wait...there's more. Exactly what qualifications does God demand of witnesses?

Cornflake
Jul 11th 2011, 11:44 PM
At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. Deut 17:6

One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. Deut 19:15

We're not speaking of putting her to death. We're talking about convicting her.

danield
Jul 12th 2011, 12:03 AM
But wait...there's more. Exactly what qualifications does God demand of witnesses?

I guess this is a jab at me, and what I was trying to suggest. I never said anything about witnesses, but the legal system does have a routine to check if people are credible witnesses. People lie quite often.

The idea I had will never even be considered so there is no need to worry one bit. I was thinking that when a capital murder case, or a civil case involving over 1 million dollars in judgment gets put on the docket, someone with a high level of experience needs to be hearing the evidence. Decisions in life are very important and the ripple effect carries a wide wake.

As far as charges against Casey Anthony… She was charged with manslaughter which does not carry a long term sentence in comparison to 1st degree murder. The media defiantly did not make up my mind in the matter either. It is pretty much layup logic for me that she had her hands very dirty in that scenario. It could have been a convenient accident, but if that was the case, why not just report it to the authorities instead of trying to cover it up? Remember Casey Anthony never reported her missing 3 year old child and led authorities on a wild goose chase while her child was in a marsh. In the end she admitted that she knew that the child was all along when she said that her father took Caylee off to the marsh 15 houses away. Even the defenses argument solidifies to me that it was manslaughter. Oh well…. It is a matter of time before the next criminal gets away with murder.

IMINXTC
Jul 12th 2011, 12:11 AM
We're not speaking of putting her to death. We're talking about convicting her.

That was not at all the point.

Reynolds357
Jul 12th 2011, 02:05 AM
At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. Deut 17:6

One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established. Deut 19:15
Physical evidence is a "witness."

Fenris
Jul 12th 2011, 12:50 PM
Physical evidence is a "witness."Biblically, it is not.

keck553
Jul 12th 2011, 03:44 PM
I guess this is a jab at me, and what I was trying to suggest. I never said anything about witnesses, but the legal system does have a routine to check if people are credible witnesses. People lie quite often.

It's not a jab. God requires witnesses in His Law, but not just anyone that can be grabbed off the road, and God requires judges to be more than just judges in title only. That was my point. This jury is vetted by both the prosecution and the defense. The defense is allowed to disqualify a certain number of jurors for no reason at all, as is the prosecution, the remaining can be excused for various reasons. It's a fair system of vetting; if you've ever been through it, if you've been called to jury duty, you would know this. It's not God's way to the letter, but it's close at least in spirit.

The idea I had will never even be considered so there is no need to worry one bit. I was thinking that when a capital murder case, or a civil case involving over 1 million dollars in judgment gets put on the docket, someone with a high level of experience needs to be hearing the evidence. Decisions in life are very important and the ripple effect carries a wide wake.

Unfortuately the constitution disagrees with you. It calls for peers not aristrocrats. Oh, and by the way. I have seen lots of 'highly educated' folks with the disernment of a.....well to be honest - a liberal.


As far as charges against Casey Anthony… She was charged with manslaughter which does not carry a long term sentence in comparison to 1st degree murder. The media defiantly did not make up my mind in the matter either. It is pretty much layup logic for me that she had her hands very dirty in that scenario. It could have been a convenient accident, but if that was the case, why not just report it to the authorities instead of trying to cover it up? Remember Casey Anthony never reported her missing 3 year old child and led authorities on a wild goose chase while her child was in a marsh. In the end she admitted that she knew that the child was all along when she said that her father took Caylee off to the marsh 15 houses away. Even the defenses argument solidifies to me that it was manslaughter. Oh well…. It is a matter of time before the next criminal gets away with murder.

All your items you listed here are insufficient evidence to the original charge. Take the emotional hypervely out of it, and really it's weak. Her character was not on trial here.

keck553
Jul 12th 2011, 03:49 PM
Biblically, it is not.

Deuteronomy 22:17 being an exception of course.....

Cornflake
Jul 12th 2011, 05:09 PM
The child was last seen with the mother, who had sole custody.

The child was never reported 'missing' by the mother.

The mother lied about whether the child was missing and said the child was with a nanny who did not exist.

The child's body was in the mother's trunk.

The child's body had duct tape over the nose and mouth.

The child's body was wrapped in a blanket from her own bed.

The child's death was ruled a homicide.

The mother had performed numerous internet searches for 'cloroform' and 'how to make cloroform' and visited one of the sites with that information 84 times.

There was significant chloroform residue found in the trunk.

Chemical evidence of human decomposition was found in the trunk.

The mother abandoned the car after others noticed the smell of decomposition.

The mother borrowed a shovel from a neighbour.

The child's body was found in a wooded area near the home, where the family had previously buried pets.

That case is not so much 'weak' as 'slam dunk.'

Based on that evidence, what is the option besides that Casey killed her? Unicorns?

Reynolds357
Jul 12th 2011, 05:24 PM
Biblically, it is not.
And our legal system follows Torrah law to the dot and tiddle?
As Keck said, Deut 22:17 seems to suggest physical evidence could stand in for the witnesses.

Warrior4God
Jul 12th 2011, 05:33 PM
Biblically, it is not.

I have to say that Deuteronomy 22:17 seems to indicate physical evidence does indeed act as a witness at times.

Fenris
Jul 12th 2011, 05:44 PM
Deuteronomy 22:17 being an exception of course.....Still not a "witness". That's just the judicial procedure on the topic.

Fenris
Jul 12th 2011, 05:45 PM
And our legal system follows Torrah law to the dot and tiddle?No, of course not. But if the bible is invoked, we should be precise in what it mandates.


As Keck said, Deut 22:17 seems to suggest physical evidence could stand in for the witnesses.For that topic only.

Fenris
Jul 12th 2011, 05:48 PM
That case is not so much 'weak' as 'slam dunk.'
Let's just chuck the Constitution and do a lynch mob already.

Cornflake
Jul 12th 2011, 05:53 PM
Let's just chuck the Constitution and do a lynch mob already.
How does my listing evidence presented at a trial = chucking the Constitution? Is there something in the Constitution I've missed about not discussing or having opinions on public matters?

Fenris
Jul 12th 2011, 05:54 PM
How does my listing evidence presented at a trial = chucking the Constitution? Is there something in the Constitution I've missed about not discussing or having opinions on public matters?You've articulated your point already. Several times. We get it. You think the jury was brain dead.

Move on.

Cornflake
Jul 12th 2011, 06:02 PM
You've articulated your point already. Several times. We get it. You think the jury was brain dead.

Move on.

Excuse me?

You thnik anyone who thinks the evidence is damning is led by the media, doesn't know what they're talking about and isn't following biblical principles. But apparently you should keep posting to keep insulting us?

Fenris
Jul 12th 2011, 06:07 PM
Excuse me? You're excused.


You thnik anyone who thinks the evidence is damning is led by the media, doesn't know what they're talking about and isn't following biblical principles. No... I think that the evidence was lacking, the media hyped this case up, and strictly following biblical law means no witnesses = no conviction for murder.



But apparently you should keep posting to keep insulting us?I missed the part where I insulted anyone, and I'm not the only one here who thinks the prosecution didn't make the case.

And I just ate a bowl of cornflakes.

Cornflake
Jul 12th 2011, 06:14 PM
You're excused.

No... I think that the evidence was lacking, the media hyped this case up, and strictly following biblical law means no witnesses = no conviction for murder.


I missed the part where I insulted anyone, and I'm not the only one here who thinks the prosecution didn't make the case.

And I just ate a bowl of cornflakes.

I'm not the only one who thinks they did. According to you, I should shut up while you keep on about how we're confused and misled and listen to the media.

Fenris
Jul 12th 2011, 06:22 PM
I'm not the only one who thinks they did. According to you, I should shut up while you keep on about how we're confused and misled and listen to the media.No, I simply think you already made your point.

I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

Cornflake
Jul 12th 2011, 06:27 PM
No, I simply think you already made your point.

I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.
When did I say you hurt my feelings?

I think you've made yours, repeatedly, fairly nastily. I didn't tell you to "move on" because I don't need to feel I'm in charge of other people.

Fenris
Jul 12th 2011, 06:31 PM
I'm bowing out.

Warrior4God
Jul 12th 2011, 07:23 PM
The thing that is ridiculous are all the statements of "the evidence was lacking." Please. I've seen a person get convicted of murder when there wasn't even a body, or any kind of remains, found to show that anybody was even dead! There wasn't any kind of physical evidence anywhere showing that somebody was killed, either. A person was simply missing and somebody was convicted of their "murder" despite the fact that nobody knew for sure the person was even dead! They could still be alive and up and left their friends and family for all kinds of personal reasons that may not have been apparent to anybody but the person that's missing. People have done this. Makes me wonder what happens to the person convicted of their murder if their "victim" shows up alive somewhere. The Casey Anthony trial had enough evidence. It was a matter of how the jury decided, or was "instructed," to interpret said evidence. Had I been a juror, unless they know something the rest of us don't, I would have had no problem finding her guilty of murder. :2cents:

keck553
Jul 12th 2011, 11:29 PM
And our legal system follows Torrah law to the dot and tiddle?
As Keck said, Deut 22:17 seems to suggest physical evidence could stand in for the witnesses.

No, God's law is just, our laws are a compromise.
Besides, if our system did abide in Torah, odds are that there wouldn't have been an illegiimate child to murder in the first place.

keck553
Jul 12th 2011, 11:31 PM
Still not a "witness". That's just the judicial procedure on the topic.

That and I think the father could testify that the girl had an injury or something that precluded the evidence. The testimony of the father had more weight than the cloth (If I remember correctly).

keck553
Jul 12th 2011, 11:32 PM
Let's just chuck the Constitution and do a lynch mob already.

Armchair justice incited by a media frenzy.

Yea, that's fair.......

keck553
Jul 12th 2011, 11:35 PM
Excuse me?

You thnik anyone who thinks the evidence is damning is led by the media, doesn't know what they're talking about and isn't following biblical principles. But apparently you should keep posting to keep insulting us?

#1) Hogwash. I very well do know what I am talking about.

#2) I'm sorry, I didn't know mob rule was a bibical principle. Can you please show me where God has the assembly take a poll as to someone's guilt or innoncense?

keck553
Jul 12th 2011, 11:35 PM
How does my listing evidence presented at a trial = chucking the Constitution? Is there something in the Constitution I've missed about not discussing or having opinions on public matters?

Yeah, you (like the mob that brought the adultress to Jesus) don't in authority to pass judgement on this gal. The jury does.

Pretty simple, yes?

Jeanne D
Jul 12th 2011, 11:44 PM
Everyone here is expressing their opinion on this case. I don't think it's anything more than that. Let's not get carried away.


Jeanne

danield
Jul 13th 2011, 12:25 AM
Keck553,

I know I have said this before but you are making a mistake by comparing this to the woman caught in adultery.


The woman caught in adultery was guilty of the crime. This is why the wording in the bible says that she was caught. No one anywhere in the bible says anything different. Jesus even verified that she was guilty of her sin. He told the crowd how many of you have not sinned. This woman’s due process was that she was guilty. The beauty of the passage comes from Christ forgiving her of those sins and showing everyone that we have sin in our life too while encouraging her to turn from a sinful life.


Casey Anthony was found not guilty. The state says she does not have any sin to pay for in the death of her child.


The defense attorney was on last night talking about how innocent Casey was. He said that the duct tape should not be taken into account as evidence against his client. There was no facial tissue what so ever on it to condemn Casey Anthony. He was going on and on about it, and then final the reporter asked if there was any tissue left on the skull, and he cooled his jets… If it wasn’t so sad it would have been funny. He said no there was only bone and hair left on the corpse. And hair fibers from Caylee Anthony were matted in the duct tape. The same type of duct tape was found at the Anthony house. The reporter followed up with this fact and the entire interview changed to a much more level conversation.
He brought up the mob mentality as being the great evil in the case.

I saw the juror number 11 interview, and he seems intelligent, but he was snookered by the defense. The defense placed doubt in their mind about the dad’s having involvement and this juror was keyed in on his testimony looking for guilt from him.

I think they totally bypassed the facts looking for the CSI element of the case as many have suggested above. It may be that our television has trained people to over analyses issues to the level in which they miss the big point. Hard evidence pointing towards the truth was really overlooked and she was set free. I can’t explain why people overlook some of the more obvious points in the case. And it is also showing up in this thread because many of those speaking out against the decision have not said why they think the evidence presented was not enough to convict.

1. Why does the hair matted duct tape found at the body not prove that murder was commited?
2. How do you explain away Caylee Anthony lying to investigators where the body was?
3. Who was last seen with Caylee Anthony? And was it likely that anyone else would take a 3 year old from a home to commit the murder without her mother knowing?
4. Why did Casey Anthony not report her missing EVER?

Don’t worry about the partying or computer searches… just answer those 4 questions instead of saying that we carry a mob mentality of vengeance over the death of this child….. These answers need to be good too because this is a child in question. Answer the questions as if your own child or grandchild may have been involved. Do you think you could go 30 days without saying anything to anyone when your child is missing? And misdirecting police from finding them?

BrianW
Jul 13th 2011, 01:01 AM
The prosecution didn't prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt to the only people it had to prove it to. The jury. They did their jobs and rendered their verdict.

I think she killed her kid. I don't think the prosecution presented enough verifiable evidence or a good enough argument to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it and were I on that jury I would have had to vote not guilty based on the evidence presented.

That's how the system is set up and that's just how it went down this time. Someone who's most likely guilty went free. There have been people who have been innocent that have been convicted. That's our system.
It doesn't run on common sense or gut feelings. It runs on how well a prosecution can put evidence and a convincing argument together. It's not perfect but it's what we've got.

danield
Jul 13th 2011, 01:15 AM
The prosecution didn't prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt to the only people it had to prove it to. The jury. They did their jobs and rendered their verdict.

I think she killed her kid. I don't think the prosecution presented enough verifiable evidence or a good enough argument to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it and were I on that jury I would have had to vote not guilty based on the evidence presented.

That's how the system is set up and that's just how it went down this time. Someone who's most likely guilty went free. There have been people who have been innocent that have been convicted. That's our system.
It doesn't run on common sense or gut feelings. It runs on how well a prosecution can put evidence and a convincing argument together. It's not perfect but it's what we've got.


Hair matted duct proves someone put duct tape across their mouth. Also a 2 year old child lives a very dependant life on their caretaker. Explain to me how you can get over those facts and not think there is enough evidence…..

What I am asking… don’t just say there was not enough evidence…. Explain to me how this existing evidence can be overcome that you can dismiss the primary care giver to a 2 year old child as not having involvement in her disappearance. ( just putting it in the bold marking so you will answer these questions of how you get over these facts and say they don't count.)Don’t just say there is not enough evidence.. Explain to me why you think that. No “emotional” or “constitution” argument…. Show me how you get over these facts and dismiss them.

Reynolds357
Jul 13th 2011, 01:56 AM
Let's just chuck the Constitution and do a lynch mob already.
The Constitution has already been raped by the courts. The signers of the Constitution would probably form a lynch mob against several of our Supreme court justices if the signers were alive today.

danield
Jul 13th 2011, 02:03 AM
The Constitution has already been raped by the courts. The signers of the Constitution would probably form a lynch mob against several of our Supreme court justices if the signers were alive today.

They probably would start another revolution and call it freedom from bondage to a document instead of a king!

Cornflake
Jul 13th 2011, 04:51 AM
I saw the juror number 11 interview, and he seems intelligent, but he was snookered by the defense. The defense placed doubt in their mind about the dad’s having involvement and this juror was keyed in on his testimony looking for guilt from him.
This is where it seems he clearly did not understand 'reasonable doubt' as a concept. The defense presented ZERO evidence for the drowning, the molestation, Casey's father's involvement. None.

Reasonable doubt must be based on a reasonable person standard raising doubt BASED ON THE EVIDENCE. It's not 'well, anything could have happened, who knows, no one was there,' = reasonable doubt.

As I said previously, if they think she may have died accidentally - there should be a REASON they can explain that is at the basis of that. The ME testified that the death was a homicide. She explained her credentials as an expert witness, her job, and the particulars of this case and how and why she came to the conclusion she did - that the child was murdered. The defense did not counter that testimony.

A juror should not just have said 'well, but maybe it was an accident.' That's not reasonable doubt, that's unreasonable. If there's an evidenciary reason to think perhaps the ME, in her capacity as an expert, was incorrect, then fine, they should be able to explain how they got there. So far, none has.



I think she killed her kid. I don't think the prosecution presented enough verifiable evidence or a good enough argument to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it and were I on that jury I would have had to vote not guilty based on the evidence presented.

On page like 15, I posted a basic list of the evidence presented. I'm genuinely curious - if you would, could you just review the list and explain why you feel you would have to vote not guilty? I'm not looking to bicker about it, though I can't promise I wouldn't respond, but I do respect that people have different opinions, I don't understand how people are getting TO this opinion, if you see what I mean.

I really do not get it, it doesn't make sense to me. Before any jurors spoke, I said, in the thread, that maybe there was some explanation that I wasn't thinking of that'd explain their reasoning. So far they've just said things like there wasn't a motive, which is immaterial, they don't know how she died, which I don't see how that's not immaterial and so on.

Diggindeeper
Jul 13th 2011, 05:35 AM
Here is some GOOD information and its from back in Dec. of 2008! I found this in the archives here on the board. This poster lives in that area. (This was posted here on Dec. 12, 2008!)

Undoubtedly some, if not most, of you have at least heard of the disappearance of Caylee Anthony. Though I'm not sure how much of it has filtered outside of the US. For those who may not know Caylee Anthony was a 2 year old girl who disappeared 6 months ago. I live in the Orlando area where this occured so I can't help hearing about what is going on. Her mother has been charged with her murder (though they hadn't found a body at the time she was charged). That may have changed. Yesterday a utility worker went into the woods about 1/4 mile from the Anthony house, apperently to answer the call of nature, and found a plastic bag. When he picked it up a skull with duct tape on it fell out. It is to early for a positive identification yet (that will have to wait on DNA. They can't even tell yet if the body was male or female, that won't be able to be determined until they get DNA tests back). Still, several authoritys are saying they are pretty sure that it is Caylee. The hair color and size are correct and there are no reported missing children of that size, etc. in the area. Following is a quote from a local TV stations website.

FROM A LOCAL TV STATION NEWS REPORT:

Internationally-respected forensics pathologist Michael Baden told Eyewitness News on Friday that duct tape could have been used to suffocate or silence someone and prevent them from screaming, which means the child could have suffered traumatic injury.

The remains that were found were not just bones. There was tissue left, which apparently is what the duct tape was stuck to, and hair. The hair is said to be consistent in color to Caylee's hair and the body size consistent with the size of Caylee's body, according to information the sheriff's office provided Casey's attorney, Jose Baez, on Thursday.

This was posted here on Dec. 18th, by the same poster:

The latest on this. So far no positive ID. The search of where the body was found continues and they are still finding bones and teeth. and this from the webpage of one of the local tv stations.


POSTED: Wednesday, December 17, 2008
UPDATED: 4:47 pm EST December 17, 2008

ORLANDO, Fla. -- Items seized from the home of Casey Anthony's parents by investigators serving a search warrant last week has been linked to evidence that was discovered in a wooded area where a child's skull and remains were found, Local 6 News reported.

Casey Anthony, 22, was charged in October with killing daughter Caylee, who was reported missing in mid-July. The remains have not been positively identified, but recent comments from attorneys and authorities indicate they believe the body is likely Caylee's.

It is not known what the linked items taken from the home are.

And this was posted here Dec. 19th:
It's official. The search for Caylee Anthony is over. The remains found earlier have been identified as those of Caylee Anthony. Here is a bit of the story as found on MSNBC. (I have edited it to remove some extranious and duplicated material)


ORLANDO, Fla. - Skeletal remains found in the woods are the Florida 3-year-old who has been missing since June, and her death is considered a homicide, a county medical examiner said Friday.

DNA tests confirm that the remains match Caylee Anthony’s genetic profile, said the medical examiner, Dr. Jan Garavaglia.

A utility worker stumbled upon the remains last week, less than a half-mile from where the girl lived. Garavaglia said some of the remains discovered were as small as pebbles, and authorities weren’t certain how the girl was killed.
. . .

A search team said they did not check the wooded area sooner because it was submerged in water.

Beary said his department was investigating reports that the utility worker who called in the tip leading to the discovery of the remains had tried several times in August to call in his suspicion about a bag in the area.



Not one word from Jose Baez OR casey Anthony back then about ANY hint that she drowned! Not one hint. They only came up with that just before the trail!

I tell you what. I no longer have any confidence whatsoever at all in DEFENSE attorneys! Every witness must swear to tell the truth. The Prosecution team must PROVE the homicide. But the defense is allowed to come into court and bring in lies and drag the grandparents down into the gutter, and ruin them by ACCUSING them of everything they can dream up! That is as UNETHICAL as it can get!

And the ACCUSED (Like George Anthony!) can't even turn around and sue the defense team, even though they are devastated and their reputations ruined! That is a great injustice of this case also! I think Jose Baez should be disbarred because of the accusations he made with the world watching and hearing...against George Anthony, against the meter reader and against Lee Anthony!

The JURY found George Anthony GUILTY, but set the real murderer free!

I would hate to pay the way I think that defense team will pay, and Casey Anthony will pay, and even that jury will pay when they all stand before God someday not too far down the road!

Cornflake
Jul 13th 2011, 05:42 AM
If it makes you feel any better, the judge was apparently seriously displeased with Baez' antics and was supposedly looking into trying to have him sanctioned or such.

As for the swearing to tell the truth, I'd bet Cindy is going to be charged with perjury.

I agree about the slanderous stuff that's just flung with impunity. Luckily, that kind of thing is fairly rare, but it is egregious. I am all for anyone, even Casey Anthony, even Hitler, had it gone that way, anyone, having a strong defense. It's an adversarial system and people are entitled to the best defense they can get, even if totally guilty. But that sortof distasteful stuff makes all defense attorneys look bad, though a lot of people do it because they truly believe in the principle.

Warrior4God
Jul 13th 2011, 01:57 PM
So far they've just said things like there wasn't a motive

Saying such a thing shows the ignorance of the jury. :2cents: There most certainly was "motive" for Casey Anthony to kill her daughter. She wanted to live the life of a young party-goer and experience all the things that come with that lifestyle. Having her daughter was too much of an inconvenience. Casey wasn't ready to be tied down with all the responsibilities that come with motherhood. Killing her daughter, though extreme and drastic, seemed the best option in Casey's mind, I believe. Sure, she could've given Caylee up for adoption or let her parents raise her, but, perhaps in Casey's mind, killing her off and sparing her from all the emotional drama that the other options would bring was more "merciful." :2cents: I will say it again...had I been on the jury, I would've had no problem convicting her of murder. If the other jurors had a hard time agreeing with me, I wouldn't have budged on my decision and I would've deadlocked the trial...

Lyndie
Jul 13th 2011, 04:19 PM
Here is some GOOD information and its from back in Dec. of 2008! I found this in the archives here on the board. This poster lives in that area. (This was posted here on Dec. 12, 2008!)

Undoubtedly some, if not most, of you have at least heard of the disappearance of Caylee Anthony. Though I'm not sure how much of it has filtered outside of the US. For those who may not know Caylee Anthony was a 2 year old girl who disappeared 6 months ago. I live in the Orlando area where this occured so I can't help hearing about what is going on. Her mother has been charged with her murder (though they hadn't found a body at the time she was charged). That may have changed. Yesterday a utility worker went into the woods about 1/4 mile from the Anthony house, apperently to answer the call of nature, and found a plastic bag. When he picked it up a skull with duct tape on it fell out. It is to early for a positive identification yet (that will have to wait on DNA. They can't even tell yet if the body was male or female, that won't be able to be determined until they get DNA tests back). Still, several authoritys are saying they are pretty sure that it is Caylee. The hair color and size are correct and there are no reported missing children of that size, etc. in the area. Following is a quote from a local TV stations website.

FROM A LOCAL TV STATION NEWS REPORT:


This was posted here on Dec. 18th, by the same poster:

The latest on this. So far no positive ID. The search of where the body was found continues and they are still finding bones and teeth. and this from the webpage of one of the local tv stations.



And this was posted here Dec. 19th:
It's official. The search for Caylee Anthony is over. The remains found earlier have been identified as those of Caylee Anthony. Here is a bit of the story as found on MSNBC. (I have edited it to remove some extranious and duplicated material)



Not one word from Jose Baez OR casey Anthony back then about ANY hint that she drowned! Not one hint. They only came up with that just before the trail!

I tell you what. I no longer have any confidence whatsoever at all in DEFENSE attorneys! Every witness must swear to tell the truth. The Prosecution team must PROVE the homicide. But the defense is allowed to come into court and bring in lies and drag the grandparents down into the gutter, and ruin them by ACCUSING them of everything they can dream up! That is as UNETHICAL as it can get!

And the ACCUSED (Like George Anthony!) can't even turn around and sue the defense team, even though they are devastated and their reputations ruined! That is a great injustice of this case also! I think Jose Baez should be disbarred because of the accusations he made with the world watching and hearing...against George Anthony, against the meter reader and against Lee Anthony!

The JURY found George Anthony GUILTY, but set the real murderer free!

I would hate to pay the way I think that defense team will pay, and Casey Anthony will pay, and even that jury will pay when they all stand before God someday not too far down the road!
I was also wondering if George can sue the defense for slander or...can't think of the other word....