Casey Anthony trial


Ocean Breeze
#91
Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

I think Ms Anthony will have to watch her back for a very long time. If someone decides to deliver their own form of justice, that person can just hire Baez and avoid prison.

LOL..........and THAT dear fellow forum members is what the US "justice system" is all about. It would be hilarious if it were not so tragic.


Of course the lynch mob mentality will support the assassin. as well.

( I see Nancy Grace on CNN at the moment. That gal should be in theater. ...... as her acting talents are lost in what she does.)

......... Aren't these legal types supposed to stay away from drawing conclusions based on emotions??? Reason and logic has flown out the window. Enter Legal SOAP OPERA. (and this trial was just that. including sexual molestation charges and infidelity charges.

what a show.

( just heard that one of the Jurors was leaving on a cruise on the 7th July......... Hmm. Some are "speculating that this was part of the "speedy" verdict. )

Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

What does motive have to do with a murder? (random killing being a crime with no motive). This was not a random killing, but a well planned murder only problem was proof of who did it. The prosecutors did not do their job and rushed the convening of the trial.

The implication was that this was PRE-MEDITATED. Murder. and yes, MOTIVE is important. There is no such thing as motiveless killilng. Even the insane have their insane Motives. I know of a person who killed his entire family because Jesus told him to. The motive was to obey his 'Jesus".

Random killings. You mean when some one goes on a shooting spree??? There is always a reason for it......even if the reason does not make sane / logical sense. Rage, uncontrolled due to something is also a motive.

There ya go:: All that was missing is PROOF OF WHO DID IT. So how can you say that the verdict was wrong when as you say.....even the WHO is not clear. Was her cop daddy part of it.?? I would venture he was part of the cover up even if it were by default of exposing her to evidence concealing tactics as he would know due to his job. Again.....that is an OPINION....
 
EagleSmack
+1
#92
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

LOL..........and THAT dear fellow forum members is what the US "justice system" is all about. It would be hilarious if it were not so tragic.


Of course the lynch mob mentality will support the assassin. as well.

( I see Nancy Grace on CNN at the moment. That gal should be in theater. ...... as her acting talents are lost in what she does.)

......... Aren't these legal types supposed to stay away from drawing conclusions based on emotions??? Reason and logic has flown out the window. Enter Legal SOAP OPERA. (and this trial was just that. including sexual molestation charges and infidelity charges.

what a show.

( just heard that one of the Jurors was leaving on a cruise on the 7th July......... Hmm. Some are "speculating that this was part of the "speedy" verdict. )

Yup... there you are... STILL fully engrossed in the US MEDIA CIRCUS you have lambasted. More hypocricy.
 
Ocean Breeze
#93
Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

Maybe after Amanda Knox gets off by alleging that there could have been contamination in the lab during DNA testing, she and Anthony can get their own TV show promoting trial tricks that result in a get out of jail free card.

that is not all that far fetched. It is close to what happens....the book and book tour comes first to fund the "reality" TV . They both have all the publicity necessary as the ground work for it. .
 
EagleSmack
#94
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

that is not all that far fetched. It is close to what happens....the book and book tour comes first to fund the "reality" TV . They both have all the publicity necessary as the ground work for it. .

Most likely you will watch it and read her book.
 
Mowich
#95
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsidesView Post

What is this "American Way, What did you expect???", there was no other verdict possible based upon the facts. Casey was not found guilty of murder as you said "Two critical factors need to be remembered. We cannot ever let go of the reasonable doubt." She was guilty of not telling police officers and investigators the truth, and that was all that could be proved. The prosecutor went into this trial with insufficient evidence, only emotion and now Casey walks away. This trial only proved that the American way works and yes not guilty does not mean "innocent".


That is the tragedy of this case.

I thought the child's name was Caylee, anyway.........I agree ironsides. I am wondering if the state didn't make a mistake in charging the mother with the wrong crime? I heard absolutely nothing to make me think that Casey actually murdered the child - i.e. strangled, poisoned, etc - what I did hear was that this was a very negligent parent in which case isn't there a charge of negligent homicide that might better have fit the circumstances?

The jury came back with the only verdict they could given the evidence or lack thereof, before them.

Gaia bless and keep this precious child.
 
YukonJack
#96
Casey Anthony (along with and at the advise of her attorneys) was savvy enough to follow the age-old advice: If you are innocent, choose a trial with judge, if you are guilty, choose trial with jury.
 
Mowich
#97
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

the other thing mssing is a genuine MOTIVE for murder. There is lots of suppositio about her wanting a party girl life style. (the latter is probably true.........but she managed to maintain her party life style for TWO yrs. She is probably guilty of being a lousy parent. But the grandparents picked up the slack of parenting. All the videos shown of Caylee do NOT show an abused or neglected child. She looks talkative, happy and normal for her age.

Out of the mouths of babes - the only supposition for motive that gave me pause. Caycee was beginning to talk more and the mother had many secrets to hide.
 
Ocean Breeze
#98
Have Nancy Grace on at the moment. (and will turn if off immediately)......as for a legal prosecutor and supposed professional....... she is so biased , inflamatory, and does not even allow others to state their opinions .

The media could do itself a favor by moving her show OFF prime time as her lynch mob mentality does no one any good.

She Like many who are reacting to the verdict..........do not want justice. they want REVENGE.

In actual fact.........today true justice was done. Insufficient hard evidence to convict her of the crime , let alone present it in a death penalty case.

The original premise was wrong. as per hindsite: it should never have been a death penalty case. There was never enough real hard evidence to justify that.

The radical/ emotinal public response to this verdict shows how much the media inflamed the public ........Nancy Grace being the biggest offender.

The only ideas she is interested in are her own.....and only voice she wants to hear is hers. She alone gives the US "justice " system a bad image.

Quote: Originally Posted by MowichView Post

Out of the mouths of babes - the only supposition for motive that gave me pause. Caycee was beginning to talk more and the mother had many secrets to hide.


now that is an interesting possibility. Plus as she was growing older, she would be requiring even more time with activities and pre school. ( that requires active involvement of the parents ).... so the demands on her time would be greater.

as it stands....... it is the grandparents that brought her up to the age she lived to. Casey...posed for the home videos but presented an indifferent attitude.

Even with the above.........not enough PROOF / EVIDENCE that she did it. What I would like to know is what he daddy knows. Being a cop.........his knowledge could have been helpful.

Casey is such a manipulator and liar ..........that even if she admitted to killing her little girl........ not sure one could believe her as each item out of her mouth is suspect and has some self centred motive behind it

WHat I have a hard time wrapping my head around is the long delay before reporting her missing. To me , THAT is the biggest red flag What a load of lies she must have told to explain Caylee's absence.

Quote: Originally Posted by MowichView Post

I thought the child's name was Caylee, anyway.........I agree ironsides. I am wondering if the state didn't make a mistake in charging the mother with the wrong crime? I heard absolutely nothing to make me think that Casey actually murdered the child - i.e. strangled, poisoned, etc - what I did hear was that this was a very negligent parent in which case isn't there a charge of negligent homicide that might better have fit the circumstances?

The jury came back with the only verdict they could given the evidence or lack thereof, before them.

Gaia bless and keep this precious child.


exellent point. They ASSUMED the method of demise. . No real adequate explantion for the duct tape. But the heart sticker .....makes my skin crawl.......at the callousness of it. It almost makes one think of a "burial RITUAL " of some kind.
 
Kreskin
#99
What a joke. Apparently you can get away with murder if you can sucker a jury with unreasonable doubt.
 
EagleSmack
#100
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

Have Nancy Grace on at the moment. (and will turn if off immediately)......as for a legal prosecutor and supposed professional....... she is so biased , inflamatory, and does not even allow others to state their opinions .

The media could do itself a favor by moving her show OFF prime time as her lynch mob mentality does no one any good.

.

Still glued to all that good Yank media eh?
 
Kreskin
#101
I guess she'll have to look for the real killer, like OJ did.
 
Ocean Breeze
#102
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

What a joke. Apparently you can get away with murder if you can sucker a jury with unreasonable doubt.

WHAT exactly is the JOKE??? and the term is REASONABLE DOUBT.

Or is the Lynch mob justice more to your liking??? Do you prefer GUILTY until proven otherwise?? That sounds like an american ruise when they target someone for assassination. NO trial, lots of lies, get rid of the body. after pre-meditated MURDER of a person in front of his family.

yep........that is a whole lot more civilized..
 
Kreskin
#103
No it's completely nonsensical doubt. Karma will get her back.
 
Ocean Breeze
#104
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

No it's completely nonsensical doubt. Karma will get her back.

Perhaps you should avoid all forms of jury duty.

We have no idea of what the future holds. Who knows......some gun happy american might decide on street justice for her .

Would rather have her go free because of insuffient evidence than convicted and later be found not guilty of the crime.

the FACT is WE HAVE NO CLUE what REALLY happened. Was it an accident out of negligence??? It is a big stretch to PRE-MEDITATED murder.

Or did she lose patience with a little toddlers demands........and needs for attention which resulted in her losing her temper.???

.........No one mentioned THAT possibility........... because they have been gung ho to inject her with the lethal needle. The MOB mentality was in full force.

Caylee was such a cute/ adorable little girl. The home videos certainly don't show neglect or abuse. The tragedy is heart breaking.

but we must remember INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt.

.........as far as the TRUTH........ that is usually the other major casualty in such a case.
 
Kreskin
#105
The problem with the american system is you become a book-writing star if you are a juror in a high profile case, and there are more books to sell when the decision is controversial. If they had to remain anonymous and silent like the Canadian system you wouldn't have juries stacked with people who only see their pocket books.
 
Ocean Breeze
#106
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

The problem with the american system is you become a book-writing star if you are a juror in a high profile case, and there are more books to sell when the decision is controversial. If they had to remain anonymous and silent like the Canadian system you wouldn't have juries stacked with people who only see their pocket books.

that is the "american' way. What cha gonna do??? Of course, to any objective observer......this has all gone out of control

OTOH........ no one has to buy and read these books. I wouldn't......because such books sensationalize the subject even more.

sensationalism SELLS. People are addicted to it. Otherwise it is just boring. That is part of the entire social fabric. Constant stimulation or they create their own stimulation and thrills.

americans would never tolerate the understated Canadian system. with their short attention spans.....they would lose interest in seconds. So it is no real surprise the media has had a field day ....with the people just lapping it up. THey forget that this is a serious legal procedure where a life has been lost and another is on Trial for pre-meditated murder....

.........YET.......... no one offered the answer to"

MANNER of DEATH. CAUSE of death. WHO was physically involved in the killing , HOW it happened. WHERE did it happen.??

How can any reasonable jury come to any other conclusion.???

........but in america ,now......it is guilty until proven innocent in attitude ......and the mob mentality fed by the media is just sick.
 
EagleSmack
#107
Quote: Originally Posted by Ocean BreezeView Post

......and the mob mentality fed by the media is just sick.

That you seem to be soaking up and watching hourly.
 
TenPenny
+1
#108
Another example of good ad placement

 
spirit1st
#109
There is a law, i think all over the state! We must have a fence around the pool ! If not and a child dies! The people who own the pool can be arrested !
In this case all three could have been arrested and gone to prison! The mother and dad for not having the fence the mother of the child for not watching the child!
Might be why if He did, The father talked the daughter into dumping the body!
Everyone in this case lied! The only person who might have told the truth was the girl friend . Even she sold her story and at first lied!
Never did think the girl killed her daughter! That was the only good thing she had in her life!
 
ironsides
#110
Anthony trial: Lack of evidence or good defense?


ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — Prosecutors proved Casey Anthony was a liar, but convinced the jury of little else.
The government failed to establish how 2-year-old Caylee Anthony died and they couldn't find her mother's DNA on the duct tape they said was used to suffocate her. There was conflicting testimony on whether the putrid smell inside the family's car was a decomposing body or simply trash, and it was never quite clear why chloroform was so important.
The lack of evidence and the doubt raised by the defense — that Caylee accidentally drowned in the family's pool — was enough to win an acquittal. After a trial of a month and a half, the jury took less than 11 hours to find Anthony not guilty of first-degree murder, aggravated manslaughter and aggravated child abuse.

Anthony trial: Lack of evidence or good defense? - Yahoo! News (external - login to view)





Quote: Originally Posted by spirit1stView Post

There is a law, i think all over the state! We must have a fence around the pool ! If not and a child dies! The people who own the pool can be arrested !
In this case all three could have been arrested and gone to prison! The mother and dad for not having the fence the mother of the child for not watching the child!
Might be why if He did, The father talked the daughter into dumping the body!
Everyone in this case lied! The only person who might have told the truth was the girl friend . Even she sold her story and at first lied!
Never did think the girl killed her daughter! That was the only good thing she had in her life!

There is a law with new construction, don't know when the law went into effect since some older homes are grandfathered in and do not have to enclose a pool built before a certain date.


"In an effort to secure the perimeter of pools and stop young children from accidentally drowning, the state of Florida enacted a law (external - login to view) regarding barrier requirements for residential (external - login to view) pools. According to stature 515.29, a barrier must be at least four feet high on the outside, must be placed around the perimeter of the pool and sufficiently far enough away from the edge of the pool's water. A barrier cannot have any gaps, openings or anything that may allow a child to climb or crawl through the fence. The barrier should not be placed in a position where any other structure or object will allow climbing access over the barrier. The wall of a house may be used for part of the barrier as long as it does not have a door or window which allows access to the pool."


Florida Laws on Residential Pools | eHow.com (external - login to view) Florida Laws on Residential Pools | eHow.com (external - login to view)
 
bluebyrd35
#111
Incredibly, she will probably walk free. Floridians (don't know about the rest of the country) was lambasted daily for nearly a year with the events going on in the trial. For someone who was supposedly without money, she sure got great representation.

Early on the focus was on the defendent having her sights on a new boyfriend, who made it quite plain, he was not into children. Oddly enough or ,not, the child disappeared shortly thereafter.

Anyway, the lawyers did manage to confuse the jury enough that they felt a not guilty verdict was necessary. The lawyers have made their reputation here. I wonder where all the money came from, as she was purported to be broke. It seems to me the media was permitted to play such a role in the trial, that it came to be more of a circus event.

The difference between recording the trial for later judicial or public review and allowing the media to publish the course of the trial daily, certainly influenced the outcome, in my opinion. In the end, though even if she was guilty and got off on lack of evidence, the law did what is was supposed to. Better a guilty ones goes free than one innocent is convicted. What goes around in life does have a habit of coming back to bite one.
 
Ariadne
#112
I watched a couple of summary programs about the case last night and two things stood out that, in my opinion, influenced the decision:

1. in a death penalty case the lawyer wants/needs to establish that something is wrong with the client;
2. an alternate theory of the crime, regardless of whether it is founded in facts, should be put forth, as the defense is not required to prove that the alternate theory actually occurred.

Baez established that his client is a compulsive liar and then went on to call her names like "****" during closing arguments. He then concocted a story involving George Anthony (the father), the swimming pool and an "accident that snowballed out of control" - essentially (in my opinion) perpetrating a "fraud upon the court". He blamed George for both lying, and for staging an accident to appear as a murder.

I don't think there was anything wrong with the prosecution theory or presentation of the facts. Instead, I think the problem is that the jury was looking for the prosecution to chase the defence 'fraud' and when that didn't happen, they decided that the 'fraud' must be possible. If the prosecution had been able to anticipate a not guilty ruling, they would have stopped the trial and filed a complaint regarding the wild, improbable and fraudulent alternative theory presented by Baez in opening arguments. I think the main reason that this did not happen was that the cost of the trial had already been blow completely out of proportion by the media craze that chased the case.
 
EagleSmack
#113
So in other words...

"Oh my gosh! My baby girl just drowned accidently. Quick... lets cover her face in duct tape and dump her in a swamp!"

The jury didn't want to talk to the media...I don't blame them after that verdict. I wouldn't want my face out there.
 
TenPenny
#114
I don't think the jury should be allowed to talk to the media after any trial.
 
EagleSmack
#115
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

I don't think the jury should be allowed to talk to the media after any trial.

What would be your reasoning?

Do they have televised trials up there?
 
TenPenny
+1
#116
Actually, no, trials are not televised, which I think is a good thing. Trials are public, of course, but not televised.

Having the jurors speak to the media just makes them into potential celebrity wannabes, and could distort the rational of a jury decision. People will tend to make decisions based on media celebrity, instead of a proper jury decision, if they know they can go on tv and talk about it.
 
Ariadne
+1
#117
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

So in other words...

"Oh my gosh! My baby girl just drowned accidently. Quick... lets cover her face in duct tape and dump her in a swamp!"

The jury didn't want to talk to the media...I don't blame them after that verdict. I wouldn't want my face out there.

This is the story that the jury bought. There is no doubt that there was duct tape on the child at the time of death, as it was still there, holding the jawbone in place, when the remains were found. For some reason, the jury chose to believe that George, the former police officer, thought it was a good idea to cover up an accidental death by duct taping the child and feeding her to the swamp creatures. Clearly there was something wrong with the jury. There has been some speculation that the jury was discussing the case prior to deliberations - a violation that was apparent during trial but which was overlooked, possibly, again to avoid the cost of a retrial.

The jury is probably waiting for someone to offer big money for an interview, while others have most likely already started writing their books about the case. I think everyone would like the jury to explain why they rejected the evidence but given the verdict, I doubt any of them have anything to say that is worth reading. That is, I get the impression that the jury was dumber than a sack of hammers.
 
TenPenny
#118
Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

This is the story that the jury bought. There is no doubt that there was duct tape on the child at the time of death, as it was still there, holding the jawbone in place, when the remains were found. For some reason, the jury chose to believe that George, the former police officer, thought it was a good idea to cover up an accidental death by duct taping the child and feeding her to the swamp creatures. Clearly there was something wrong with the jury. There has been some speculation that the jury was discussing the case prior to deliberations - a violation that was apparent during trial but which was overlooked, possibly, again to avoid the cost of a retrial.
.

That's not necessarily what the jury thought. They simply didn't believe that there was enough evidence to believe without a reasonable doubt. Nowhere does it say that the jury believed any of what you say.
 
bluebyrd35
#119
With no DNA on the duct tape, and no witnesses to the actual killing accidental or otherwise, as well as the allowance of all kinds of outrageous speculation on the part of the defense, right up to the final summation was bad enough. The prosecution on the other hand, had to stick to the facts , doesn't make the jury dumb.
 
EagleSmack
#120
Quote: Originally Posted by AriadneView Post

This is the story that the jury bought. There is no doubt that there was duct tape on the child at the time of death, as it was still there, holding the jawbone in place, when the remains were found. For some reason, the jury chose to believe that George, the former police officer, thought it was a good idea to cover up an accidental death by duct taping the child and feeding her to the swamp creatures. Clearly there was something wrong with the jury. There has been some speculation that the jury was discussing the case prior to deliberations - a violation that was apparent during trial but which was overlooked, possibly, again to avoid the cost of a retrial.

I wonder who would make that decision based on cost. I understand it is only speculation.

But whatever the case... she walks on Thursday. I am sure of it.

Quote:

The jury is probably waiting for someone to offer big money for an interview

I did not think of that but I wouldn't doubt that at all.
 

Similar Threads

17
Casey Printers signs with BC
by Kreskin | Sep 23rd, 2009
6
Casey Printers returns to the CFL
by CBC News | Sep 8th, 2007
5
Bill Casey gets booted
by gc | Jun 6th, 2007
no new posts