Casey Anthony trial
- Thread starter Kreskin
- Start date
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..
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.
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.
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!
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!
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
http://www.ap.org/
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.
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
http://www.ap.org/
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 regarding barrier requirements for residential 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 Florida Laws on Residential Pools | eHow.com
Florida Laws on Residential Pools | eHow.com Florida Laws on Residential Pools | eHow.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I did not think of that but I wouldn't doubt that at all.