Posted on 07/05/2011 7:27:58 AM PDT by freebird5850
Duh-uh. The tape was in the house in which Casey Anthony lives. The entire family had access to the tape. Do you think George - having killed Caylee with duct tape - would have run off to a “Find Casey” rally bringing with him the same, unusual duct tape?
lol...before he jumped on the Jose bandwagon.....Cheney Mason was one of those lawyers on shows like Nancy Grace and Jane Velez Mitchell. Back then, he said Casey should plea to avoid the death sentence. He’s a phony hypocrite.
Did anyone just see Geraldo on F&F with the ex-boyfriend? It was so confusing...the boyfriend says he can’t believe that Casey will walk but then defends her calling her a wonderful mother who loved her daughter. Of course, that thrilled Geraldo as he has been singing that tune every time he appears on TV. So what is the boyfriend saying—he can’t believe she is getting away with murder? Oh, and don’t even think of criticizing Geraldo because he is a LAWYER and he knows this stuff. And everyone else can just shut up.
There is a question I would ask everyone on this thread who is outraged at the verdict.
The last time you were called for jury duty, did you willingly serve, or did you try for an excuse?
In my opinion only those who served have a right to be upset.
I assume that is your opinion???
At any rate, fact is, he and his fellow defense attorneys won the case.
And his statement (quoted before) is absolutely spot on.
“When there is only one person on God’s green earth that knows and tells investigators WHEN her own flesh and blood went missing and NOBODY else has contact with or saw a virtually helpless child of 2 and 1/2 then I have NO doubt this woman KILLED her.”
It’s entirely possible she simply panicked and that, mixed with her clear mental illnesses didn’t report her daughter’s death yet also did not kill her. This would not be murder. It is also possible that her father killed her daughter and she helped hide the body or had no idea what happened until much later. If she knew it might be enough to charge her as an accessory to the father’s murder but that wasn’t charged here nor was her father charged with the murder. She was charged on whether she herself killed her daughter and while we all my suspect she did there is room for reasonable doubt as to whether she did based solely on the evidence presented.
“Some people are NOT in need of a Utube video of the act literally being carried out.”
I am not saying you need a video, indeed there is a growing consensus that video evidence is flawed. You also don’t even need DNA evidence (the CSI effect on this case has been disturbing). But you do need more than what was provided in this case; you need witnesses who will tell a story without all being impeached (save her brother who wasn’t all that helpful anyway) and you need at least some physical evidence to show with 95+% certainty that she did it. That wasn’t presented here.
“This lying sack of excrement confessed herself guilty, when she told her brother that her daughter had been missing for 31 days.”
There’s no doubt she was guilty of lying; the charges she was convicted on. But the prosecution failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the reason her daughter was missing those days was because it was Casey that killed her. Is it probable or likely? Yes. But is it proven beyond a reasonable doubt? No.
“And this killer (I do not give a ..... what a bunch of mush minded idiots needed to have placed before them as evidence) got a walk because NOBODY caught her in the act.”
Again it wasn’t catching her in the act. It was the lack of good evidence. It was more her family members either lying under oath or hiding the truth that helped it more than anything. That and the lack of direct proof. Again you don’t need eyewitness testimony (it is often flawed anyway) or video or DNA but you do need something more than what the jury received from the prosecution. Circumstantial evidence can, if significant enough, be used to influence the jury but here the evidence presented en toto was insufficient to show her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Maybe the law needs to be changed so that reasonable doubt cannot include when a defendant himself/herself creates the very reasonable doubt which, in the end, gets them off.
Reasonable doubt should have to come about on its own, not because the defendant helped to actively create it.
For example, the very fact that Casey failed to report the child missing for 30 days created a situation where she increasingly would be most likely to be found NOT GUILTY at trial.
Why? Because during those 30 days the human remains are subject to rain, which can and will wash fingerprints away and its during this time that other valuable forensic evidence can be lost, due to animal activity and so forth.
IMO, this alone requires her being guilty of a charge(s) more serious than merely lying to a law enforcement official(s).
Which boyfriend was it? I missed the interview.
I did see Jesse Grund (former fiance) interviewed by the detestable Nancy Grace last night- along with his father. They both seem level-headed and sensible men- both disgusted with the verdict.
I’m sorry for your loss.
I agree it’s hardly a perfect system but I do think it’s better than the alternative of lowering the standards of culpability required for conviction and accidentally wrongfully imprisoning the innocent. It is absolutely reprehensible that so many criminals roam the streets due to cracks in our legal system but without these cracks, in some odd way, far more innocent people would be sent off to prison.
Heck, I've been called for jury duty a dozen times, both while I was in the Army and since my retirement, and, every time, during voir dire, when the attorneys found out that I worked as a military court reporter/stenographer and continue to work as a civilian court reporter/stenographer, I've been challenged and excused from duty.
I've never been allowed to sit on a jury (mainly, as I believe, because I've probably sat through more trials than both attorneys combined) ...
The attorneys, both government and defense, WANT a jury of village idiots.
But because this case happens to be the one on which our vampire tabloid media decided America needed to obsess over, millions are outraged by this verdict and this verdict alone.
My brain is still reeling. I’m particularly amazed by the reaction of the alternate juror who chose to speak publicly. He tells us that somehow- in a feat of mental gymnastics usually performed only by liberals, that the explanation for the duct tape was the way the Anthony family buried their pets. Duct tape was wrapped around plastic bags before pets were buried, therefore that’s what happened with Caylee. UTTERLY ignoring the fact that the duct tape was put across Caylees FACE, not the outside of the garbage bag.
I don’t believe I impliied that. I was responding to someone who was surprised that this was some kind of special tape of limited manufacture. The original poster seemed to doubt this, or that the prosecution had not revealed this. I was merely pointing out that George testified to his probable ownership of the tape on the witness stand, although he was cagy about it. I never said that it wasn’t available to anybody who lived in that household.
He said he "felt like he was kicked in the stomach...shocked and angry that there is no justice for Caylee...I am angry at every one responsible for Casey walking out of that courtroom...prosecution took a wrong step at the beginning when they said Caylee was in a loving home...I know a different version...it was a carnival of dysfunctionality, Caylee never had a chance...(Re Casey): don't you think she was totally screwed up, lying and partying due to her environment...they should have gotten her some help...she can't go back to that house...it's a hellhole for her emotionally and psychologically...she needs to leave and find redemption...I don't think she will find redemption...I'm sure she is not going back to the adversarial relationship between Cindy and Casey...
Geraldo to Grund: "Was she a good mother? Was Caylee well cared for?"
Grund: "There was no neglect or abuse...Cindy provided financial support...she knew Casey sat around and did nothing."
Brian asks Grund: "Did she get away with murder, and who's the baby's father?" (Answer to that: "No one knows.")
Grund: "Obviously the last person to see Caylee alive was Casey. She took her with her and then that beautiful girl was dumped in a swamp."
"Caylee was good for Casey, she gave her worth. Casey partied when she had Caylee."
My thoughts are that - some juries confuse “no doubt” with “reasonable doubt”.
Or to put it still another way, they don’t realize that their own personal doubt is an unreasonable doubt.
Or perhaps they just give up on deciding what is reasonable vs. unreasonable, and as you suggest they just reinterpret it to “no doubt”.
We have got to stop taking “jury of our peers” to the extreme that was used in this trial. Sequestration is real punishment.
PRISONERS JUDGING A FELLOW PRISONER DOES NOT WORK!
I'm stunned. Not even manslaughter. Yet they convicted her on misdemeanor lying so they knew, in fact, that she lied. CONNECT THE DOTS, people.
I'm with Mark Fuhrman...it wasn't that they couldn't convict, it was that they wouldn't convict.
It must have been the fiance—I was in the other room so was just listening. He seemed very level-headed but said some things that had me confused. First that he couldn’t believe she was getting away with this (so he thinks she murdered her daughter?) and that Casey needed Caylee as she gave her worth in that family. But then he agreed with Geraldo that she a loving mother.
Have you got your torch and pitchfork ready? Lyncher.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.