Casey having fun while Caylee was MISSING...
Posted on 07/11/2011 6:04:29 AM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta
The woman, known only as juror number 12 left her job and went into hiding fearing co-workers would 'want her head on a platter'.
Her husband said before leaving she told him: 'I’d rather go to jail than sit on a jury like this again.'
He told NBC News he was worried for her health and had his bags packed ready to leave if his 60-year-old wife's name gets released.
The woman, who moved to Florida from Michigan fled the area, retiring from her job working at Publix Grocery over the phone because she didn't feel safe.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Indeed. There was a thoughtful column posted within a thread on that very subject: how the closing remarks by the defense made it seem that if there was ANY doubt, reasonable or not, they should vote “not guilty.” Jurors need to be educated about the difference between “reasonable doubt” and “any shadow of a doubt.”
The whole thing was a huge media driven bungle. The State moved too fast on the Murder charge and did not investigate any other possibilities. The truth may still come out though. Thanks to the Jury.
Casey having fun while Caylee was MISSING...
“The ME ruled it a homicide. There’s your proof.”
Prove this woman did it.
You’re absolutely correct.
Eh, you know what I mean.
But I did kind of like your little scale thing.
I’ll go along with that as long as all the Massholes and other flatlanders go back where they came from and stay there.
The prosecution put a pathetic case together that never should have gone to court. The court and jury followed rules that protect all of us from false accusations. A murderer may have walked, but our basic rights to a fair trail were protected. Now anyone involved with this trial is living in fear from a public that has been whipped into a frenzy by a media that only wants better ratings.
The grieving mother.
“It may have been an unpopular decision, but it looks like the right one to me.”
In what universe?
http://www.angelfire.com/ak2/intelligencerreport/rightwing184.html
“Definition of IRRATIONAL : not rational: as a (1) : not endowed with reason or understanding (2) : lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence b : not governed by or according to reason.”
I take it you are referring to the jury?
You are incorrect.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution in this country, not on the defense. In many nations, you sum up what the defense team would have to do. But in the United States you are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
And even so, the jury did not acquit her of the charges (to my knowledge), they merely found her not guilty of the charges the prosecution attempted to prove.
Your entire post is excellent and I agree with every word.
"By "reasonable doubt" is intended not a fanciful or ingenious doubt or conjecture, but an honest, conscientious doubt suggested by the material evidence or lack of it in the case. it is an honest misgiving generated by insufficiency of proof of guilt. "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt" means proof to an evidentiary certainty, although not necessarily to an absolute or mathematical certainty. The proof must be such as to exclude not every hypothesis or possibility of innocence, but every fair and rational hypothesis except that of guilt. The rule as to reasonable doubt extends to every element of the offenses, although each particular fact advanced by the prosecution, which does not amount to an element, need not be established beyond a reasonable doubt. However, if, on the whole evidence, you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the truth of each and every element, then you should find the accused guilty."
I have also always felt that the circumstantial evidence instruction was very illuminating and read that to her as well ...
"Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is evidence which tends directly to prove or disprove a fact in issue. If a fact in issue was whether it rained during the evening, testimony by a witness that he or she saw it rain would be direct evidence that it rained. On the other hand, circumstantial evidence is evidence which tends to prove some other fact from which, either alone or together with some other facts or circumstances, you may reasonably infer the existence or nonexistence of a fact in issue. If there was evidence that the street was wet in the morning, that would be circumstantial evidence from which might reasonably infer that it rained during the night in the absence of any intervening circumstance or fact. There is no general rule for determining or comparing the weight to be given to direct or circumstantial evidence. You should give all the evidence the weight and value you believe it deserves."
The proper name for them is Americans.
We have a winner...spot on.
Careful, being rational will get you attacked.
BTW, complaints against the defense attorney have been filed with the Florida bar. I think the main one is regarding the statement that the father molested her.
I agree!
Casey Anthony murdered her daughter...and the jury let her go.
Federal charges should be brought against the beast Casey Anthony.
I have no idea what charges but there must be something.
Absolutely there was such evidence. Someone from the Anthony household was clearly responsible, since the items found with Caylee’s body were traced back to the Anthony home. So it was a matter of deciding whether which Anthony it was. I thought that was clear as a bell.
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.