Posted on 07/05/2011 12:26:49 PM PDT by buggy02
http://www.orlandosentinel.com
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
Its been longer for me. I LOVE beer - it doesn’t love me anymore.
Reasonable people can disagree about things.
I don’t believe that there was enough of the cicumstantial evidence - a convincing trail - that was strong enough to have induced me to vote for murder here. I believe if you are sentencing someone to death you need a far more solid case than the prosecutor here presented.
Mark Levin, a Constitutional Attorney and a conservative, and Judge Napolitano, another constitutionalist and solid conservative, agree with me on this.
She was apparently using the Chloroform as a form of sedative so she could leave the kid and party with her slime ball boyfriend.
If you want to kill someone with a chemical, there are better alternatives than chloroform, which was used as a medical seditive for years.
They could have used the duct tape for other reasons than to kill the kid. They could have used it to wrap the body before disposal.
You are not dealing with people who have a full deck here. They were obviously a disfunctional bunch and possibly sociopathic.
Thanks for you support.
Judge Napolitano of FOX News, a Constitutionalist and conservative, and Mark Levin, a Constitutional Attorney and conservative, agree with us.
Bill O’Reilly doesn’t. That says a lot.
When we give the state the authority to take a life in an execution, we better damn well be sure its justifiable. Executions can’t be withdrawn later.
I don’t believe the Prosecution presented enough evidence to prove that was the case.
Under our system of justice, the accused needn’t prove their innocence, even if there are suspicions and light circumstantial evidence. The STATE must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused.
I, Marl Levin and Judge Andrew Napolitano, as well as numerous posters here do not feel the State did this in this case.
This GROWING habit of the media to try people in the press has got to stop.
It looks like they may been way off in the Strauss- Kahn case also.
Besides, really SIGNIFICANT issues have been off the radar screen while they were away playing Judge, Jury and Executioner here.
And the difference between a trial and a grand jury, is the prosecutor controlls the grand jury - no one questions him/her.
From Wikipedia:
“Criticism
The most persistent criticism of grand juries is that jurors are not a representative sampling of the community, and are not qualified for jury service, in that they do not possess a satisfactory ability to ask pertinent questions, or sufficient understanding of local government and the concept of due process.[21] Unlike potential jurors in regular trials, grand jurors are not screened for bias or other improper factors. They are rarely read any instruction on the law, as this is not a requirement; their job is only to judge on what the prosecutor produced. The prosecutor drafts the charges and decides which witnesses to call.[9] The prosecutor is not obliged to present evidence in favor of those being investigated. Grand jury witnesses have no right to have a lawyer or family in the room, and can be charged with holding the court in contempt (punishable with incarceration for the remaining term of the grand jury) if they refuse to appear before the jury[22] and all evidence is presented by a prosecutor in a cloak of secrecy, as the prosecutor, grand jurors, and the grand jury stenographer are prohibited from disclosing what happened before the grand jury, unless ordered to do so in a judicial proceeding.[9]
After a grand jury was commissioned to investigate whistleblowers organization WikiLeaks, grand juries have been accused of being used as an intimidation and persecution mechanism against whistleblowers and anti-war activists.[23]”
Says it all.
HOWEVER, if she killed the kid, there's only one factor ~ she killed the kid.
We don't have degrees of Live kid, part live kid, part dead kid, dead kid. The child is dead or alive, and it's pretty obvious she didn't do it to herself. BTW, that's "circumstantial evidence" ~ the fact that Kaylee didn't commit suicide! Even the most hardcore "I's gots' ta' sees it mysef" type might well be moved to agree on that.
Any link, however minor in significance, that tells us that Casey killed Kaylee is sufficient!
“I’s gots’ ta’ sees it mysef” type”
Is that some kind of racial slur?
Despite my pseudonym, I’m white by the way.
Unless the Prosecution presents enough evidence to prove the accused commited the crime, they are Not Guilty” under our system - not “Innocent” but “Not Guilty”.
The Prosecution had a poor case and they lost. My guess is they were hoping to scare her into a plea bargain, gambled everything, cost the taxpayers a mint and lost the case.
The Prosecutor should be fired. He’s an incompetent.
There are three choices here ~ someone killed her, she killed herself, she's still alive but someone made a mistake with the DNA.
If someone killed her it could be an accident, on purpose, or some other reason (disease perhaps?).
If it was an accident ...... then let's look at the subsequent behavior. If it was not an accident..... then let's look at the subsequent behavior. If it was disease..... let's check for bacteria and viruses.
It's at that second stage ~ Casey's behavior ~ that was examined pretty good and yup, there she was dancing up a storm, partying to beat the band ~ at a time when it was otherwise demonstrated she had to know where Casey was!
There are people unable to follow a logical progression ~ they have their place in this world, just not on juries.
Hardly racist. I suppose there are some whitefolk out there who imagine that only blackfolk speak that way, but that’s not true.
The Prosecution can’t proe she was killed with duct tape. There were no soft body tissues left - only a skeleton and duct tape. The duct tape could have been applied post mortem.
Her mother’s behavior was abnormal, but then she is a very abnormal human being - that doesn;t necesssarily equate to murderer.
The Prosecution failed to produce SOLID EVIDENCE that Casey murdered her child, just a series of pictures of a very abnormal individual.
Look at the Chloroform searches. The Prosecution called in two experts - one claimed over 100 hits on that subject were found, the other only one.
You have skeletal remains with duct tape and with DNA indication on the duct tape, you have the mother’s car with a stench of death in it.
You have conflicting testimony from the father.
We know the kid is dead. We know that some untoward actions were taken with respect to the remains. We know the mother has abnormal responses to the death. That’s all - nothing more.
The Prosecution can’t proe she was killed with duct tape. There were no soft body tissues left - only a skeleton and duct tape. The duct tape could have been applied post mortem.
Her mother’s behavior was abnormal, but then she is a very abnormal human being - that doesn;t necesssarily equate to murderer.
The Prosecution failed to produce SOLID EVIDENCE that Casey murdered her child, just a series of pictures of a very abnormal individual.
Look at the Chloroform searches. The Prosecution called in two experts - one claimed over 100 hits on that subject were found, the other only one.
You have skeletal remains with duct tape and with DNA indication on the duct tape, you have the mother’s car with a stench of death in it.
You have conflicting testimony from the father.
We know the kid is dead. We know that some untoward actions were taken with respect to the remains. We know the mother has abnormal responses to the death. That’s all - nothing more.
Not at all a common event, and it's one of the few possibilities I probably will never look up on the internet.
Applying duct tape post mortem is equally unlikely.
sure I would, I’m a ......., but she didn’t kill her baby i betcha in time it will be proved that her sicko daddy did it!!!!!
The body not being left out in the elements for months and months and months when the police were told that there was something in the area, for starters.
The police could have had that child's body when it was still a body and not a bunch of scattered bones. I find it utterly, inexplicably bizarre that there were three reports over three days of something odd, possibly a skull, in the area near where the grandparents lived, shortly after the child was reported missing, yet there was no search to speak of.
Casey Anthony Trial: Roy Kronk testifies about Caylee Anthony's remains
http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/198927/19/Roy-Kronk-testifies-about-finding-Caylee-Anthonys-remains
Kronk said he called the Orange County Sheriff's Office when he got home to report possibly seeing a skull in the wooded area off Suburban Drive. He said he was told to call Crimeline, which he did, and he said he told Crimeline he saw an object that looked like it could have been a skull.
Kronk said the next day he returned to work as normal, but on Aug. 13, he called the Sheriff's Office again and was told an officer would meet him on Suburban Drive.
Kronk said two deputies arrived and he pointed to the area where he thought he saw an odd item. He emphasized that he did not say for sure the object was a skull. Records show the deputies found nothing at that time.
Kronk testified that the deputy was rude to him and dismissed his call. He said the deputy berated him for wasting his time.
When Kronk called the nonemergency 911 line, he told the dispatcher he saw something white, which appeared to be a skull, near a gray bag in an area near the Anthony family home.
What happened to that poor child's body in those months between August and December?
Did anyone touch the body?
Did anyone or anything move the body?
Was anything added to the area? Was anything removed from the area?
From testimony, we know that the bones were scattered. Did animals scatter the bones? Did a person scatter the bones?
Why, exactly, did the officer refuse to call in backup to look that day? This wasn't a random, anonymous tip. The lineman gave his name and stayed around for the police to show up, after having called the previous day, then stayed around some more while the officer yelled at him for wasting their time.
Why, exactly, was there no follow up?
Why, exactly, did the officer's supervisor not look into the multiple reports by a named source, of something, maybe a human skull, so close to the grandparent's house?
Was anyone disciplined for not doing a proper search?
If no one was disciplined, why not?
The best evidence the state could have had was totally ignored numerous times, until it was gone. Why was that, exactly?
I'm as sorry as anyone that a murderer probably walked yesterday, but I'm not about to give the benefit of the doubt to the state when it repeatedly refused to do even a minimally professional check of the exact area where the body was eventually found.
In August, there was almost certainly still tissue on the body. Tissue that could have been used to determine how that child died. In December, there were only scattered bones and the state couldn't say with certainty how she died. Searching for "chloroform" isn't evidence of how she died - the state threw that evidence away when they refused to search. A smell in the trunk isn't proof of the mother killing her.
The benefit of the doubt has to go to the defendant, regardless of how odious she is.
If I’m on that jury she goes down for manslaughter, gets 5-15 in the slammer.
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.