Posted on 07/05/2011 7:27:58 AM PDT by freebird5850
Morning all, didn't see a thread for today so I created one.
Not sure about that- but I recall someone mentioning that Ashton told him on the way up in the elevator BEFORE the verdict was read that he was retiring...so it doesn't seem the verdict is the reason.
Except I don’t believe the jury went on reasonable doubt. They were troubled because there wasn’t VIDEO or something to show Casey willfully murdered her child. The goofy alternate said that he suspected George had something to do with the murder.
The Judge should have refused to let the Defense go with the stupid pool defense. But I suspect he thought the jurors were smarter than they turned out to be.
I always RUN for the remote when he appears but only listened last night and this morning because of the topic. Right...Geraldo is the first person that comes to mind when we think legal expert—ha!
THANK YOU for saying that - my thoughts exactly. That gang would have hated my guts.
Obviously there wasn't a Henry Fonda among them.
Well- if you look at the life and times of Dorothy Clay Sims (one of Casey’s attorneys) you may get an idea of what happened to the system. She’s a true-blue liberal.
Thanks, Mom...can’t tune in but will follow along here. :)
“There is no reasonable explanation for the mother’s behavior once her daughter “went missing”. The mother began telling people a lie ... then more lies ... then more. She made up a story about a nanny who was watching her daughter. She said the nanny took the daughter out of town. She said the nanny had a car wreck and was in the hospital so her daughter had to stay out of town.When the mother’s family began asking where the daughter was, she denied her daughter was missing. To pretend this lady did not cause her daughter’s death is shameful.”
There’s no doubt she was lying. She was convicted of those charges. I also personally believe that she killed her daughter. But ultimately there was not enough proof presented to the jury to show BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that she killed her daughter. It’s not an issue of how shady it seemed or even how likely it was she killed her daughter but rather whether there are any other reasonable explainations that do not involve her being the murderer. Given the evidence presented the jury believed, correctly so given the limited amount of evidence presented, that this standard could not be met. It’s beyond unfortunate that a likely guilty woman got off with her crimes but that is just how our system works in trying to simultaneously protect the innocent. It’s not pretending whether she killed or didn’t kill her daughter. Ultimately this issue is secondary to one and one only that governs the case: has the prosecution proven beyond any reasonable doubt and based solely on the evidence presented to the jury that she killed her daughter. The answer is no, the prosecution failed to meet this high burden.
“If your child walked from the kitchen into the living room with cookie crumbs on his mouth and all over his hands and you then noticed the lid was off the cookie jar and several cookies were missing, I’m assuming you couldn’t chastise your child because there was only circumstantial evidence he ate the cookies.”
It’s not just a circumstantial v. direct issue. It’s entirely possible to support convictions primarily or even solely on circumstantial evidence (a lot of courts will refuse to issue death penalty over it though. Instead it is a quality of evidence issue. The circumstantial evidence presented, by itself, did not show a case with 95-99% certainty that she killed her daughter and nothing else could explain it. Again the circumstantial evidence is helpful and, if it was valuable enough, could play a critical role in a case like this. However, ultimately it failed to address all holes in the prosecution’s theory. The fact the defense’s theory was utter rubbish is irrelevant as the burden lies with the prosecution not the defense.
“Let us all mourn the death of common sense.”
No it’s not a death of common sense. In many ways that died many years ago in other areas. Instead a case like this reminds us all that while we try to be as just as possible there remain holes in our legal system. For that matter there remain holes in all human made systems. Ultimately there is only one perfect arbiter of justice and Casey will have to face her crimes before Him. Before then our mortal court systems, as a cost of protecting the innocent from wrongful accusal and imprisonment, have let her off the hook for the major charges because they could not be sufficiently proven by the prosecution.
The jury fell for Baez's "George bad guy, dysfunctional family" gambit. Do you find it as ironic as I do that he begged the jury to avoid an emotional verdict, and in the end they did anyway and that is what spared his client?
We are a society of lazy, spoon-fed, unread, narcissists. The only evidence that needed to be offered was that Caylee was dead; her mother was the last person seen with her; her mother repeatedly lied to family and friends regarding Caylee’s whereabouts after she died; after she died and before anybody else knew she was missing, her mother partied day and night.
Asking for more “evidence” reveals a lack of common sense. There is no reasonable explanation for Casey’s behavior except that she killed her daughter. Any arguments to the contrary require that you suspend common sense. “Reasonable doubt” does not require that jurors leave their common sense outside of the jury room.
Wow. Did they go over any actual transcripts or testimony?
I seem to remember they had all the evidence in their deliberation room- but never asked for any testimony.
Yes, this statement caught my ear the first time I heard it. "How THEY disposed" of the body. He admitted in one of the interviews I heard (forgot which one) that he thought the family "acted together."
And this man teaches government. Frightening.
We are a society of lazy, spoon-fed, unread, narcissists. The only evidence that needed to be offered was that Caylee was dead; her mother was the last person seen with her; her mother repeatedly lied to family and friends regarding Caylee’s whereabouts after she died; after she died and before anybody else knew she was missing, her mother partied day and night.
Asking for more “evidence” reveals a lack of common sense. There is no reasonable explanation for Casey’s behavior except that she killed her daughter. Any arguments to the contrary require that you suspend common sense. “Reasonable doubt” does not require that jurors leave their common sense outside of the jury room.
Of course, and thank you for saying it. To believe otherwise means we have to endorse the O.J. verdict. Sorry, not gonna happen.
“But ultimately there was not enough proof presented to the jury to show BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that she killed her daughter.”
How so? You are able to make inferences based on evidence or the lack of evidence. For example, there is no direct evidence that the child at the cookies. There are missing cookies and there is a child with cookie crumbs on hand and mouth. You would require more evidence because you are assuming that there are other “reasonable” explanations for the missing cookies and the visible crumbs.
The physical evidence showed that the dead daughter had been in the mother’s car trunk. The mother lied to everyone about her daughter’s whereabouts.
You want a videotape, or an exact time and sequence of death. That is not required by law.
If there is a “reasonable doubt” can you give it to me? What is a reasonable explanation for the mother’s behavior? We know she lied about her daughter’s whereabouts after she went missing and we know she partied hard during that time. We know her dead daughter’s body had been placed in her car trunk at some point. So, let’s hear your reasonable doubt. Dazzle me.
Baez
Yes!!! You are absolutely right! We have some folks right on this thread that think Elvis is still alive on some desert island.
I was like you and followed at first, but I don’t believe 99-100% of what the media says, so I just wanted to wait until the trial. I really thought they’d break her & she plea, so I kinda halfway thought there wouldn’t be a trial.
I am not a trial junkie....I have been in many trials & for one know how tedious & boring they can be, so I figured I’d just get the summary at the end b/c I thought it would be a slam dunk case....but not long after it started, I caught a clip on the news & was like “wow”...something is odd here....now, I told my hubby way back in ‘08 that I thought her brother had probably molested her....something about his demeanor & his responses...It was only a judgement call on my part & I never got online and mentioned it because I it was a feeling I had & I would never want to spread something and bear false witness on something I didn’t really know. So I only said it to my husband, who tends to believe me because I am a pretty good judge of character MOST of the time...however, I never thought that about the dad....when that was mentioned in the trial (I don’t remember it being talked about before then, of course I wasn’t following closely)but, I told my hubby “Ah! I knew it!” Again, he didn’t admit it, but I STILL think, after seeing him on the stand, something fishy is there.
That judge was a joke to me. I never EVER have seen a trial where a judge would allow half the junk he did. Also, to me he was very unprofessional & caused some confusion himself which affects juries. Just my opinion.
I told my hubby this weekend, I said, from what I’ve seen there isn’t enough here to convict her on. I didn’t even see how they could get the least of murder charges, much less capital murder. My hubby went nuts on me! LOL.... He was fired up, saying I was crazy & on & on *sigh* ....
I also admit that I missed a couple of things. I never understood the whole meter reader story and never determined how many times “chloroform” was searched for or if the heart sticker was on the duck tape or not....
I was pregnant when all this happened in ‘08 so I could only take so much & was happy to shelve the story in my mind. I don’t remember them finding body in December of ‘08 because after the ‘08 elections, hubby decided we needed to take a break on politics/news in our house because I was 8 months pregnant then & he was concerned about my stress levels.
And baby is now about the age Caylee was in most of those pictures & the time of her death....I HAVE to look at it through “investigator” eyes instead of mommy eyes or else I couldn’t handle any of it all.
And some FReepers have had the nerve to attack my parenting because I don’t agree with them that we should attack the jury. It’s amazing to me. I debate liberals ALL THE TIME so I am used to the mud they sling, but was rather shocked at how FReepers have lowered themselves to some of the liberal tactics of name calling, mocking, ignoring facts, misquoting me & personal attacks. Thank you for being willing to engage in intelligent & honest debate.
Asking for more “evidence” reveals a lack of common sense. There is no reasonable explanation for Casey’s behavior except that she killed her daughter. Any arguments to the contrary require that you suspend common sense. “Reasonable doubt” does not require that jurors leave their common sense outside of the jury room.
I've read thousands of posts in the last 24 hours but yours says it best.
All I can add is AMEN.
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.