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.
BTW, see my tagline. :-)
My son theorized last night that Baez struck some sort of deal with his client that would give him the majority rights to any book or movie income, if he were to somehow prevail.
I sure hope that no one on this board contributes to any of the Anthonys, Baez’, or jurors movies or books. I’ve already heard that CBS or ABC has given Casey a $200,000 advance, but not confirmed.
Yes, I know. Unfortunately, he IS stupid.
re: “............
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.......”
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/24039447/detail.html
I have actually seen defense attys write the name of jurors on their legal pads and hold it up in front of them.
The prosecution would not have won this case even if Baez had stood up to begin and said "the defense rests".
Have you ever been on a criminal jury?
I have. It's true, as the case starts, you do wonder what actually happened, and, just like the idiots watching on cable, you begin to form theories.
But that's not why you are there. You are not there to stand up for Caylee. You are not there to deduce what might have happened.
You are there to try certain facts, and, if the judge does his job, to determine if the tried facts, if proven, meet the State's burden.
That did not happen in this case. The required elements of the charged offenses were not proven by the State, and it wasn't even hard for the jury to determine that.
They would have reached the same verdict if Baez hadn't said a word.
That's not why they were there.
That's why the prosecutor was there.
The jury voted emotionally. They saw the prosecution as bullies beating up on Jose Baez and Baez was doing everything he could to take the light off of his client by disruption. He got the bad stuff out of the way at the beginning of his speeches by pretending he was not lying about his client but bringing everything bad that the jury needed to know about his client. That done he started the Jose Baez show by continual distractions
Yes, I get that. That is my gallows humor at work.
I took a quick look and can see that it would take a while to load and read the letters (at least on my computer). Thanks for the link, I will read more when I have time.
I disagree.
I agree.
Thank you. So true.
You sound like a Nancy Grace wannabe. Singing the praises of the jury when she believed the verdict was guilty, then flipped on them like a flapjack when it was not guilty. Grace made a real a$$ of herself yesterday. I believe the judge instructed the jurors that if a witness appeared not to be credible their testimony could be dismissed. Now lets see Cindy Anthony, George Anthony, oh yeah and that Mr. Crunk guy, very credible, huh? Then we have chloroform as cause of death, but wait the prosecution now believes it was duct tape. Catching the drift here, the prosecution f**ked this case up. It is a tragedy for this baby girl that justice was not brought. Another tragedy her mother got away with something. But the prosecution had a burden of proof and made it a colander case, nothing but holes. The One above us is our judge and he makes the sentence for all. No one gets away with what they have done in this life time. Don’t think any one has ever lied their way into Heaven.
That’s OK. I’m having trouble with this thread, with this case, and with the constant TV coverage. I am heartsick over that little girl, and her whole family makes my blood boil. When I saw Casey’s ex-fiance (Jesse Grund) on TV this morning giving such conflicting testimony I thought I’d lose it. (”Casey was a good mother; Casey was the last person to see her and must have done it; [paraphrasing] that house was so disfunctional”)
I watched most of this trial (certainly both of the closing statements, as well as the rebuttal) but I don’t know if Jesse was called as a witness. Do you? Also, was Tony (the new boyfriend) called as a witness? What about the people from EquiSearch who put up her bond? It seems to me that some of them are making very damaging statements in the aftermath of this trial, but I don’t think they were called as part of the official testimony. I could be wrong on that.
I guess we have to remember that Lizzy Borden was never convicted either. In fact, I’m not sure she was ever brought to trial.
My wife and her father were so in to this case. In fact, when the verdict was read, they both were actually angry.
From time to time when I'd chime in through the trial casting doubt that the prosecution has actually proven this or a that, they'd get annoyed with me.
Casey is responsible for this sweet child's death. I think most would agree.
The prosecution did a poor job proving 1st degree, premeditated murder, child abuse and manslaughter.
Don't attack the defense team, they did exactly what they are hired to do, defend their client vigorously.
I read here about the crummy job Baez did during the trial and closing arguments.
Huh? He won. Through the trial, it may have seemed Baez was inept or lacked procedural savvy.
Like the verdict or not, Baez defended his client and won.
It's very sad cause we all know Casey had something to do with the death.
I gotta say though, if I were on trial for anything, doesn't matter the circumstances, I'd expect no less from my personal atty.
Yes, yes, yes. Casey had no money for a nanny. Cindy was mad at her. Where was Casey going to leave that child? Besides, through her later pictures, you can see something change in that child’s eyes. She was becoming wise, and it wouldn’t be long before she told her grandparents about spending the night in the car.
So what lies did I “repeat”?
And please quote where I called anyone stupid... You won’t... because you can’t.
It is dishonest to misrepresent someone else’s statements instead offering a factual rebuttal.
No, I’ve never been on a criminal jury so can only imagine the burden that would weigh on me as a juror.
Clearly the job of a juror is not to “stand up for” the victim- it’s to determine the facts of the case as presented. I believe the state met the burden of manslaughter at the least. I never believed this was a capital case- and still had some doubts at the end- however those doubts of mine met the reasonable definition as I perceive it’s intended.
From the little bit I heard from the alternate juror- it’s my belief the jury barely considered the case put forth by the state and focused on the defense case instead. Of course I don’t KNOW that- it’s just a hunch.
But then again- I’m one of “the idiots watching on cable” as you say.
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.