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.
I think those are the police conclusions on what they had. Casey had to murder Caylee somewhere she could be alone.
Casey Anthony has no conscience....so she will be living happy now......
And for employers: don't be too quick to provide an excuse for one of your employees to get them off of jury duty. I was asked to do that recently and I complied with great misgivings. I'll never do that again.
neither side wants educated people on juries most of the time. Well, in criminal cases at least.... I have seen it time & time again. The more educated you are, the less likely you’ll get chosen. I was surprised the gov’t teacher even made an “alternate”...
I always avoid telling my educational background at jury duty (I want to serve on a jury)... but I have been 3 times and all 3 times got as far as them asking my level of schooling. Every time, I was dismissed not long after the words “master’s degree” left my mouth, one time it was immediately...so much that I thought, “well, they aren’t even trying to hide what kind of jurors they want”
Well that alternate that gave out his name for his 5 min, is proof positive they were all functioning idiots.
THIS is something that has bothered me, but I think that George was dominated by Cindy (henpecked). Neither one would want to believe the worst. Cindy had to go with him to pick up the car -- to bring the money in cash -- nearly $500. She was already furious at the cost and tried to argue with the tow yard. I think that Goerge just split, using his job as an excuse, knowing that Cindy would handle the rest. I think that both would want to investigate a little further to try to find a reasonable investigation before calling in the police. This is like a battered woman who does not call the police because her batterer might lose his job and leave her with no means of support. Not rational, but it happens all the time.
As a TH Shrink said this AM, She will find some guy and get pregnant. If the guy rejects the baby (mo, born or unborn) she will kill again.
I haven’t heard about the others. I can’t stand to even turn on the news. The misinformation is staggering.
the fact that they never once looked at the evidence, to me, means they were not serious Jurors.
“You are able to make inferences based on evidence or the lack of evidence.”
Yes juries do this all the time. BUT there still wasn’t enough here. Here it was if the cookies disappeared and the child had a stomach ache. Without more to show the cookies were consumed by the child to cause the stomachache there’s not enough there. Even the mere fact the child is the only other person around would make the case stronger but again the prosecution failed to reach this level with the Anthony case.
“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.”
Like I said, it’s not a circumstantial v. direct evidence issue its a value of evidence issue. You can support convictions wholly on circumstantial evidence IF it is strong enough. Here the prosecution simply didn’t put on a strong enough case to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
“You want a videotape, or an exact time and sequence of death. That is not required by law.”
Did you completely ignore what I said in my last post? Video, DNA, eyewitnesses- none of it is actually necessary. What you do need though is enough evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that she killed her daughter. The prosecution failed to do so. The type of evidence is irrelevant except that certain evidence is more probative than others. You don’t need direct evidence and circumstantial is fine IF it is enough by itself. This wasn’t enough.
“If there is a “reasonable doubt” can you give it to me? What is a reasonable explanation for the mother’s behavior?”
It doesn’t matter. The burden lies with the prosecution. All the defense has to show is that there are holes in the prosecution’s theory or that it otherwise fails to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the criminal act. The jury is granted discretion, assuming it is not wholly unfounded and against all of the evidence, to decide for itself as the factfinder whether the prosecution’s case in light of the defense’s claims was adequately proven beyond a reasonable doubt. According to the jury it wasn’t here. The defense need not prove anything. That’s just how our system is set up.
Your right during the 31 days, George said he wanted to track down Caylee and Casey. Cindy told him to stay out of it, SHE would handle Casey.
I hope George has grown a pair after this never ending nightmare.
Egads.... George begging to hear Casey’s voice? What about Caylee’s voice? Pathetic.
You’re missing the point. In our criminal justice system people are innocent until proven guilty. The defense need not prove anything. It need merely throw doubt on the evidence presented by the prosecution. Here the evidence presented by the prosecution was scant- some circumstantial evidence but hardly enough by itself to support conviction and a group of impeached witnesses and one non-impeached (her brother) who was not wholly helpful to the jury. Did she lie? Yes. Did she probably kill her kid? Yes. Were her lies so she could probably cover it up? Yes. But did the prosecution successfully show beyond a reasonable doubt that she killed her daughter and then used her lies to cover up the fact she was the murderer instead of some ulterior purpose (e.g. to avoid criminal action even though she didn’t do anything)? No. The jury found not enough to support that.
I really appreciate your attitude! I’m in the corner that believes the state proved the case- but I do understand how others can honestly disagree. Some disagree cause it’s fun to be a contrarian and they enjoy infuriating others as a way of life!
I think my interest in the case began because the Anthony’s live about 15 minutes from me. When Nancy Grace jumped on I stopped paying much attention because I always worry when I see her attached to a cause and I am unable to tolerate her personality.
I think SOME of the evidence was sketchy- for example it became clear that chloroform was NOT looked up 84 times- however- it was looked up and “how to make chloroform” was typed into google. The defense wanted us to believe Casey may have looked it up because of the boyfriend’s “win her with chloroform” entry...which may be true. The question for me was- once Casey discovered WHAT the substance was and what it could do- did she then look up how to make it? That was not discussed. The chronology might have made a difference.
Regardless- we have to live with this verdict and while I’ve had an emotional reaction initially I’m also willing to look at the whole picture rationally and listen to those who HONESTLY didn’t see the state’s case went beyond reasonable doubt.
I agree with you. And the fact that all the jurors were in agreement so quickly (including the alternate) says alot.
I wonder if the defense ever requested to plea bargain for a lesser charge and if the prosecution denied it, feeling too sure of themselves?
What do you think the jury was punishing the prosecution FOR?
***************************************
Evidence,like the chloroform searches.
The state never came back and cleaned up that mess... 84 vs 1 search— even after they had made a huge deal of it with witnesses.
Long sidebars etc during the defense case, ones where whole days were missed.
Ashton laughing and being a bit of a smart azz.
Several things but mostly for not clearing up evidence, such as the chloroform.
I could drop the chloro and still find her guilty, others maybe just pitched the whole case over it?
And it was this same day that Cindy on the phone with ‘HELP’, that overheard Casey tell her brother that the child had been missing for 31 days. And told the operator she had just overheard Casey saying this and then Casey gets on the phone and tells the operator that she was using her resources to ‘find’ the missing child.
The evidence demonstrated that NOBODY else but Casey saw that child after June 16.
When this alert was first issued, it was George that was ‘working’ with the authorities trying to figure out what happened to the child. And there was a recorded visit with George at the jail trying to get Casey to talk to investigators presented as evidence.
It was not until approximately 3 months ago that George became aware the defense was going to make him the scapegoat for why Casey did what she did. AND he was torn between defending himself and providing the testimony that would demonstrate that Casey did exactly what she was accused of doing. The jury apparently bought into the perversion of lying accusation of child molestation in opening arguments by the defense, without ever having to be required to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt George ever put his ‘’’’’ into Casey's mouth and then sent her on to school.
wanted to add, they listened to the defense...
There was a bug in the dinner, they sent the dinner back and left the restaurant. That was punishing the state, in my opinion.
I picked the bug out and could still see it was spaghetti and meatballs, though less appetizing.
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.