Not Guilty!

Townhall.com ^ | July 10, 2011 | Ken Connor

[Tammy8]

Too bad O.J. is in jail, he and Casey would make a cute couple...

[caww]

According to Jury No#2 , who opined over the fact Casey got off. The jury was evenly divided up until about noon Tuesday when the stronghold of six began to weaken.....they brought the verdict in less hten three hours later....so in those three hours alone evidence should have been requested....but not even a photo or anything was. Which again this would indicate to me in those three or so hours the pressure was on to get the six to fold...and they did.

Juror No. 2 was the last to fold....and I doubt very much he even knew he could have hung that Jury.,,and Casey would have to be re-tried. He simply didn’t understand the power he had nor the responsibility to do this right....nor the capability.

[caww]

jury pools are too small for them to be as picky as they once were.

Who determines the size of the pool.....where are they pulled from..... and who determines/excuses those who want to get out of serving?

[DoughtyOne]

Because it’s actually useful stuff to keep in mind. It's useful if you want these people to be seen through a jaundiced eye.  There’s a lot of folks saying the jury must be idiots to acquit, but those folks saying that have a whole different pile of information to work with.  That is not completely factual, and there's the rub.  It's true in some instances.  It's not true in others.  And still others having seen additional information, have none the less only considered what was presented at the trial, in their determinations.  Where are these people described here?  Oh, that's right, they aren't.  It frames the situation, it points out the probable source of the large difference in opinion of the TV audience and the jury. It unfairly frames all dissenters as being in one group.  You honestly can't grasp that concept?  It’s actually a valid and informative sentence. If it's valid, it's only valid in that it is a form of propaganda.  It frames anyone who dissents with the jury's verdict as being too stupid to comprehend complex issues, and do an honest evaluation.  "Dissenters are those people who used flawed logic to come to a conclusion.  They don't know you can only use information presented to the jury.  They don't know that talking head and discussion shows on television shouldn't be taken into consideration."  This is NOT a correct portrayal.  That charge is baseless.  Not everyone who disagrees is some moron from Hooterville Junction, that can't think their way out of a paper bag.  I know we’re not used to the media doing that, but it happens sometimes.  Yep, unfortunately it didn't happen here.

[mlo]

"What evidence did they ignore?"

I'm not going to list all the pieces here. No doubt someone else already has.

I think the flawed premise behind your question is the idea that there had to be some scientific forensic evidence that precisely identified Casey as the killer. There was none that did that, but there was plenty of evidence that Casey murdered the child.

The jury's job was to consider all the evidence and decide whether there was any reasonable doubt (not irrational doubt) that anything else could have happened. Casey killing this child was the ONLY reasonable explantion, period. That's why there was no reasonable doubt.

You don't need DNA or a fingerprint in the right place to get there. That's just wanting the forensic lab to do the job for you. Yes, it's great when we can get that kind of evidence. But people were getting convicted for murder before anyone know what DNA and fingerprints were.

[mlo]

"I don’t know when they started allowing so much lawyer involvement in the selection process (maybe they always have?) it’s hard to find information. But to hire people to help?"

I don't know. I don't like the idea of professional juries. Professionals would get captured by the legal profession. It would be like a panel of 12 lawyers. There's a reason for a panel citizens.

But I can't think of a reason why the judge couldn't pick the jurors instead of the two sides. The lawyers end up eliminating a lot of quality people. If your client is guilty your not going to want someone too rational. If your case is weak your going to want someone you can sway. If the judge did it he would only have to decide whether someone could be fair and reasonable.

[Tammy8]

Most people just don’t even bother to show up for jury duty and it seems they don’t go after them either. I think we will have to enforce the requirements for jury duty, and then be strict about excusing anyone if we want to keep our system operating.

[caww]

Didn’t take Baez long to find an agent....BUT it flatlined....interesting tidbit.

Jose Baez, Casey Anthony’s attorney, had a Hollywood agent for a few hours Thursday.

Now he doesn’t.

Jim Griffin of Paradigm would represent Baez and explore opportunities in publishing, motion pictures and television, according to several reports Thursday afternoon.

Paradigm later stressed in an internal message that:

“We have not and have NO INTENTION of signing Casey Anthony,”

Later Thursday, Deadline.com reported that Baez was no longer signed with Paradigm. An internal Paradigm memo said: ”Important Paradigm Update – We have informed Jose Baez tonight that we will not be representing him.” A Paradigm insider .... ”In the end it’s just not who we are.”

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2011/07/jose-baez-loses-hollywood-agent-john-morgan-to-question-casey-anthony.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+entertainment%2Ftv%2Ftvguy+(TV+Guy)

[mlo]

"Because there wasn’t evidence of that the things that happened to the kid were done BY her.....But “inference” and “probably” are not the kind of words that rise beyond a reasonable doubt."

This is what I've been talking about. I'm sure the jury thought the same way. But this is wrong. One, "evidence" does not mean "proof". There certainly was lots of evidence that Casey killed that child. Her conduct was evidence.

You certainly can, and almost always have to, infer from the evidence to come to a verdict. That's what juries are supposed to do. There is no requirement, legal or logical, that there be scientific forensic proof of a specific act to find someone guilty of a crime. A jury is *supposed* to infer from the evidence and convict if there is no *reasonable* doubt (not irrational doubt) that the accused is guilty.

There is no other reasonable explantion for all the facts in this case except that Casey did it. When you go through it all, you look at the forensics, you look at her behavior, you look at everything, there is no other reasonable interpretation. That should equal a conviction. That is how it's supposed to work.

[kcvl]

spotted relaxing poolside at a resort in Florida this morning

According to a witness, the Anthonys stayed by the pool for about two hours, trying to remain anonymous. They didn't interact with anyone, but once it became obvious people were starting to recognize them ... they took off.

Cindy tried to visit Casey in jail on Friday, but was turned away by Casey.

[DoughtyOne]

I appreciate the way you worded that. I agree completely.

[Cvengr]

Ergo our manmade system of justice is unjust.

[DoughtyOne]

When the verdict hit the fan, the players scattered like scalded cats. Nobody is going anywhere near Baez unless they’ve just killed their own kid, and need to get off.

The dynamic you related was interesting wasn’t it. Whoops!

I don’t think Baez helped his case any by coming out and insulting about 80% of the American populace just after the verdict. His “that’ll teach you” comment probably had people throwing bricks at their television sets.

Thanks CAWW.

[DoughtyOne]

IMO Cindy lied on the witness stand for Casey. I don’t think she was looking up chloroform or broken necks.

Now Casey won’t meet with her?

Wow. You know, sooner or later we’re going to get the full scoop on what really happened in this case. My guess is it’s going to be a lot sooner than we think.

[kcvl]

Jerry Springer: I Would NEVER Interview Casey Anthony

Jerry Springer says the rumors his show offered Casey Anthony $1 million for an interview are “absolutely, unequivocally not true” — in fact, Jerry says he wouldn’t do it even if HE got paid the million bucks!

Jerry was his usual jovial self yesterday when he explained he thought Casey shouldn’t profit from what she did (or didn’t do). Jerry said very directly, “God as my witness, I would never interview her. You could pay me the million dollars, I wouldn’t do it.”

http://www.tmz.com/2011/07/09/casey-anthony-jerry-springer-show-million-dollar-offer/

[DoughtyOne]

Remember there’s a large gap between belief and a jury vote.   Please explain any other rational explanation for what took place, other than Casey premeditatedly killing her daughter.  Just come up with one.   When you do, I'll come up with the reasons why it's not possible.

I believe Casey did it, and deliberately, but I know there isn’t proof beyond a reasonable doubt of that.  Like I said, give me one other rational explanation who killed Caylee.

When you're unable to do this, you'll have to admit that there was no reasonable doubt about this at all.  Casey planned it.  She was the only one who could have done it.  Her actions afterwards confirmed it.

There is no rational explanation for Casey's behavior after the death, other than her having committed the crime.

[DoughtyOne]

I haven’t followed the after trial hoopla. That information was new to me, and it is astounding.

How are the folks who continue to state there wasn’t enough evidence going to rectify this with their belief system?

[Daffynition]

[EnquiringMind]

I think it’s a crock of doo doo that Casey wants nothing to do with her parents. It seems more like a farce, orchestrated to keeep the lies of the dream team looking real for awhile. As soon as the uproar cools off, Casey will welcome George and Cindy back into her life, and they will gladly be there to enable her.

[caww]

They'll all lay low for a time....but later watch the heads start popping up one by one...as the media determines the public “decompression” has had enough time.

Not so sure the Jurors will stick their heads out for the most part. But then money talks.