| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: [1] 2 |
adeline27
LIF Adult
Member since 5/06 3121 total posts
Name:
Angela
|
Anyone out there think Casey performed a "primal fear" effect on her defense team?
I sooooo do. I believe she fabricated about her dad molesting her, lied about the pool drowning...Jose totally washed her hands CLEAN of any involvement. If you remember him saying Casey woke up to her father screaming at her and that's it...are you kidding me?!?. This was just total BS in my opinion. If Jose was in on all this BS I really shame him. He seems so sincere and hearing how he has a young daughter himself... I believe he was just another sucker to Casye's many many lies.
ETA: Primal Fear the movie with Richard Gere. I'm sure you've seen if not see it especially after this case 
Message edited 7/9/2011 3:18:14 PM.
|
Posted 7/9/11 3:16 PM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
KNic19
Baby's First Christmas
Member since 7/09 3541 total posts
Name:
Kim
|
Re: Anyone out there think Casey performed a "primal fear" effect on her defense team?
I didn't watch the case at all, but I just wanted to say nice reference!
|
| Posted 7/9/11 11:20 PM |
| |
|
Diana1215
Living on a prayer!!!
Member since 10/05 29450 total posts
Name:
Diana
|
Re: Anyone out there think Casey performed a "primal fear" effect on her defense team?
Primal Fear was such an amazing movie. I do believe that Casey had everyone fooled. 
|
| Posted 7/10/11 8:58 AM |
| |
|
BargainMama
LIF Adult
Member since 5/09 15657 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Anyone out there think Casey performed a "primal fear" effect on her defense team?
I have never seen that movie, but I don't think she fooled her attorney. If he has a half a brain he would realize she is a liar based on all of the other stuff she lied about.
|
| Posted 7/10/11 10:23 AM |
| |
|
cateyemm
Twins!
Member since 7/10 8027 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Anyone out there think Casey performed a "primal fear" effect on her defense team?
Posted by BargainMama
I have never seen that movie, but I don't think she fooled her attorney. If he has a half a brain he would realize she is a liar based on all of the other stuff she lied about.
I dont think she fooled him. I think he was unscrupulous enough to ignore the big picture, that she was obviously guilty. If I were him, I wouldnt sleep at night, but there are some individuals without a conscience and I think he's one of them.
|
| Posted 7/10/11 10:34 AM |
| |
|
BargainMama
LIF Adult
Member since 5/09 15657 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Anyone out there think Casey performed a "primal fear" effect on her defense team?
Posted by cateyemm
Posted by BargainMama
I have never seen that movie, but I don't think she fooled her attorney. If he has a half a brain he would realize she is a liar based on all of the other stuff she lied about.
If I were him, I wouldnt sleep at night, but there are some individuals without a conscience and I think he's one of them.
Agreed!
|
| Posted 7/10/11 10:36 AM |
| |
|
MrsA714
Baby #2 is here!
Member since 8/07 8806 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Anyone out there think Casey performed a "primal fear" effect on her defense team?
That is a great movie!! But I'd really have to question the intelligence of her attorneys if they really bought all her stories. She is a pathological liar. I wouldn't believe anything she said...but you never know.
|
| Posted 7/10/11 8:57 PM |
| |
|
Bxgell2
Perfection
Member since 5/05 16438 total posts
Name:
Beth
|
Re: Anyone out there think Casey performed a "primal fear" effect on her defense team?
This is all I'm going to say about this because I'm so sick of all the chatter about this case.
I don't understand why everyone is blaming the defense. The burden in any criminal trial is on the PROSECUTION to prove the evidence fits the charge. That is the fundemantal tenet of our justice system, and you better damn well better believe that you'll understand it's importance if you or anyone you love is ever brough up on charges.
It is the PROSECUTION that failed in this case; the defense did no wrong, other than to perform their job adequately. I am SURE the defense team knows exactly what she is guilty of - but they defended her just as they should have, just as ANY individual in this Country is entitled.
In my opinion, no one here was "fooled", neither the defense team NOR the jury. The entire blame falls on a poor prosecution and a poor strategy. At the end of the day, they were greedy and went for the "big" charges, all the while knowing they did not have sufficient, direct evidence to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. If they had given her the proper charges that they could have proven to a jury, this would have been a much different scenario...
|
| Posted 7/11/11 7:33 AM |
| |
|
GioiaMia
Let's Go Rangers!
Member since 1/07 14818 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Anyone out there think Casey performed a "primal fear" effect on her defense team?
Posted by Bxgell2
This is all I'm going to say about this because I'm so sick of all the chatter about this case.
I don't understand why everyone is blaming the defense. The burden in any criminal trial is on the PROSECUTION to prove the evidence fits the charge. That is the fundemantal tenet of our justice system, and you better damn well better believe that you'll understand it's importance if you or anyone you love is ever brough up on charges.
It is the PROSECUTION that failed in this case; the defense did no wrong, other than to perform their job adequately. I am SURE the defense team knows exactly what she is guilty of - but they defended her just as they should have, just as ANY individual in this Country is entitled.
In my opinion, no one here was "fooled", neither the defense team NOR the jury. The entire blame falls on a poor prosecution and a poor strategy. At the end of the day, they were greedy and went for the "big" charges, all the while knowing they did not have sufficient, direct evidence to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. If they had given her the proper charges that they could have proven to a jury, this would have been a much different scenario...
Sorry that you are sick of the "chatter" but if the case is going to be on TV every.single.day then everyone is going to have an opinion on it - even those without legal backgrounds.
In my OPINION if a jury KNOWS that someone is guilty but is still not able to give a GUILTY verdict - that is a failure of our entire legal system: defense, prosecution, judge AND jury.
|
| Posted 7/11/11 7:44 AM |
| |
|
Bxgell2
Perfection
Member since 5/05 16438 total posts
Name:
Beth
|
Re: Anyone out there think Casey performed a "primal fear" effect on her defense team?
Posted by Tilde
In my OPINION if a jury KNOWS that someone is guilty but is still not able to give a GUILTY verdict - that is a failure of our entire legal system: defense, prosecution, judge AND jury.
I don't see the logic in that - how exactly did the defense fail in a case like this?
As for the Jury, they are bound by the charge. While the evidence demonstrated that this woman was guilty of *something*, the evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate that she had the "intent" to kill her daughter, which is necessary to prove for a murder charge. The Jury did exactly what they were supposed to do - take in the evidence and weigh it against the charge to determine if it proved that she had the intent to kill her child, beyond a reasonable doubt.
The only failure here is the prosecution - they took a gamble that the jury would be persuaded enough to see past the legal requirement to prove INTENT for murder, without sufficient evidence. If they had charged her with manslaughter, the Jury wouldn't have had to consider whether she intended to kill her child, only WHETHER she killed her child.
|
| Posted 7/11/11 7:58 AM |
| |
|
Little-J-Mommy
I'm a Big Brother
Member since 5/06 8041 total posts
Name:
D
|
Re: Anyone out there think Casey performed a "primal fear" effect on her defense team?
Posted by Tilde
Posted by Bxgell2
This is all I'm going to say about this because I'm so sick of all the chatter about this case.
I don't understand why everyone is blaming the defense. The burden in any criminal trial is on the PROSECUTION to prove the evidence fits the charge. That is the fundemantal tenet of our justice system, and you better damn well better believe that you'll understand it's importance if you or anyone you love is ever brough up on charges.
It is the PROSECUTION that failed in this case; the defense did no wrong, other than to perform their job adequately. I am SURE the defense team knows exactly what she is guilty of - but they defended her just as they should have, just as ANY individual in this Country is entitled.
In my opinion, no one here was "fooled", neither the defense team NOR the jury. The entire blame falls on a poor prosecution and a poor strategy. At the end of the day, they were greedy and went for the "big" charges, all the while knowing they did not have sufficient, direct evidence to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. If they had given her the proper charges that they could have proven to a jury, this would have been a much different scenario...
Sorry that you are sick of the "chatter" but if the case is going to be on TV every.single.day then everyone is going to have an opinion on it - even those without legal backgrounds.
In my OPINION if a jury KNOWS that someone is guilty but is still not able to give a GUILTY verdict - that is a failure of our entire legal system: defense, prosecution, judge AND jury.
ITA!! This seems to be a trend on here...that "real" lawyers seem to be annoyed that us lay people have a sudden interest in a very public case and are voicing our "unprofessional" opinions.
I *get* what you're saying here Beth, but there really should be a way that judge or jury are able to add a conviction if there is a lesser more appropriate charge available as opposed to just setting a killer free. I would've hung that jury in a heartbeat and hoped that the prosecution adjusted the charges for the next trial. PLUS, it's been very public that the jury misunderstood what was being asked of them.
I hope to God this girl doesn't get out of jail in less than a week and decide to come to LI to find her old boyfriend. Maybe she tries to get a job in a daycare {{shudder}} Will you still stand behind this decision at that point? (even though I know you're in Philly, imagine it was your town)
|
| Posted 7/11/11 8:05 AM |
| |
|
GioiaMia
Let's Go Rangers!
Member since 1/07 14818 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Anyone out there think Casey performed a "primal fear" effect on her defense team?
Posted by Bxgell2
Posted by Tilde
In my OPINION if a jury KNOWS that someone is guilty but is still not able to give a GUILTY verdict - that is a failure of our entire legal system: defense, prosecution, judge AND jury.
I don't see the logic in that - how exactly did the defense fail in a case like this?
As for the Jury, they are bound by the charge. While the evidence demonstrated that this woman was guilty of *something*, the evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate that she had the "intent" to kill her daughter, which is necessary to prove for a murder charge. The Jury did exactly what they were supposed to do - take in the evidence and weigh it against the charge to determine if it proved that she had the intent to kill her child, beyond a reasonable doubt.
The only failure here is the prosecution - they took a gamble that the jury would be persuaded enough to see past the legal requirement to prove INTENT for murder, without sufficient evidence. If they had charged her with manslaughter, the Jury wouldn't have had to consider whether she intended to kill her child, only WHETHER she killed her child.
Because, IMO, the legal system is supposed to prosecute the guilty party. It is not supposed to be about the defense winning/the prosecution losing. If a guilty person goes free. If a person that the jury KNOWS is guilty, goes free - that is a failure of the system.
I completely understand that this is how our system works. I have a basic knowledge of the way it works in this country BUT I still feel that it is a failure, in this case.
|
| Posted 7/11/11 8:08 AM |
| |
|
july4mrsO
Happy boy!
Member since 5/10 2867 total posts
Name:
Jess
|
Re: Anyone out there think Casey performed a "primal fear" effect on her defense team?
IMO she hasn't really fooled anyone, least of all her lawyers. She just got lucky that nobody reported Caylee missing earlier so there wasn't enough evidence to prove she murdered her. She's a totaly sociopath and she should rot in jail for what she did. Unfortunately, juries are really unpredictable. 
|
| Posted 7/11/11 8:34 AM |
| |
|
blu6385
Member since 5/08 8351 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Anyone out there think Casey performed a "primal fear" effect on her defense team?
Posted by Bxgell2
This is all I'm going to say about this because I'm so sick of all the chatter about this case.
I don't understand why everyone is blaming the defense. The burden in any criminal trial is on the PROSECUTION to prove the evidence fits the charge. That is the fundemantal tenet of our justice system, and you better damn well better believe that you'll understand it's importance if you or anyone you love is ever brough up on charges.
It is the PROSECUTION that failed in this case; the defense did no wrong, other than to perform their job adequately. I am SURE the defense team knows exactly what she is guilty of - but they defended her just as they should have, just as ANY individual in this Country is entitled.
In my opinion, no one here was "fooled", neither the defense team NOR the jury. The entire blame falls on a poor prosecution and a poor strategy. At the end of the day, they were greedy and went for the "big" charges, all the while knowing they did not have sufficient, direct evidence to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. If they had given her the proper charges that they could have proven to a jury, this would have been a much different scenario...
as a non lawyer ITA ... I dont think the jury or the defense did anything wrong. They each did thier job. Theres no one else to blame in this whole outcome except for maybe the laws and the prosecution for not offering a low enough charge for the jury to convict on!
|
| Posted 7/11/11 9:04 AM |
| |
|
DancinBarefoot
06ers Rock!!
Member since 1/07 9534 total posts
Name:
The One My Mother Gave Me ;-)
|
Re: Anyone out there think Casey performed a "primal fear" effect on her defense team?
Posted by Little-J-Mommy
Posted by Tilde
Posted by Bxgell2
This is all I'm going to say about this because I'm so sick of all the chatter about this case.
I don't understand why everyone is blaming the defense. The burden in any criminal trial is on the PROSECUTION to prove the evidence fits the charge. That is the fundemantal tenet of our justice system, and you better damn well better believe that you'll understand it's importance if you or anyone you love is ever brough up on charges.
It is the PROSECUTION that failed in this case; the defense did no wrong, other than to perform their job adequately. I am SURE the defense team knows exactly what she is guilty of - but they defended her just as they should have, just as ANY individual in this Country is entitled.
In my opinion, no one here was "fooled", neither the defense team NOR the jury. The entire blame falls on a poor prosecution and a poor strategy. At the end of the day, they were greedy and went for the "big" charges, all the while knowing they did not have sufficient, direct evidence to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. If they had given her the proper charges that they could have proven to a jury, this would have been a much different scenario...
Sorry that you are sick of the "chatter" but if the case is going to be on TV every.single.day then everyone is going to have an opinion on it - even those without legal backgrounds.
In my OPINION if a jury KNOWS that someone is guilty but is still not able to give a GUILTY verdict - that is a failure of our entire legal system: defense, prosecution, judge AND jury.
ITA!! This seems to be a trend on here...that "real" lawyers seem to be annoyed that us lay people have a sudden interest in a very public case and are voicing our "unprofessional" opinions.
I *get* what you're saying here Beth, but there really should be a way that judge or jury are able to add a conviction if there is a lesser more appropriate charge available as opposed to just setting a killer free. I would've hung that jury in a heartbeat and hoped that the prosecution adjusted the charges for the next trial. PLUS, it's been very public that the jury misunderstood what was being asked of them.
I hope to God this girl doesn't get out of jail in less than a week and decide to come to LI to find her old boyfriend. Maybe she tries to get a job in a daycare {{shudder}} Will you still stand behind this decision at that point? (even though I know you're in Philly, imagine it was your town)
I can't speak for Beth, but I can speak for myself . . . it is not the voicing of the "unprofessional" opinions that is bothersome or chatter - it is the numerous lay people on here who say they would have voted guilty, they would have hung the jury, they would never have allowed themselves to be swayed etc. In the end all that means is that is that you (the collective you) would not have followed the law, and as an attorney to hear soooooo many people say they would have ignored the law or not followed the law is bothersome and/or chatter AND is grave cause for concern.
|
| Posted 7/11/11 9:07 AM |
| |
|
Pumpkin1
LIF Adult
Member since 12/05 3715 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Anyone out there think Casey performed a "primal fear" effect on her defense team?
Posted by Little-J-Mommy
ITA!! This seems to be a trend on here...that "real" lawyers seem to be annoyed that us lay people have a sudden interest in a very public case and are voicing our "unprofessional" opinions.
I *get* what you're saying here Beth, but there really should be a way that judge or jury are able to add a conviction if there is a lesser more appropriate charge available as opposed to just setting a killer free. I would've hung that jury in a heartbeat and hoped that the prosecution adjusted the charges for the next trial. PLUS, it's been very public that the jury misunderstood what was being asked of them.
I hope to God this girl doesn't get out of jail in less than a week and decide to come to LI to find her old boyfriend. Maybe she tries to get a job in a daycare {{shudder}} Will you still stand behind this decision at that point? (even though I know you're in Philly, imagine it was your town)
Wow, that's pretty insulting, but whatever. I think it is a good thing that people have taken an interest in this case, but unfortunately many people had their mind made up before the criminal trial began and would nmot be happy unless the death penalty was recommended. In other words, people appear to have wanted her to be held to a different standard (i.e. "guilty until proven innocent") but that's not how the system works. Look at history, application of this standard is very dangerous and could lead to governmental abuses.
And being educated in the law (both through years of schooling and experience), "real" lawyers recognize that the prosecution did a poor job with this case. The prosecution bought into the media hype and pursued the harshest punishment without the requisite evidence to support it. There are safeguards in place to provide protect all citizens, to ensure fair trials.
|
| Posted 7/11/11 9:17 AM |
| |
|
saraH
happy birthday sweet kate!
Member since 5/05 16555 total posts
Name:
I know that God exsists, I held her in my arms...
|
Re: Anyone out there think Casey performed a "primal fear" effect on her defense team?
I don't think so. Shes cold hearted through and through. She never acted like she cared about anyone but herself. She just pointed the finger at anyone and everyone. Its sad that poor Caylee doesn't get any justice.
|
| Posted 7/11/11 9:31 AM |
| |
|
DramaQueen10
LIF Infant
Member since 1/11 256 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Anyone out there think Casey performed a "primal fear" effect on her defense team?
Posted by DancinBarefoot
I can't speak for Beth, but I can speak for myself . . . it is not the voicing of the "unprofessional" opinions that is bothersome or chatter - it is the numerous lay people on here who say they would have voted guilty, they would have hung the jury, they would never have allowed themselves to be swayed etc. In the end all that means is that is that you (the collective you) would not have followed the law, and as an attorney to hear soooooo many people say they would have ignored the law or not followed the law is bothersome and/or chatter AND is grave cause for concern.
Though I'm sure she's guilty of participating in her child's death in one way or another, I happen to agree that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury had no choice but to find her not guilty.
BUT I have heard plenty of "real" lawyers with years of experience who commented publicly on this case report that they felt there was sufficient and substantial evidence for a GUILTY verdict. Are you suggesting that all the "real" lawyers who happen to disagree with you would have ignored the law or not followed the law?
What's reasonable doubt to one person may not be reasonable to another. It's subjective, so people are going to disagree on the issue. Therefore, stating that those who may have believed that there was no reasonable doubt are ignoring the law is an ignorant statement, in my "unprofessional" opinion.
Message edited 7/11/2011 9:46:00 AM.
|
| Posted 7/11/11 9:33 AM |
| |
|
brownie
Baby #1 is here!
Member since 11/08 13903 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Anyone out there think Casey performed a "primal fear" effect on her defense team?
Posted by Tilde
Posted by Bxgell2
Posted by Tilde
In my OPINION if a jury KNOWS that someone is guilty but is still not able to give a GUILTY verdict - that is a failure of our entire legal system: defense, prosecution, judge AND jury.
I don't see the logic in that - how exactly did the defense fail in a case like this?
As for the Jury, they are bound by the charge. While the evidence demonstrated that this woman was guilty of *something*, the evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate that she had the "intent" to kill her daughter, which is necessary to prove for a murder charge. The Jury did exactly what they were supposed to do - take in the evidence and weigh it against the charge to determine if it proved that she had the intent to kill her child, beyond a reasonable doubt.
The only failure here is the prosecution - they took a gamble that the jury would be persuaded enough to see past the legal requirement to prove INTENT for murder, without sufficient evidence. If they had charged her with manslaughter, the Jury wouldn't have had to consider whether she intended to kill her child, only WHETHER she killed her child.
Because, IMO, the legal system is supposed to prosecute the guilty party. It is not supposed to be about the defense winning/the prosecution losing. If a guilty person goes free. If a person that the jury KNOWS is guilty, goes free - that is a failure of the system.
I completely understand that this is how our system works. I have a basic knowledge of the way it works in this country BUT I still feel that it is a failure, in this case.
The reason I agree with this is b/c of the juror's comments...it sounded like THEY were confused about their directions/the law
That is why I am upset about this...that a killer can walk free not because of either state or defense, but b/c the 12-jury members didn't understand their directions (this is all based on their comments they have made to the media).
I completely get the defense did their job. The state may have over-reached with their charges BUT *they* believed it was enough to prove their case...either it wasn't OR the jury didn't get it (which IMO, think what happened here). Just because I'm not a lawyer doesn't mean I can't comment on what I think happened here...everyone can agree that the legal system is not 100% perfect, and I think this is a great example of that
|
| Posted 7/11/11 9:34 AM |
| |
|
Kidsaplenty
Sister love
Member since 2/06 5971 total posts
Name:
Stephanie
|
Re: Anyone out there think Casey performed a "primal fear" effect on her defense team?
Posted by Bxgell2
The only failure here is the prosecution - they took a gamble that the jury would be persuaded enough to see past the legal requirement to prove INTENT for murder, without sufficient evidence. If they had charged her with manslaughter, the Jury wouldn't have had to consider whether she intended to kill her child, only WHETHER she killed her child.
They DID charge her with mansluaghter, she was found not guilty of that too. If you are going to criticize all of us lay people who are upset about the verdict maybe you should know a bit more about the case
|
| Posted 7/11/11 9:43 AM |
| |
|
Kidsaplenty
Sister love
Member since 2/06 5971 total posts
Name:
Stephanie
|
Re: Anyone out there think Casey performed a "primal fear" effect on her defense team?
Posted by DancinBarefoot
I can't speak for Beth, but I can speak for myself . . . it is not the voicing of the "unprofessional" opinions that is bothersome or chatter - it is the numerous lay people on here who say they would have voted guilty, they would have hung the jury, they would never have allowed themselves to be swayed etc. In the end all that means is that is that you (the collective you) would not have followed the law, and as an attorney to hear soooooo many people say they would have ignored the law or not followed the law is bothersome and/or chatter AND is grave cause for concern.
And the jury in this case didn't follow the law either. Some of the jurors who were interviewed said they all took the penalty into consideration when deliberating whether she was guilty or not.
|
| Posted 7/11/11 9:44 AM |
| |
|
brownie
Baby #1 is here!
Member since 11/08 13903 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Anyone out there think Casey performed a "primal fear" effect on her defense team?
Posted by Kidsaplenty
Posted by Bxgell2
The only failure here is the prosecution - they took a gamble that the jury would be persuaded enough to see past the legal requirement to prove INTENT for murder, without sufficient evidence. If they had charged her with manslaughter, the Jury wouldn't have had to consider whether she intended to kill her child, only WHETHER she killed her child.
They DID charge her with mansluaghter, she was found not guilty of that too. If you are going to criticize all of us lay people who are upset about the verdict maybe you should know a bit more about the case
ITA, thank you!
|
| Posted 7/11/11 9:46 AM |
| |
|
HeathKernandez
Our Ron is an awesome Ron
Member since 4/07 9091 total posts
Name:
baby fish mouth
|
Re: Anyone out there think Casey performed a "primal fear" effect on her defense team?
Posted by brownie
Posted by Tilde
Posted by Bxgell2
Posted by Tilde
In my OPINION if a jury KNOWS that someone is guilty but is still not able to give a GUILTY verdict - that is a failure of our entire legal system: defense, prosecution, judge AND jury.
I don't see the logic in that - how exactly did the defense fail in a case like this?
As for the Jury, they are bound by the charge. While the evidence demonstrated that this woman was guilty of *something*, the evidence was not sufficient to demonstrate that she had the "intent" to kill her daughter, which is necessary to prove for a murder charge. The Jury did exactly what they were supposed to do - take in the evidence and weigh it against the charge to determine if it proved that she had the intent to kill her child, beyond a reasonable doubt.
The only failure here is the prosecution - they took a gamble that the jury would be persuaded enough to see past the legal requirement to prove INTENT for murder, without sufficient evidence. If they had charged her with manslaughter, the Jury wouldn't have had to consider whether she intended to kill her child, only WHETHER she killed her child.
Because, IMO, the legal system is supposed to prosecute the guilty party. It is not supposed to be about the defense winning/the prosecution losing. If a guilty person goes free. If a person that the jury KNOWS is guilty, goes free - that is a failure of the system.
I completely understand that this is how our system works. I have a basic knowledge of the way it works in this country BUT I still feel that it is a failure, in this case.
The reason I agree with this is b/c of the juror's comments...it sounded like THEY were confused about their directions/the law
That is why I am upset about this...that a killer can walk free not because of either state or defense, but b/c the 12-jury members didn't understand their directions (this is all based on their comments they have made to the media).
I completely get the defense did their job. The state may have over-reached with their charges BUT *they* believed it was enough to prove their case...either it wasn't OR the jury didn't get it (which IMO, think what happened here). Just because I'm not a lawyer doesn't mean I can't comment on what I think happened here...everyone can agree that the legal system is not 100% perfect, and I think this is a great example of that
I agree. How can you NOT start to blame the jury after hearing what "juror #3" has been saying. It seems as though the jury didn't understand their JOB...
Until that broad started opening her mouth, my *blame* was passed completely on the prosecution.
IMO, the case was won when the jury was selected. It really cheapens my opinion of lawyers and "the law"
Right now to me... it seems as though it is all "smoke & mirrors" which is SUCH a shame.. and disgusting that this woman will walk free.
|
| Posted 7/11/11 10:06 AM |
| |
|
HeathKernandez
Our Ron is an awesome Ron
Member since 4/07 9091 total posts
Name:
baby fish mouth
|
Re: Anyone out there think Casey performed a "primal fear" effect on her defense team?
Posted by Kidsaplenty
Posted by DancinBarefoot
I can't speak for Beth, but I can speak for myself . . . it is not the voicing of the "unprofessional" opinions that is bothersome or chatter - it is the numerous lay people on here who say they would have voted guilty, they would have hung the jury, they would never have allowed themselves to be swayed etc. In the end all that means is that is that you (the collective you) would not have followed the law, and as an attorney to hear soooooo many people say they would have ignored the law or not followed the law is bothersome and/or chatter AND is grave cause for concern.
And the jury in this case didn't follow the law either. Some of the jurors who were interviewed said they all took the penalty into consideration when deliberating whether she was guilty or not.
people without law degrees CAN understand the "law"
me talk pretty one day.
|
| Posted 7/11/11 10:08 AM |
| |
|
Little-J-Mommy
I'm a Big Brother
Member since 5/06 8041 total posts
Name:
D
|
Re: Anyone out there think Casey performed a "primal fear" effect on her defense team?
Posted by Pumpkin1
Posted by Little-J-Mommy
ITA!! This seems to be a trend on here...that "real" lawyers seem to be annoyed that us lay people have a sudden interest in a very public case and are voicing our "unprofessional" opinions.
I *get* what you're saying here Beth, but there really should be a way that judge or jury are able to add a conviction if there is a lesser more appropriate charge available as opposed to just setting a killer free. I would've hung that jury in a heartbeat and hoped that the prosecution adjusted the charges for the next trial. PLUS, it's been very public that the jury misunderstood what was being asked of them.
I hope to God this girl doesn't get out of jail in less than a week and decide to come to LI to find her old boyfriend. Maybe she tries to get a job in a daycare {{shudder}} Will you still stand behind this decision at that point? (even though I know you're in Philly, imagine it was your town)
Wow, that's pretty insulting, but whatever. I think it is a good thing that people have taken an interest in this case, but unfortunately many people had their mind made up before the criminal trial began and would nmot be happy unless the death penalty was recommended. In other words, people appear to have wanted her to be held to a different standard (i.e. "guilty until proven innocent") but that's not how the system works. Look at history, application of this standard is very dangerous and could lead to governmental abuses.
And being educated in the law (both through years of schooling and experience), "real" lawyers recognize that the prosecution did a poor job with this case. The prosecution bought into the media hype and pursued the harshest punishment without the requisite evidence to support it. There are safeguards in place to provide protect all citizens, to ensure fair trials.
Sorry if you were insulted by what I said, it wasn't directed at you specifically and I apologize. I feel like there are a few lawyers on here trying to invalidate the opinions of many of us who were emotionally invested in this case. I was pretty insulted myself.
|
| Posted 7/11/11 10:12 AM |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 |
