| Posted By |
Message |
| Pages: << 159 160 161 [162] 163 164 165 >> |
Aries14
Can't plan life...
Member since 8/08 2860 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Casey Anthony trial 1/2 hour n counting.
Posted by My2Girlz11
Posted by AngnShaun
Posted by My2Girlz11
I just don't get it. There was a little girl missing. Her mother was out partying while she was missing. Her mother lied about what happened to her. People say she was a "good mother." Good mothers do NOT go out partying if they can't find their daughter or if their daughter had an accident. That is all the evidence I need to see or hear to make up my mind on her guilt. I don't need to read a law book, their is no doubt it my mind. Her lying afterward sealed it for me.
I really think people are looking way too into this. In my mind, it is clear, Caylee was killed by Casey Anthony. Caylee had duct tape on her mouth and nose. We know HOW she died and we know WHO did it. Case closed.
the simple fact is that Caylee was never missing...
no one is saying that they dont think Casey did it... in fact I think thats the only think we all do agree on...
No people are arguing over the evidence to convict her. The evidence is she lied about her daughter missing. The evidence is she went on with her life, like nothing happened. They found her dead body with duct tape on it. We know that is what killed her. The jurors were saying they didn't know how she died. She had duct tape on her. Come on now!!!! You do not get that by drowning. Casey is someone who has shown her true character with the checks and with the lying to the police. How can you credit the drowning story...There is NO resonable doubt in my mind that the little girl was murdered.
I hear what you are saying... but even the medical examiner couldn't say HOW she died.. or when for that matter. So I don't fault the jury for not assuming either.
|
Posted 7/8/11 3:00 PM  |
| |
|
Long Island Weddings
Long Island's Largest Bridal Resource |
AngnShaun
Sisters
Member since 1/10 21015 total posts
Name:
Ang
|
Re: Casey Anthony trial 1/2 hour n counting.
Posted by My2Girlz11
No people are arguing over the evidence to convict her. The evidence is she lied about her daughter missing. The evidence is she went on with her life, like nothing happened. They found her dead body with duct tape on it. We know that is what killed her. The jurors were saying they didn't know how she died. She had duct tape on her. Come on now!!!! You do not get that by drowning. Casey is someone who has shown her true character with the checks and with the lying to the police. How can you credit the drowning story...There is NO resonable doubt in my mind that the little girl was murdered.
How do you get a cause of death from duct tape?
and without an actual cause of death there is no way to know if drowning was it or not... and thats what reasonable doubt is...
Message edited 7/8/2011 3:01:16 PM.
|
| Posted 7/8/11 3:01 PM |
| |
|
My2Girlz11
LIF Adolescent
Member since 1/11 785 total posts
Name:
Corrie
|
Re: Casey Anthony trial 1/2 hour n counting.
Duct tape on someone's mouth and nose and I am able to conclude that they weren't able to breathe.
I wouldn't believe a word out of that women's mouth. She is a liar. So, what ever her account was I would really not believe her.
|
| Posted 7/8/11 3:04 PM |
| |
|
hazeleyes33
LIF Adult
Member since 5/05 13060 total posts
Name:
Ginger
|
Re: Casey Anthony trial 1/2 hour n counting.
Posted by My2Girlz11
Posted by AngnShaun
Posted by My2Girlz11
I just don't get it. There was a little girl missing. Her mother was out partying while she was missing. Her mother lied about what happened to her. People say she was a "good mother." Good mothers do NOT go out partying if they can't find their daughter or if their daughter had an accident. That is all the evidence I need to see or hear to make up my mind on her guilt. I don't need to read a law book, their is no doubt it my mind. Her lying afterward sealed it for me.
I really think people are looking way too into this. In my mind, it is clear, Caylee was killed by Casey Anthony. Caylee had duct tape on her mouth and nose. We know HOW she died and we know WHO did it. Case closed.
the simple fact is that Caylee was never missing...
no one is saying that they dont think Casey did it... in fact I think thats the only think we all do agree on...
No people are arguing over the evidence to convict her. The evidence is she lied about her daughter missing. The evidence is she went on with her life, like nothing happened. They found her dead body with duct tape on it. We know that is what killed her. The jurors were saying they didn't know how she died. She had duct tape on her. Come on now!!!! You do not get that by drowning. Casey is someone who has shown her true character with the checks and with the lying to the police. How can you credit the drowning story...There is NO resonable doubt in my mind that the little girl was murdered.
She COULD have drowned and someone put it over her mouth afterward. She COULD have died from an accident and someone put it over her mouth afterward.
The jury could not go by "could's". There was no clear evidence that Casey killed her or put the duct tape over her mouth and nose (3 pieces).
She did get sentenced for lying. 4 out of the 7 charges.
I don't think anyone here has claimed they thought she was innocent though.
This is how the law is and that is how the jurors had to sentence her.
|
| Posted 7/8/11 3:06 PM |
| |
|
Blazesyth
*yawn*
Member since 5/05 8129 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Casey Anthony trial 1/2 hour n counting.
Posted by My2Girlz11
Duct tape on someone's mouth and nose and I am able to conclude that they weren't able to breathe.
I wouldn't believe a word out of that women's mouth. She is a liar. So, what ever her account was I would really not believe her.
OK - in this hypothetical we'll say that there is evidence that the duct tape killed her.
Where is the evidence that Casey put the duct tape on her?
|
| Posted 7/8/11 3:07 PM |
| |
|
hazeleyes33
LIF Adult
Member since 5/05 13060 total posts
Name:
Ginger
|
Re: Casey Anthony trial 1/2 hour n counting.
Posted by My2Girlz11
Duct tape on someone's mouth and nose and I am able to conclude that they weren't able to breathe.
I wouldn't believe a word out of that women's mouth. She is a liar. So, what ever her account was I would really not believe her.
I don't think any, if not most people on here and otherwise DO believe her but again, that is not how the jury had to sentence her.
They had to go by evidence and there was none that truly showed that she was murdered by her mother.
|
| Posted 7/8/11 3:08 PM |
| |
|
AngnShaun
Sisters
Member since 1/10 21015 total posts
Name:
Ang
|
Re: Casey Anthony trial 1/2 hour n counting.
Posted by My2Girlz11
Duct tape on someone's mouth and nose and I am able to conclude that they weren't able to breathe.
How come the ME didnt conclude that?
|
| Posted 7/8/11 3:09 PM |
| |
|
brownie
Baby #1 is here!
Member since 11/08 13903 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Casey Anthony trial 1/2 hour n counting.
Posted by AngnShaun
Posted by My2Girlz11
Duct tape on someone's mouth and nose and I am able to conclude that they weren't able to breathe.
How come the ME didnt conclude that?
Body was already decomposed to a skeletal remains...animals had already chewed on bones...no way of knowing 100%
|
| Posted 7/8/11 3:11 PM |
| |
|
AngnShaun
Sisters
Member since 1/10 21015 total posts
Name:
Ang
|
Re: Casey Anthony trial 1/2 hour n counting.
Posted by brownie
Posted by AngnShaun
Posted by My2Girlz11
Duct tape on someone's mouth and nose and I am able to conclude that they weren't able to breathe.
How come the ME didnt conclude that?
Body was already decomposed to a skeletal remains...animals had already chewed on bones...no way of knowing 100%
Thats my point... theres no way to know what was the cause of death...
|
| Posted 7/8/11 3:12 PM |
| |
|
jerseypanda
Life is good.
Member since 1/07 9164 total posts
Name:
Amanda
|
Re: Casey Anthony trial 1/2 hour n counting.
If the body were found earlier than 6 months later, things might have been different.
If the body wasn't so decomposed, the ME might have been able to test the lungs to see if there was water in them to show that she drowned. If the body hadn't been so decomposed, they would have been able to determine if the was suffocated by the tape on her face.
The fact remains that they were not able to prove it. We can make all the assumptions we want... the evidence did not prove it. I certainly would not want my life on the line with people making assumptions.
|
| Posted 7/8/11 3:13 PM |
| |
|
bicosi
life is a carousel
Member since 7/07 14956 total posts
Name:
M
|
Re: Casey Anthony trial 1/2 hour n counting.
Posted by hazeleyes33
Posted by My2Girlz11
Duct tape on someone's mouth and nose and I am able to conclude that they weren't able to breathe.
I wouldn't believe a word out of that women's mouth. She is a liar. So, what ever her account was I would really not believe her.
I don't think any, if not most people on here and otherwise DO believe her but again, that is not how the jury had to sentence her.
They had to go by evidence and there was none that truly showed that she was murdered by her mother.
the jury does/did not sentence her
no one is arguing that she is guilty.. i think everyone, jury included, FEELS she is guilty but unfortunately once the jury was read instruction as to how to enter their verdict, that's where things got tricky.. you can't (under the law) proclaim someone guilty based on your gut feeling.. you have to go by the evidence presented and how it's presented..
I think that the whole caylee drowning story and child abuse was a great way to build doubt in the jury..
just like we all debate how she died and whether or not Casey did it, I'm sure the jury did as well.
|
| Posted 7/8/11 3:14 PM |
| |
|
Blu-ize
Plan B is Now Plan A
Member since 7/05 32475 total posts
Name:
Susan
|
Re: Casey Anthony trial 1/2 hour n counting.
Posted by hazeleyes33
Posted by jerseypanda
Everyone seems to be posting their opinions on here, so I will post mine as well.
For everyone who says the jury got it wrong, says that they are stupid people, says that they can't comprehend how they didn't convict her, says that the jury should have taken more time to look at the evidence....I personally think that those feelings should be directed more towards our judicial system.
Those jurors took the evidence, applied the charges, and came to the decision that there was not enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict her on the charges she was brought up on.
The anger should be towards her not being brought up on charges that could have been proven. If so many people are infuriated about the system... what are you going to do to change it?
To those who talk about Scott Peterson who has been found guilty with circumstantial evidence, think of some of the facts in that case. He was found with bleached hair, a goatee to disguise himself, $15,000 in cash, 4 cell phones, credit cards belonging to other family members, camping equipment, a dozen pairs of shoes, several changes of clothes, and more. I suppose that made it appear to jurors that he was getting ready to flee the country and on top of all the other evidence they were able to find him guilty.
I do believe everyone has a right to their own opinion. But I also agree with one of the PP who said that a lot of the people who are angered by the verdict are using emotion in that feeling. And honestly, I would not want someone deciding my fate based on emotion... I would want them to use the facts and the law.
I think the jury did what they legally could do. I think they were all sickened by the fact that they had to find her not guilty. I cannot fault them for that.
EXACTLY
Right on
|
| Posted 7/8/11 3:16 PM |
| |
|
hazeleyes33
LIF Adult
Member since 5/05 13060 total posts
Name:
Ginger
|
Re: Casey Anthony trial 1/2 hour n counting.
Posted by bicosi
Posted by hazeleyes33
Posted by My2Girlz11
Duct tape on someone's mouth and nose and I am able to conclude that they weren't able to breathe.
I wouldn't believe a word out of that women's mouth. She is a liar. So, what ever her account was I would really not believe her.
I don't think any, if not most people on here and otherwise DO believe her but again, that is not how the jury had to sentence her.
They had to go by evidence and there was none that truly showed that she was murdered by her mother.
the jury does/did not sentence her
no one is arguing that she is guilty.. i think everyone, jury included, FEELS she is guilty but unfortunately once the jury was read instruction as to how to enter their verdict, that's where things got tricky.. you can't (under the law) proclaim someone guilty based on your gut feeling.. you have to go by the evidence presented and how it's presented..
I think that the whole caylee drowning story and child abuse was a great way to build doubt in the jury..
just like we all debate how she died and whether or not Casey did it, I'm sure the jury did as well.
Sorry, I should have said how the jury decided to the charges of guilty (for lying) and not guilty to 1st degree murder, manslaughter and child endangerment.
I totally agree with the rest of your post.
|
| Posted 7/8/11 3:17 PM |
| |
|
brownie
Baby #1 is here!
Member since 11/08 13903 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Casey Anthony trial 1/2 hour n counting.
Posted by jerseypanda
If the body were found earlier than 6 months later, things might have been different.
If the body wasn't so decomposed, the ME might have been able to test the lungs to see if there was water in them to show that she drowned. If the body hadn't been so decomposed, they would have been able to determine if the was suffocated by the tape on her face.
The fact remains that they were not able to prove it. We can make all the assumptions we want... the evidence did not prove it. I certainly would not want my life on the line with people making assumptions.
I will try saying my response again for the last time
1. You don't need a 'smoking gun', he11, you don't always need a body...many manslaughter cases are based on circumstances alone
2. Obviously *something* wasn't proven enough for this jury to come to this conclusion (NOT the jury's fault)
3. It does seem from some jurors' statements that they thought A) They would actually be sentencing her (not true) and/or B) That they can't decide something based on circumstantial evidence...they can! From their statements post-verdict, it *sounds* like they thought they needed a 'smoking gun'. In add'n, the behaviors of some jurors after (trying to profit from their verdict) doesn't sit right w/me...and I know I'm not the only one (many others that are lawyers have been saying this)
That is why I am kind of outraged by this (beyond the emotional aspect of it)
|
| Posted 7/8/11 3:22 PM |
| |
|
BargainMama
LIF Adult
Member since 5/09 15657 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Casey Anthony trial 1/2 hour n counting.
Posted by AngnShaun
Posted by My2Girlz11
I just don't get it. There was a little girl missing. Her mother was out partying while she was missing. Her mother lied about what happened to her. People say she was a "good mother." Good mothers do NOT go out partying if they can't find their daughter or if their daughter had an accident. That is all the evidence I need to see or hear to make up my mind on her guilt. I don't need to read a law book, their is no doubt it my mind. Her lying afterward sealed it for me.
I really think people are looking way too into this. In my mind, it is clear, Caylee was killed by Casey Anthony. Caylee had duct tape on her mouth and nose. We know HOW she died and we know WHO did it. Case closed.
the simple fact is that Caylee was never missing...
....according to her lawyer in opening statements....which isn't testimony or evidence....which isn't supposed to be used to come to a verdict during deliberations.....
|
| Posted 7/8/11 3:27 PM |
| |
|
jerseypanda
Life is good.
Member since 1/07 9164 total posts
Name:
Amanda
|
Re: Casey Anthony trial 1/2 hour n counting.
Posted by brownie
Posted by jerseypanda
If the body were found earlier than 6 months later, things might have been different.
If the body wasn't so decomposed, the ME might have been able to test the lungs to see if there was water in them to show that she drowned. If the body hadn't been so decomposed, they would have been able to determine if the was suffocated by the tape on her face.
The fact remains that they were not able to prove it. We can make all the assumptions we want... the evidence did not prove it. I certainly would not want my life on the line with people making assumptions.
I will try saying my response again for the last time
1. You don't need a 'smoking gun', he11, you don't always need a body...many manslaughter cases are based on circumstances alone
2. Obviously *something* wasn't proven enough for this jury to come to this conclusion (NOT the jury's fault)
3. It does seem from some jurors' statements that they thought A) They would actually be sentencing her (not true) and/or B) That they can't decide something based on circumstantial evidence...they can! From their statements post-verdict, it *sounds* like they thought they needed a 'smoking gun'. In add'n, the behaviors of some jurors after (trying to profit from their verdict) doesn't sit right w/me...and I know I'm not the only one (many others that are lawyers have been saying this)
That is why I am kind of outraged by this (beyond the emotional aspect of it)
I'm not sure if you thought my comments were directed towards you, but they weren't. They were in response from someone else that I forgot to quote in my reply.
If you've already stated your response, I'm not sure I understand the need to "try saying my response again for the last time"? We all don't have to agree with each other.
Message edited 7/8/2011 3:30:47 PM.
|
| Posted 7/8/11 3:28 PM |
| |
|
brownie
Baby #1 is here!
Member since 11/08 13903 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Casey Anthony trial 1/2 hour n counting.
Posted by jerseypanda
Posted by brownie
Posted by jerseypanda
If the body were found earlier than 6 months later, things might have been different.
If the body wasn't so decomposed, the ME might have been able to test the lungs to see if there was water in them to show that she drowned. If the body hadn't been so decomposed, they would have been able to determine if the was suffocated by the tape on her face.
The fact remains that they were not able to prove it. We can make all the assumptions we want... the evidence did not prove it. I certainly would not want my life on the line with people making assumptions.
I will try saying my response again for the last time
1. You don't need a 'smoking gun', he11, you don't always need a body...many manslaughter cases are based on circumstances alone
2. Obviously *something* wasn't proven enough for this jury to come to this conclusion (NOT the jury's fault)
3. It does seem from some jurors' statements that they thought A) They would actually be sentencing her (not true) and/or B) That they can't decide something based on circumstantial evidence...they can! From their statements post-verdict, it *sounds* like they thought they needed a 'smoking gun'. In add'n, the behaviors of some jurors after (trying to profit from their verdict) doesn't sit right w/me...and I know I'm not the only one (many others that are lawyers have been saying this)
That is why I am kind of outraged by this (beyond the emotional aspect of it)
I'm not sure if you thought my comments were directed towards you, but they weren't. They were in response from someone else that I forgot to quote in my reply.
If you've already stated your response, I'm not sure I understand the need to "try saying my response for the last time"? We all don't have to agree with each other.
No, I meant to quote just your last paragraph there...I've read something similar posted (maybe from you or someone else, I don't remember) so that is what I was addressing...I actually don't think we're disagreeing, I think you're not understanding what I am writing
More simply put, from the juror's statements, I don't think they understood what the law is...
I don't blame then on the verdict, but if the above is true (which is does sound like to ME), that is why I a lot of people, including myself, are outraged (this is in add'in of course to the emotional aspect of it)
|
| Posted 7/8/11 3:32 PM |
| |
|
peanutbutter2
Carpe diem!
Member since 11/10 5287 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Casey Anthony trial 1/2 hour n counting.
I haven't read all of this thread, so I'm kind of responding to a few posts at once and just the whole scenario in general.
I've really struck by one pp mentioned about a jury member stating that he/she thought about CA possibly getting the death penalty. I really did not start following this case closely until about two weeks ago (though I knew what had happened), and I got wrapped up in it pretty quickly. However, immediately upon hearing the evidence, information, charges, etc. I said to my friends that the jury will NEVER convict her of murder and the state went with the wrong charges.
Some are saying that the jury didn't use emotion in their decision, and that is an opinion just as what I will say is: I think they- or at least some- did use emotion. From the beginning, I've been saying to people that despite the fact that so many believe in the death penalty, when one looks into the face of a young girl and has the power to call her guilty of a charge that may result in the death penalty, the jurors emotions come into play. I think some people simply cannot do it, no matter how heinous the crime or how strongly they believe in the death penalty outside of that case.
I think that there are certainly other things going on here, especially since she was acquitted of lesser charges. However, I think it's quite possible that emotions DID come into play in this case, and they probably have in many before and after. We'll never know what happened in that courtroom, but that's just my opinion.
For the record, I think the jurors made the wrong decision, but for me, spewing hate at them isn't going to bring that beautiful little girl back or reverse their decision.
Sorry so long-I haven't said anything in 166 pages and I probably won't again-just felt the need to contribute!
|
| Posted 7/8/11 3:46 PM |
| |
|
DancinBarefoot
06ers Rock!!
Member since 1/07 9534 total posts
Name:
The One My Mother Gave Me ;-)
|
Re: Casey Anthony trial 1/2 hour n counting.
Posted by jacquig
Posted by DancinBarefoot
Posted by Kidsaplenty
I'm sorry, but you are being so incredibly condescending toward people who don't agree with you I find it upsetting.
. . .
If you know how to reasonably connect all the evidence together, I think you'd come to the same conclusion. But I think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
I'm sorry you think I'm being condescending.
As for knowing how to reasonably connect the evidence, and understanding reasonable doubt - I think 3 years of law school and more than 10 years in practice have given me the ability to do so. That training has also given me the ability to separate emotion from evidence.
I respect that people think there was not enough evidence.
I have a question. In your opinion what would have been needed in order to convict her?
Can you tell me what kind of evidence you think would have been needed for a manslaughter or child abuse conviction?
Also can you tell me if this same exact case happened 30 years ago what evidence would have been needed to convict her then? (no DNA, etc.)
I think if this case happened 30 years ago, she would have been convicted on the circumstantial evidence. I believe (and there are studies which show this to be partially true) juries today are suffering from CSI syndrome. What I mean is they want fingerprints and DNA to convict.
In my opinion the State of Florida made a tactical mistake by going after her for 1st degree murder and the death penalty. If the top charge had been 2nd degree murder the entire trial strategy would have been different. But because they wanted that 1st degree conviction they had to focus all their attention on their theory of the case (that CA intentionally caused the death of her child by overdosing her on chloroform), instead of a more plausible theory (that she accidentally killed her). I think if they went with felony murder as their theory of the case they would have presented more evidence of potential abuse of Caylee at the hands of her Casey.
Once the prosecution picked a direction or decided on a strategy or theory of how she died and that is what they set out to prove, they couldn't then try and convince the jury of something else.
It seems to me that some people here think I believe she is actually innocent. I do not. I just think that based on the actual charge to the jury and the definitions and directions given to them together with the evidence presented the verdict was correct in the eyes of the law.
|
| Posted 7/8/11 3:47 PM |
| |
|
Aries14
Can't plan life...
Member since 8/08 2860 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Casey Anthony trial 1/2 hour n counting.
Posted by brownie
Posted by jerseypanda
Posted by brownie
Posted by jerseypanda
If the body were found earlier than 6 months later, things might have been different.
If the body wasn't so decomposed, the ME might have been able to test the lungs to see if there was water in them to show that she drowned. If the body hadn't been so decomposed, they would have been able to determine if the was suffocated by the tape on her face.
The fact remains that they were not able to prove it. We can make all the assumptions we want... the evidence did not prove it. I certainly would not want my life on the line with people making assumptions.
I will try saying my response again for the last time
1. You don't need a 'smoking gun', he11, you don't always need a body...many manslaughter cases are based on circumstances alone
2. Obviously *something* wasn't proven enough for this jury to come to this conclusion (NOT the jury's fault)
3. It does seem from some jurors' statements that they thought A) They would actually be sentencing her (not true) and/or B) That they can't decide something based on circumstantial evidence...they can! From their statements post-verdict, it *sounds* like they thought they needed a 'smoking gun'. In add'n, the behaviors of some jurors after (trying to profit from their verdict) doesn't sit right w/me...and I know I'm not the only one (many others that are lawyers have been saying this)
That is why I am kind of outraged by this (beyond the emotional aspect of it)
I'm not sure if you thought my comments were directed towards you, but they weren't. They were in response from someone else that I forgot to quote in my reply.
If you've already stated your response, I'm not sure I understand the need to "try saying my response for the last time"? We all don't have to agree with each other.
No, I meant to quote just your last paragraph there...I've read something similar posted (maybe from you or someone else, I don't remember) so that is what I was addressing...I actually don't think we're disagreeing, I think you're not understanding what I am writing
More simply put, from the juror's statements, I don't think they understood what the law is...
I don't blame then on the verdict, but if the above is true (which is does sound like to ME), that is why I a lot of people, including myself, are outraged (this is in add'in of course to the emotional aspect of it)
You can have some circumstantial evidence to convict... but this was the WHOLE case. Even if we just had ONE solid piece (like the cause of death) then they could've used they other circumstantial evidence to reasonably infer what happened. BUt you cant have absoulty no 100% proof of at least one or two major aspects of a crime and expect a conviction.
I hope this makes sense, but imagine you walk into a room and see someone standing over a dead body (shot) and all bloody. You can not say FOR SURE what just happened. He could be the killer... or he could be someone who came to try to help.
Now lets throw in that he is wearing a gun... ok - could be the killer... could be a cop.
All circumstantial
Now lets say the real hard evidence comes back and the bullet matches the guys gun - well NOW you can take all those other pieces and make a reasonable judgment that he is the killer. But if you took out the SOLID evidence (the bullet match) - you could never say for absolute certainty what happened..
Message edited 7/8/2011 3:50:38 PM.
|
| Posted 7/8/11 3:48 PM |
| |
|
DancinBarefoot
06ers Rock!!
Member since 1/07 9534 total posts
Name:
The One My Mother Gave Me ;-)
|
Re: Casey Anthony trial 1/2 hour n counting.
Posted by brownie
Posted by medic6809
I could never live with myself if I sentenced somebody to death with no actual proof.
It's not the juror's job to decide the sentencing
Actually, if they had found her guilty of 1st degree murder, the next thing that would have happened is the penalty phase - and yes, the jurors would have decided whether or not to give her the death penalty.
|
| Posted 7/8/11 3:49 PM |
| |
|
brownie
Baby #1 is here!
Member since 11/08 13903 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Casey Anthony trial 1/2 hour n counting.
Posted by DancinBarefoot
Posted by jacquig
Posted by DancinBarefoot
Posted by Kidsaplenty
I'm sorry, but you are being so incredibly condescending toward people who don't agree with you I find it upsetting.
. . .
If you know how to reasonably connect all the evidence together, I think you'd come to the same conclusion. But I think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
I'm sorry you think I'm being condescending.
As for knowing how to reasonably connect the evidence, and understanding reasonable doubt - I think 3 years of law school and more than 10 years in practice have given me the ability to do so. That training has also given me the ability to separate emotion from evidence.
I respect that people think there was not enough evidence.
I have a question. In your opinion what would have been needed in order to convict her?
Can you tell me what kind of evidence you think would have been needed for a manslaughter or child abuse conviction?
Also can you tell me if this same exact case happened 30 years ago what evidence would have been needed to convict her then? (no DNA, etc.)
I think if this case happened 30 years ago, she would have been convicted on the circumstantial evidence. I believe (and there are studies which show this to be partially true) juries today are suffering from CSI syndrome. What I mean is they want fingerprints and DNA to convict.
In my opinion the State of Florida made a tactical mistake by going after her for 1st degree murder and the death penalty. If the top charge had been 2nd degree murder the entire trial strategy would have been different. But because they wanted that 1st degree conviction they had to focus all their attention on their theory of the case (that CA intentionally caused the death of her child by overdosing her on chloroform), instead of a more plausible theory (that she accidentally killed her). I think if they went with felony murder as their theory of the case they would have presented more evidence of potential abuse of Caylee at the hands of her Casey.
Once the prosecution picked a direction or decided on a strategy or theory of how she died and that is what they set out to prove, they couldn't then try and convince the jury of something else.
It seems to me that some people here think I believe she is actually innocent. I do not. I just think that based on the actual charge to the jury and the definitions and directions given to them together with the evidence presented the verdict was correct in the eyes of the law.
ITA with this (esp the CSI effect)...and still stand by my opinions of the jurors possibly not understanding the law (from their statements) AND still think the profiting of jurors from cases they're involved with should be changed
|
| Posted 7/8/11 3:50 PM |
| |
|
hazeleyes33
LIF Adult
Member since 5/05 13060 total posts
Name:
Ginger
|
Re: Casey Anthony trial 1/2 hour n counting.
Posted by brownie
Posted by DancinBarefoot
Posted by jacquig
Posted by DancinBarefoot
Posted by Kidsaplenty
I'm sorry, but you are being so incredibly condescending toward people who don't agree with you I find it upsetting.
. . .
If you know how to reasonably connect all the evidence together, I think you'd come to the same conclusion. But I think you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
I'm sorry you think I'm being condescending.
As for knowing how to reasonably connect the evidence, and understanding reasonable doubt - I think 3 years of law school and more than 10 years in practice have given me the ability to do so. That training has also given me the ability to separate emotion from evidence.
I respect that people think there was not enough evidence.
I have a question. In your opinion what would have been needed in order to convict her?
Can you tell me what kind of evidence you think would have been needed for a manslaughter or child abuse conviction?
Also can you tell me if this same exact case happened 30 years ago what evidence would have been needed to convict her then? (no DNA, etc.)
I think if this case happened 30 years ago, she would have been convicted on the circumstantial evidence. I believe (and there are studies which show this to be partially true) juries today are suffering from CSI syndrome. What I mean is they want fingerprints and DNA to convict.
In my opinion the State of Florida made a tactical mistake by going after her for 1st degree murder and the death penalty. If the top charge had been 2nd degree murder the entire trial strategy would have been different. But because they wanted that 1st degree conviction they had to focus all their attention on their theory of the case (that CA intentionally caused the death of her child by overdosing her on chloroform), instead of a more plausible theory (that she accidentally killed her). I think if they went with felony murder as their theory of the case they would have presented more evidence of potential abuse of Caylee at the hands of her Casey.
Once the prosecution picked a direction or decided on a strategy or theory of how she died and that is what they set out to prove, they couldn't then try and convince the jury of something else.
It seems to me that some people here think I believe she is actually innocent. I do not. I just think that based on the actual charge to the jury and the definitions and directions given to them together with the evidence presented the verdict was correct in the eyes of the law.
ITA with this (esp the CSI effect)...and still stand by my opinions of the jurors possibly not understanding the law (from their statements) AND still think the profiting of jurors from cases they're involved with should be changed
But only 2 jurors have spoken and only one is thinking of profiting (unless I missed something in the last 2 days).
|
| Posted 7/8/11 3:52 PM |
| |
|
brownie
Baby #1 is here!
Member since 11/08 13903 total posts
Name:
|
Re: Casey Anthony trial 1/2 hour n counting.
Posted by DancinBarefoot
Posted by brownie
Posted by medic6809
I could never live with myself if I sentenced somebody to death with no actual proof.
It's not the juror's job to decide the sentencing
Actually, if they had found her guilty of 1st degree murder, the next thing that would have happened is the penalty phase - and yes, the jurors would have decided whether or not to give her the death penalty.
Right, but from their comments, it sounded like they said if they found her guilty, she would get the death penalty...which they did not have to recommend...
and plus, Judge Perry could or would make the final decision (correct me if I'm mistaken about this)
|
| Posted 7/8/11 3:52 PM |
| |
|
jerseypanda
Life is good.
Member since 1/07 9164 total posts
Name:
Amanda
|
Re: Casey Anthony trial 1/2 hour n counting.
Posted by brownie
Posted by jerseypanda
Posted by brownie
Posted by jerseypanda
If the body were found earlier than 6 months later, things might have been different.
If the body wasn't so decomposed, the ME might have been able to test the lungs to see if there was water in them to show that she drowned. If the body hadn't been so decomposed, they would have been able to determine if the was suffocated by the tape on her face.
The fact remains that they were not able to prove it. We can make all the assumptions we want... the evidence did not prove it. I certainly would not want my life on the line with people making assumptions.
I will try saying my response again for the last time
1. You don't need a 'smoking gun', he11, you don't always need a body...many manslaughter cases are based on circumstances alone
2. Obviously *something* wasn't proven enough for this jury to come to this conclusion (NOT the jury's fault)
3. It does seem from some jurors' statements that they thought A) They would actually be sentencing her (not true) and/or B) That they can't decide something based on circumstantial evidence...they can! From their statements post-verdict, it *sounds* like they thought they needed a 'smoking gun'. In add'n, the behaviors of some jurors after (trying to profit from their verdict) doesn't sit right w/me...and I know I'm not the only one (many others that are lawyers have been saying this)
That is why I am kind of outraged by this (beyond the emotional aspect of it)
I'm not sure if you thought my comments were directed towards you, but they weren't. They were in response from someone else that I forgot to quote in my reply.
If you've already stated your response, I'm not sure I understand the need to "try saying my response for the last time"? We all don't have to agree with each other.
No, I meant to quote just your last paragraph there...I've read something similar posted (maybe from you or someone else, I don't remember) so that is what I was addressing...I actually don't think we're disagreeing, I think you're not understanding what I am writing
More simply put, from the juror's statements, I don't think they understood what the law is...
I don't blame then on the verdict, but if the above is true (which is does sound like to ME), that is why I a lot of people, including myself, are outraged (this is in add'in of course to the emotional aspect of it)
I guess that's where my confusion was. I had no idea what you were talking about. I never read your response the first time, so when you quoted me and said that you would try to give your repsonse again, I was like  It just seemed to come out of left field.
|
| Posted 7/8/11 3:52 PM |
| |
|
| Pages: << 159 160 161 [162] 163 164 165 >> |
