| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/05/2011 04:32:18 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Don't know about you, but I'd hate to spend my life looking over my shoulder - she'd have been safer in prison. |
I doubt it. Remember this is Florida. If you're not waiting to die or getting high then you're probably too busy mass murdering other people. Except for  idnic of course. She's cool. :P
|
|
|
|
07/05/2011 04:39:05 PM · #27 |
| Such little faith in the Jury System. |
|
|
|
07/05/2011 04:46:14 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Cory:
Don't know about you, but I'd hate to spend my life looking over my shoulder - she'd have been safer in prison. |
I doubt it. Remember this is Florida. If you're not waiting to die or getting high then you're probably too busy mass murdering other people. Except for idnic of course. She's cool. :P |
Hey! Fine, you're next on my list... ;) |
|
|
|
07/05/2011 04:47:55 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Cory:
Don't know about you, but I'd hate to spend my life looking over my shoulder - she'd have been safer in prison. |
I doubt it. Remember this is Florida. If you're not waiting to die or getting high then you're probably too busy mass murdering other people. Except for idnic of course. She's cool. :P |
Hey! Fine, you're next on my list... ;) |
Heh. For some reason I thought you were in Texas.
|
|
|
|
07/05/2011 04:49:59 PM · #30 |
One thing to keep in mind (and I only casually kept tabs on the case), the truth is that the jury doesn't know what happened (and thus couldn't convict). If the jury was instead asked to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the child drowned, I highly doubt they would do it. So no conviction certainly doesn't mean she didn't kill the child.
My totally uneducated guess...she got away with murder (or someone did), but she'll still pay for it.
Message edited by author 2011-07-05 16:50:29. |
|
|
|
07/05/2011 04:50:19 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Cory:
Don't know about you, but I'd hate to spend my life looking over my shoulder - she'd have been safer in prison. |
I doubt it. Remember this is Florida. If you're not waiting to die or getting high then you're probably too busy mass murdering other people. Except for idnic of course. She's cool. :P |
Hey! Fine, you're next on my list... ;) |
Heh. For some reason I thought you were in Texas. |
New Mexico, wasn't it? They threw him out though.
R. |
|
|
|
07/05/2011 04:52:34 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I'm actually surprised... Not because I think she should have been found guilty, but, rather because it would seem that the system actually worked as it is supposed to work. Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonably doubt. Despite my feelings (I FEEL pretty damn sure she did it), I think there was gobs of doubt, and no solid proof.
Go USA! (Still feel bad for the kiddo)
OTOH- I'm betting she'll live a very low quality life from here on out - you can bet there are plenty of people who'd like to off her, and I'm betting someone will try, only a question of when, where and how. Don't know about you, but I'd hate to spend my life looking over my shoulder - she'd have been safer in prison. |
+1. Didn't follow this case at all (even though i'm a floridian) until i read the excerpts from the closing arguments on sunday. i told my wife immediately "they'll never convict, there's not a shred of solid evidence, it's all circumstantial". this comes as no suprise to me, i think the prosecution believed they'd get a conviction based on the MOUNTAINS of circumstantial evidence they had. |
|
|
|
07/05/2011 04:59:47 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Cory:
Don't know about you, but I'd hate to spend my life looking over my shoulder - she'd have been safer in prison. |
I doubt it. Remember this is Florida. If you're not waiting to die or getting high then you're probably too busy mass murdering other people. Except for idnic of course. She's cool. :P |
Hey! Fine, you're next on my list... ;) |
Heh. For some reason I thought you were in Texas. |
You just got moved up on the list.... :-/ LOL! |
|
|
|
07/05/2011 05:23:49 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by kirbic:
We did not hear the evidence the jurors did. It is not our role to judge. |
The trial was broadcast on tv and streamed online, the latter of which showed the trial in its entirety. |
And I'm sure that those posting here that "she's guilty" watched the entire trial, took copious notes, and... oh, wait, they were cut out of the jury deliberations. Darn, so close. |
Whether the jury was right or not, Casey killed her daughter.
1. She was googling chloroform.
2. She didn't tell anyone her daughter was missing.
That doesn't meet legal requirements, but it's clear enough. |
|
|
|
07/05/2011 05:33:17 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by kirbic:
We did not hear the evidence the jurors did. It is not our role to judge. |
The trial was broadcast on tv and streamed online, the latter of which showed the trial in its entirety. |
And I'm sure that those posting here that "she's guilty" watched the entire trial, took copious notes, and... oh, wait, they were cut out of the jury deliberations. Darn, so close. |
Did you really even need to watch, let alone take notes? This is a so called mother of a toddler who "disappeared" and she couldn't even bother to report her missing. Then when confronted, lied to police, repeatedly, about everything. This concocted story about her child drowning is so much bullshitte. Maybe she didn't really mean to kill her when she chloroformed her & duct taped her mouth & nose closed, but once the deed was done she went about her party lifestyle. You can agree or not, and I'm sure it was formalities that got her acquitted, but she's guilty as hell. |
|
|
|
07/05/2011 06:10:29 PM · #36 |
| Obviously everyone condemning Casey Anthony has a secret stash of evidence, that they probably should have shared with the authorities BEFORE the trial was over. |
|
|
|
07/05/2011 06:15:27 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by kirbic:
We did not hear the evidence the jurors did. It is not our role to judge. |
The trial was broadcast on tv and streamed online, the latter of which showed the trial in its entirety. |
And I'm sure that those posting here that "she's guilty" watched the entire trial, took copious notes, and... oh, wait, they were cut out of the jury deliberations. Darn, so close. |
Whether the jury was right or not, Casey killed her daughter.
1. She was googling chloroform.
2. She didn't tell anyone her daughter was missing.
That doesn't meet legal requirements, but it's clear enough. |
+1 and...
3. Partied like it was [whatever year it was before Casey was burdened with Caylee].
4. Made up half a dozen stories about what happened to Caylee. |
|
|
|
07/05/2011 06:22:31 PM · #38 |
I would propose the following change to our double-jeopardy protection:
A jury has the option of finding the defendant "NOT guilty" - meaning totally exonerated and NOT subject to prosecution for the same crime OR "not found to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", leaving the defendant open to future prosecution if NEW, COMPELLING EVIDENCE surfaces.
As it is now, police could discover a videotape of Casey killing Caylee and they can do nothing. Thoughts? |
|
|
|
07/05/2011 06:27:19 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
As it is now, police could discover a videotape of Casey killing Caylee and they can do nothing. Thoughts? |
That is ridiculous! |
|
|
|
07/05/2011 06:39:35 PM · #40 |
| While she Casey very well have been guilty, the state has to PROVE it, and they failed to convince even a single juror. One of the first things that happens in a trial is that the judge strongly cautions jurors on hearsay and circumstantial evidence, "Clear enough" assumptions aren't enough in the courtroom. The court of public opinion, helped along by Nancy Grace in particular, was all set to render guilty verdicts in the Duke lacrosse and Elizabeth Smart cases, too... and both would have been completely wrong. |
|
|
|
07/05/2011 06:47:47 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
While she Casey very well have been guilty, the state has to PROVE it, and they failed to convince even a single juror. One of the first things that happens in a trial is that the judge strongly cautions jurors on hearsay and circumstantial evidence, "Clear enough" assumptions aren't enough in the courtroom. The court of public opinion, helped along by Nancy Grace in particular, was all set to render guilty verdicts in the Duke lacrosse and Elizabeth Smart cases, too... and both would have been completely wrong. |
True enough. What do you think about my proposed changes to the double-jeopardy protection? What changes would you propose, if anything, to prevent the guilty from getting away with it? |
|
|
|
07/05/2011 06:53:44 PM · #42 |
I worry about the fate of her unborn children. I hope history will not repeat itself in that family...;-/
Message edited by author 2011-07-05 19:04:39. |
|
|
|
07/05/2011 06:54:18 PM · #43 |
I agree with Art. If something popped up that totally implicated her, then hang her. Yes, the system is flawed in that respect.
Think about this. She was found innocent, and let's just say she actually is innocent. The public is already sure she is guilty. So from here on out she can't lead a normal life. Everyone will look at her and wonder if she really did do it. |
|
|
|
07/05/2011 06:55:43 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
My thoughts... WTF is wrong with that jury? |
There isn't anything wrong with the jury. The system worked as it was designed...like it or not. The jury is supposed to determine whether to convict on EVIDENCE that is presented...beyond a shadow of doubt. While many on the jury if not all might have the same gut feeling that many here do...that she either killed her daughter or had something to do with it or knowledge there of, the prosecution had zero proof of how she actually died. They had zero proof that it was actually Casey who committed the crime. For all we know it was Casey's mother or father who actually killed the child and Casey is the one covering for them and taking the wrap. Perhaps that's true...it can't be proved either way.
So since the jury needs to be presented with evidence that clearly shows Casey had the means and motive, and in this case they CLEARLY were not...they HAD to return a not guilty verdict. We should all be thankful that they did what they were legally bound to do instead of ignoring the law and going with their gut feelings whatever they might be otherwise this country would be in an even bigger mess than it already is and a lot of innocent people would be thrown in jail based on public opinion fueled by the media. Oh, this news network is empathic that the defendant did the crime even thought there has proven to be a lack of evidence. Oh, so what...we know they had to be the one to do it..Guilty! No thanks, not the society I want to live in.
In this country you are innocent until proven guilty. Since she found not guilty...she is by law innocent, even if our guts tell us otherwise. The who family is messed up. I would not be surprised to later find out that it was someone else who actually killed Caylee whether it was intentional or by accident. It's likely that everyone in the family knows exactly what happened, and they are all covering their own butts. The fathers suicide note seemed like a charade to me, and something to bring him sympathy rather than suspicion. I don't like him either, and I like his wife even less. They CAN prove she lied under oath and I hope they do.
Did Casey kill her daughter? I don't know...I wasn't there and there is zero proof to convict her of that crime.
Is it likely she had something to do with it or knows what happened....yes.
Could it have been someone else in the family and Casey is actually covering it up as well....possibly since there is no evidence one way or the other.
The procescution is at fault with their quirky experts who provided theory and no evidence. Not good enough. So again, the jury did the right thing and there is nothing wrong with them. You can't get 12 people...and at least one alternate jury member to all agree that fast unless 1) there was overwhelming evidence that the defendant committed the crime...or 2) There was ZERO evidence to support their case. In this case that was largely tried in the media (a very dangerous and slippery slope) it was all speculation and circumstantial evidence. You can't...and shouldn't win a case on that...ever.
As Sergeant Joe Friday (Jack Webb) used to say..."Just the facts Ma'am".
Dave
|
|
|
|
07/05/2011 06:58:54 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
While she Casey very well have been guilty, the state has to PROVE it, and they failed to convince even a single juror. One of the first things that happens in a trial is that the judge strongly cautions jurors on hearsay and circumstantial evidence, "Clear enough" assumptions aren't enough in the courtroom. The court of public opinion, helped along by Nancy Grace in particular, was all set to render guilty verdicts in the Duke lacrosse and Elizabeth Smart cases, too... and both would have been completely wrong. |
As quick as the verdict came back it was pretty clear they did not have to work very hard to convince everyone on the jury that they could not find her guilty. Like it or not you should never convict anyone just because you feel they are guilty. The proof has to be there to prevent innocent people from being convicted, unfortunately that tends to work in favor of guilty people at times. If she did do it she will have to live with it the rest of her life and if she did do it I hope it haunts her every day! |
|
|
|
07/05/2011 07:00:10 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
True enough. What do you think about my proposed changes to the double-jeopardy protection? What changes would you propose, if anything, to prevent the guilty from getting away with it? |
I think monkeying with double jeopardy protection would be a catastrophically bad thing to do. It would give altogether too much leeway to the state. Don't forget that we can still do a new trial on an unproved case if the jury hangs. I see no reason why we need to allow for re-trial if the jurors are unanimous for acquittal.
The burden is on the state not to bring a case to trial if it doesn't have ironclad evidence to support its version of events. Even so, we have overzealous prosecutors trying to ramrod cases through that eventually blow up in their faces. Imagine how much worse it could get if we introduced a double jeopardy wild card?
Do you really want to see the state worrying at certain individuals like they are marrow bones or something, sucking the life out of them? Oh yeah, we're already seeing that aren't we? Witness the inane, multi-multi-million-dollar prosecution of sports superstars for, of all things, lying about their own actions, which themselves were not illegal...
R. |
|
|
|
07/05/2011 07:17:37 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
What do you think about my proposed changes to the double-jeopardy protection? What changes would you propose, if anything, to prevent the guilty from getting away with it? |
I don't think that's a problem with the "system"ΓΆ€” it's a constitutional protection. If compelling evidence were to surface, I'm pretty sure Casey could already be retried on another charge (such as violating Caylee's civil rights) in federal court, but it's the prosecution's job to get it right the first time. Otherwise you're raising the problem of retrying people repeatedly until the court of public opinion is satisfied with the results, and that's exactly what the 5th amendment was designed to prevent.
Similar to what Bear said.
Message edited by author 2011-07-05 19:18:31. |
|
|
|
07/05/2011 07:20:00 PM · #48 |
.(edited)
Message edited by author 2011-07-11 09:03:00. |
|
|
|
07/05/2011 07:29:26 PM · #49 |
I tend to agree with you Bear & Scalvert. Just throwing the idea out for discussion. I guess a hung jury is the equivalent of my option: "not found to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", leaving the defendant open to future prosecution if NEW, COMPELLING EVIDENCE surfaces. So I'm good with that.
I still think she's guilty as hell, but at least we can look forward to another 10 years or so of Casey Anthony being followed around by the media until she does something else. |
|
|
|
07/05/2011 07:44:21 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
What do you think about my proposed changes to the double-jeopardy protection? What changes would you propose, if anything, to prevent the guilty from getting away with it? |
I don't think that's a problem with the "system"ΓΆ€” it's a constitutional protection. If compelling evidence were to surface, I'm pretty sure Casey could already be retried on another charge (such as violating Caylee's civil rights) in federal court, but it's the prosecution's job to get it right the first time. Otherwise you're raising the problem of retrying people repeatedly until the court of public opinion is satisfied with the results, and that's exactly what the 5th amendment was designed to prevent.
Similar to what Bear said. |
I'll add my agreement with these guys.
The double-jeopardy protection is a basic foundation of the US judicial system.
I do think they try end runs around it at time. The OJ case is a perfect example. He was acquitted in criminal court, but convicted of the same crime in civil court. I'm no OJ apologist, but if that's not double-jeopardy, I don't know what is. |
|
