Casey Anthony

[WillowTree]

Cheney Mason says "Hello from Orlando"

Classy!

 

[mal]

So, the great American jury has fucked it up again. Why do we always say the jury system is so great?

I don't know.

I am a lawyer and I have tried cases to juries. I have talked to jurors afterwards. What I have heard has scared me.

For instance, I lost a case, personal injury, I was defending. Ladies on the jury tell me, "your client wasn't negligent, but we thought she (plaintiff) was real nice." Right... facts be damned, you awarded her all that money because she was "real nice"...

I won a case, personal injury. Again, I was defending. Facts weren't so great for my side, actually -- plaintiff could have easily won. Again, I talk to jurors. They tell me "she was such a bitch" so they denied her money. OK, again, facts be damned.

It's like all these people thought the jury trial was about "who they like" and "who they don't"... the mental level of a 9-year-old, or something. They couldn't focus on the basic question before them: "You are here to decide if the defendant, Blank Corp., was negligent. Negligence is defined as blah blah." Etc. Nope, tuned it all out.

Are American juries too stupid to be trusted? Should we switch to professional juries? Do juries really tend to get it right more often than not?

You Prefer Media Driven Lynch Mobs?...

Gut Feelings about how Trashy someone is in Regard to a Missing/Dead Child is not a Basis for System of Law.

If it was so Obvious that she Killed her Daughter then the Prosecution shouldn't have had an Issue Proving it.

It's better she go Free than someone be Wrongfully Executed because the Media has Decided to Convince everyone that someone is Guilty before a Jury has Decided.

Just my 2 cents.

And there are PLENTY of Dead Kids in this Country that nobody gives 2 shits and a fuck about how they Died...

The Media told you all to Care about this, so you did.


peace...

That's just bull. You know what made me sit up and take notice? The 9-11 call. "Somethings wrong! I can find my grandaughter, I finally found my daughter and the car but I can't find my grandaughter Caylee. Something's wrong I found the car and it smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car. But all that matter not a jot now, her monster mom has been set free and we can nver try anyone else cause we don't know how she died. so say the jury.. which was made up of people who "find it hard to judge people" and who "will find it hard to give the death penalty. The blame lies with the jury and the lawyers who agreed to let them sit on that jury. They had their ears plugged up. Now I hope I'm done.

No Seriously... No Media Circus... No Threads like this... No Facebook Chains to keep the light on for her...

It's this Simple...

We don't Convict on Feelings...

We don't Execute on Gut Instincts...

Knowing and Proving are two entirely Different things.

The Prosecution could NOT Prove she Murdered her Daughter.

How you and I FEEL about that is Irrelevant in the Eyes of the Law.



peace...

 

[mudwhistle]

Any company, group, or entity that gives her monetary gain from the death of her daughter needs to be boycotted and made an example of. There is no way that this woman should become rich from the death of a little girl that she forgot about for over a month. Just saying...

Yes, punish anyone who dares to go against public opinion.

 

[midcan5]

The jury is often the most interesting unknown of a trial. A child is dead either from accident or willful accident but there is no way any of us will know. The defense's drowning scenario made no sense at all, this was her grandfather and as a grandfather I cannot buy into his subsequent behavior as acting. It would have been too tragic and painful, he'd have to be satan reincarnated. Having served on criminal cases, one a murder one case, and have been a character witness on a murder one case, I can only say good luck. I sat in a room with Jurors who wanted to continue discussion so they could skip work - seriously. When a jury is picked, there is a questionnaire and brief interview, if one can read people or know what a certain individual could/would think given their background of religion, family, and education you can aim towards your conclusion. May work, may not. Juries are fickle. Law likes to think law exists on some formal level, but in the end law exists in the minds of a person who sees things as they see them. And don't for a second assume people in a jury room are not affected by others, the jury leader can have great control in the outcome if there are no challenges.

"I shall proceed ... on the assumption that people sometimes or often do vote their considered and impartial opinions. It is by no means invariably true, but a normative theory of law and politics needs an aspirational quality, and this is mine." Jeremy Waldron

 

[Si modo]

You Prefer Media Driven Lynch Mobs?...

Gut Feelings about how Trashy someone is in Regard to a Missing/Dead Child is not a Basis for System of Law.

If it was so Obvious that she Killed her Daughter then the Prosecution shouldn't have had an Issue Proving it.

It's better she go Free than someone be Wrongfully Executed because the Media has Decided to Convince everyone that someone is Guilty before a Jury has Decided.

Just my 2 cents.

And there are PLENTY of Dead Kids in this Country that nobody gives 2 shits and a fuck about how they Died...

The Media told you all to Care about this, so you did.


peace...

That's just bull. You know what made me sit up and take notice? The 9-11 call. "Somethings wrong! I can find my grandaughter, I finally found my daughter and the car but I can't find my grandaughter Caylee. Something's wrong I found the car and it smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car. But all that matter not a jot now, her monster mom has been set free and we can nver try anyone else cause we don't know how she died. so say the jury.. which was made up of people who "find it hard to judge people" and who "will find it hard to give the death penalty. The blame lies with the jury and the lawyers who agreed to let them sit on that jury. They had their ears plugged up. Now I hope I'm done.

No Seriously... No Media Circus... No Threads like this... No Facebook Chains to keep the light on for her...

It's this Simple...

We don't Convict on Feelings...

We don't Execute on Gut Instincts...

Knowing and Proving are two entirely Different things.

The Prosecution could NOT Prove she Murdered her Daughter.

How you and I FEEL about that is Irrelevant in the Eyes of the Law.



peace...

Exactly. And, God bless America.

 

[mal]

Knowing and Proving are Entirely Different things...

The State could NOT Prove the Mother did it.

Whether or not any of us Feel she is Guilty, we don't Convict on Feelings...

We Convict on Fact, Evidence and Proof.

The State Failed Miserably to Prove anything, and much of that Failure was out of their Control.

Sometimes Justice can't be Served.

Get the Fuck over it already.



peace...

 

[FuelRod]

Judge Allows Civil Case Brought by 'Baby Sitter' Against Casey Anthony to Proceed

ORLANDO, Fla. — A judge is allowing a civil lawsuit to proceed, for now, against a Florida mother charged with killing her toddler daughter last year.

Attorneys for Casey Anthony had asked the Orlando judge on Tuesday to dismiss the lawsuit filed by Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez.

Fernandez-Gonzalez claims Anthony defamed her when she told police that her daughter, Caylee, had been kidnapped by a nanny named Zenaida Gonzalez.

The lawsuit asks for money from lost wages, and on Tuesday the judge let lawyers amend the complaint to also add punitive damages.

Caylee was 2 years old when she vanished last June. Her mother, Casey Anthony, has been charged with first-degree murder and has pleaded not guilty.

Judge Allows Civil Case Brought by 'Baby Sitter' Against Casey Anthony to Proceed - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News - FOXNews.com

How this turns out may answer whether the murderer be allowed to exploit Caylee and benefit from the notoriety of her trial. Zanny the nanny will be allowed money and punitive damages.

She was found 'not guilty'.... that means she's not 'the murderer'.

Technically it means she was not proven to be the murderer "beyond reasonable" doubt.
Someone needs to re-define reasonable. Just because it comes out of a guy with a fancy college degrees mouth doesn't mean it is reasonable.

 

[High_Gravity]

This has me thinking, if Osama Bin Laden was put on trial here in the US he would probably get off, is there really any solid evidence tying him to 9/11? everything is circumstancial.

 

[SFC Ollie]

This has me thinking, if Osama Bin Laden was put on trial here in the US he would probably get off, is there really any solid evidence tying him to 9/11? everything is circumstancial.

Nope, we have him on tape discussing it. Of course some claim the tape is fake....

 

[High_Gravity]

This has me thinking, if Osama Bin Laden was put on trial here in the US he would probably get off, is there really any solid evidence tying him to 9/11? everything is circumstancial.

Nope, we have him on tape discussing it. Of course some claim the tape is fake....

I've lost faith in our legal system, I think with a good enough legal team he could walk.

 

[High_Gravity]

So, the great American jury has fucked it up again. Why do we always say the jury system is so great?

I don't know.

I am a lawyer and I have tried cases to juries. I have talked to jurors afterwards. What I have heard has scared me.

For instance, I lost a case, personal injury, I was defending. Ladies on the jury tell me, "your client wasn't negligent, but we thought she (plaintiff) was real nice." Right... facts be damned, you awarded her all that money because she was "real nice"...

I won a case, personal injury. Again, I was defending. Facts weren't so great for my side, actually -- plaintiff could have easily won. Again, I talk to jurors. They tell me "she was such a bitch" so they denied her money. OK, again, facts be damned.

It's like all these people thought the jury trial was about "who they like" and "who they don't"... the mental level of a 9-year-old, or something. They couldn't focus on the basic question before them: "You are here to decide if the defendant, Blank Corp., was negligent. Negligence is defined as blah blah." Etc. Nope, tuned it all out.

Are American juries too stupid to be trusted? Should we switch to professional juries? Do juries really tend to get it right more often than not?

I think you are spot on, professional juries might be the way to go.

 

[Defiant1]

So, the great American jury has fucked it up again. Why do we always say the jury system is so great?

I don't know.

I am a lawyer and I have tried cases to juries. I have talked to jurors afterwards. What I have heard has scared me.

For instance, I lost a case, personal injury, I was defending. Ladies on the jury tell me, "your client wasn't negligent, but we thought she (plaintiff) was real nice." Right... facts be damned, you awarded her all that money because she was "real nice"...

I won a case, personal injury. Again, I was defending. Facts weren't so great for my side, actually -- plaintiff could have easily won. Again, I talk to jurors. They tell me "she was such a bitch" so they denied her money. OK, again, facts be damned.

It's like all these people thought the jury trial was about "who they like" and "who they don't"... the mental level of a 9-year-old, or something. They couldn't focus on the basic question before them: "You are here to decide if the defendant, Blank Corp., was negligent. Negligence is defined as blah blah." Etc. Nope, tuned it all out.

Are American juries too stupid to be trusted? Should we switch to professional juries? Do juries really tend to get it right more often than not?

I think you are spot on, professional juries might be the way to go.

I can see the TV ads now.

 

[saveliberty]

O.J. Simpson was a miscarriage of justice due to celebrity. This case was very different. Poor evidence trail with a prosecutor's arrogance on full display.

 

[DayDreamer]

What say you now?.... all you media-hypnotized Casey haters?
You're all reside in the Land of the Lemming where you fuel your thoughts based on how others react. No one thinks for themselves any longer.

And if you DID you would have all seen there wasn't a shed of evidence showing she killed her child.
But everyone wanted to play these arm-chair psychiatrists and convict her on how she acted afterward because the mainstream media kept replaying the same old video tapes.

You're nothing but a flock of Sheeple.

 

[High_Gravity]

What say you now?.... all you media-hypnotized Casey haters?
You're all reside in the Land of the Lemming where you fuel your thoughts based on how others react. No one thinks for themselves any longer.

And if you DID you would have all seen there wasn't a shed of evidence showing she killed her child.
But everyone wanted to play these arm-chair psychiatrists and convict her on how she acted afterward because the mainstream media kept replaying the same old video tapes.

You're nothing but a flock of Sheeple.

Go fuck yourself.

 

[George Costanza]

I haven't followed this case, other then to do my damndest to avoid Nancy Grace and that God awful Valez-Mitchell woman. So I don't really know the facts of the matter other than to say, I would venture that the pool of American's following this case on the nightly news via the Nancy Grace/Valez-Mitchell/Van Susterin Comedy troupe were much more biased in their opinion then the 12 jurors who judged Anthony.

In that essence, the system worked. The state failed to prove their case.

I am going to go out of my way to try and watch Nancy Grace. Can't wait to see the bitch come apart at the seams over this verdict.

I disagree. She even has you watching bro. SHE WINS HERE.

Point well taken. (I did not watch her, by the way - I had other things to do, like rearranging my sock drawer.)

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd knew she was gonna get away with it when she went into her cryin' jag, cause dat's how womens gets away with stuff...

How the Casey Anthony case came apart
6 July`11 - All summer, the case against Casey Anthony in an Orlando courtroom had audiences discussing her life as if she were the star of a reality television show.

The narrative became familiar: Hard-partying single mother fails to report her toddler missing for a month, then lies to police about a kidnapping by a non-existent nanny. Then there was the suspiciously foul smell in the trunk of the mother's car before Caylee Anthony's remains were found in a wooded area. Inside Courtroom 23, however, the seven women and five men of the jury in the Anthony case had to look beyond the salacious details and decide: Was there enough evidence to prove Casey Anthony killed her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee?

Their answer was no. On Tuesday, the jury acquitted Anthony, 25, of murdering her child in June 2008. The reason, legal analysts and court watchers said, is that despite the seemingly endless hype surrounding the investigation and trial, the prosecution's case simply didn't hold up. There was no forensic evidence — such as DNA or fingerprints — directly linking Anthony to her daughter's death. In fact, the precise cause of the girl's death was unclear. "The prosecution put out a lot of dots, but they couldn't connect them," says Lawrence Kobilinsky, chairman of the Department of Sciences at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. Kobilinsky had advised Anthony's attorneys on the forensic case against her but was not involved in the trial.

After a trial of a month and a half, jurors took less than 11 hours to find Anthony not guilty of first-degree murder, aggravated manslaughter and aggravated child abuse. They convicted her of four misdemeanor counts of lying to police. She could face up to a year in county jail for each count, but because she has been in jail for almost three years, she could be set free. Her sentencing is set for Thursday. Jurors would not talk to reporters. Their identities were kept secret.

Many in a crowd of about 500 people outside the courthouse reacted with anger after the verdict was read, chanting "Justice for Caylee!" One man yelled, "Baby killer!" Given the speed with which the jury reached a verdict, many court watchers were expecting Anthony to be convicted of murder, and were stunned by the outcome. "Hard to believe," was the initial terse Twitter comment from HLN host Nancy Grace, whose relentless focus on the case helped propel it onto the national consciousness.

What the public saw

See also:

Video Casey Anthony: Alternate Juror Calls Her 'Good Mother'

 

[FuelRod]

O.J. Simpson was a miscarriage of justice due to celebrity. This case was very different. Poor evidence trail with a prosecutor's arrogance on full display.

The Simpson evidence (Blood) was certainly stronger. Still comes down to soul-less defense attorney's throwing out bullshit defense claims that are irrelevant to the evidence that happen to stick.
Nothing reasonable about the "reasonable" doubt in either of these cases.

 

[LAfrique]

I would like to first know who the father of deceased child is. I think if Casey Anthony's deceased child was product or rape and/or incest, it just may explain a lot about this case.

Moot point

JB tried and failed to make the incest connection and if she was raped we would have been told. Only ICA knows who the father is and she may not even know.

Not a moot point. There is something fishy about the Casey Anthony case. Since it is alleged parents helped with cover-up, does it not bother you that the prosecutor was not also after parents as accessories?

I think Casey Anthony, as alleged by her counsel, is a victim of in house sexual abuse and deceased child may have been product - which would explain why parents would help cover-up whatever happened. I am however at peace with the NOT GUILTY verdict. I prefer to see even a possible guilty walk, than see an innocent penalized.

 

[martybegan]

O.J. Simpson was a miscarriage of justice due to celebrity. This case was very different. Poor evidence trail with a prosecutor's arrogance on full display.

The Simpson evidence (Blood) was certainly stronger. Still comes down to soul-less defense attorney's throwing out bullshit defense claims that are irrelevant to the evidence that happen to stick.
Nothing reasonable about the "reasonable" doubt in either of these cases.

With the simpson case you had a cause of death, method of death, blood traces, and alot more what would be considered hard evidence than in the CA trial.

The lack of a cause of death is a huge issue when it comes to murder/manslaughter as a charge. the lack of her leaving anything at the scence that could be directly linked to her person, not just her property was another big issue.

They should have gone for lesser charges, such as criminally negligent homicde, which might have been provable.