Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
She did not report her child missing for 30 days. Child turns up dead.
Try leaving your kid in a hot car. That is felony child endangerment. Jail time.
Why didn't the jury at least get her for child endangerment for not reporting her missing and leading cops on a goose chase?
She did not report her child missing for 30 days. Child turns up dead.
Try leaving your kid in a hot car. That is felony child endangerment. Jail time.
Why didn't the jury at least get her for child endangerment for not reporting her missing and leading cops on a goose chase?
That fist statement is a sad but true fact. Experts are somehow not going to be on a jury. I would be far happier of the jury were made up of only experts. That is not possible of course but a nice thought. On that not, however, I am against the ability of lawyers to dismiss jurors unless they show a significant reason to do so such as bias, racism or some other such predisposition that would make a fair trial impossible. Knowing what the evidence means is NOT creating un unfair trial. It, in fact does the opposite.I like William Joyce's idea of having professional jurors.
Because the average IQ of American citizens has dropped into the two digit category.
Not to mention having a PhD will get you cut from the jury faster than prejudice. That just shows me that they do not want intelligent jurors.
that's untrue. but if your expertise is in an area that is the subject of the trial, no, you aren't going to be chosen for the jury. you are supposed to be educated by the experts the lawyers put on the stand... same as you cannot go to the scene at which an accident happened.
the jury did not hear the same things or see the same things as the public saw and heard. (including commentary designed to sway the opinion of viewers). the jury felt, according to what i heard today, that the evidence of murder, particularly capital murder, was not proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. The entire case was circumstantial and there was no evidence of cause of death. there was also conflicting testimony about the odor in the car.
jurors won't put someone to death based on that... no matter how much you may "feel" a case should go a certain way.
I personally believe that is one reason that we have juries in the first place. Sometimes the law needs to be bent to fit a particular situation as the real world is not black and white while the law is very black and white. I'll give you an example of a case that my grandfather sat on a jury for. He was on a jury for a young man being charged with breaking into a home and steeling some items. Turns out that the home that was broken into was his parents home and they had called the cops because they were tired of his actions and wanted him to pay the price. Unfortunately, he had been convicted 2 times before this and in CA there was a three strike law. All his convictions were minor and involved no violence yet fell under this law meaning he would have received a LIFE sentence for this crime. This was something that was not expected. The jury was not supposed to know about all this but it was 'slipped' into the trial while everyone looked the other way. Not even the prosecutor wanted a conviction here because the punishment would FAR surpass the crime. Even though he was guilty as sin and they had more than enough evidence the jury acquitted him because they knew that the law was incorrect in this case. I believe that having a human element within the law is central to the entire system. It allows people to make a decision about real world events that are not always simple when dealing with laws that may or may not have had these things in mind on their creation.I was selected some years back for an age discrimination suit. The guy fired was a really nice guy. Had great character witnesses. As the case unfolded, the real reason he was fired (reading between the lines) was because he was aware of an affair going on between two upper management people. The lady involved in the affair came to him (he was something of the office grandfatherly type) asking why people were treating her so weird and he told her why. She freaked. Her boyfriend freaked. They built a "case" of poor performance against him and used that as the reason to fire him. He knew he couldn't win his case based on that since Oklahoma is an "at will work" state. The judge later told us after the trial why he allowed the age suit. A senior management person had come to their office and done a company town hall meeting and told this guy, "you know, they are getting rid of us gray hairs". As poorly as this guy had been fucked over by his company and as much as we wanted to find for him and penalize the company, in the final analysis he was not fired because of his age. He was fired for knowing dirt on someone in a high place. That was not what the case was about. Judges give very specific instructions to the jury and as much as we wanted to help the guy, we couldn't.
"I did not say she was innocent," "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."
Jennifer Ford
Juror number 3
.
She did not report her child missing for 30 days. Child turns up dead.
Try leaving your kid in a hot car. That is felony child endangerment. Jail time.
Why didn't the jury at least get her for child endangerment for not reporting her missing and leading cops on a goose chase?
She did not report her child missing for 30 days. Child turns up dead.
Try leaving your kid in a hot car. That is felony child endangerment. Jail time.
Why didn't the jury at least get her for child endangerment for not reporting her missing and leading cops on a goose chase?
Not only did she not report her missing she thrawrted every effort made by her mom and the police to find her.. why? caushe she knew,, she knew..
I still can't figure out our that jury resolved that knowledge can you?
tiny dancer said:Jury members can be wrong. Jury members can be shopping for book deals and movie roles. Have we not seen this before?
Or are you still supporting OJ?
Look, this case has been most interesting because the mother was a slut and a liar but yo do you understand where they were trying her?
its where all sluts and liars are in florida. jury of your peers. yuppers. sluts and liars.
She did not report her child missing for 30 days. Child turns up dead.
Try leaving your kid in a hot car. That is felony child endangerment. Jail time.
Why didn't the jury at least get her for child endangerment for not reporting her missing and leading cops on a goose chase?
Because the prosecution failed in its duty to tell the narrative effectively that way.
Caylee needs justice, and this prosecution team failed the child.
Well do tell, Einstein.. how did Caylee die?
For one, it makes no sense that she would kill Caylee because she wanted she party. There was a much simpler way to achieve that. If she actually murdered Caylee there must be another reason that actually makes sense. Most likely she accidentally killed her through some kind of extreme neglect, like drugged her to keep her out of the way or left her in a hot car too long.
Too bad for you. The jury acquitted her on manslaughter, aggravated child abuse and first degree. Nice try though.
Well do tell, Einstein.. how did Caylee die?
For one, it makes no sense that she would kill Caylee because she wanted she party. There was a much simpler way to achieve that. If she actually murdered Caylee there must be another reason that actually makes sense. Most likely she accidentally killed her through some kind of extreme neglect, like drugged her to keep her out of the way or left her in a hot car too long.
Why not? she would not have been able to galavant around town like she did if she had a child to care for.
I don't give a shit what anybody says, about the technicalities of the case. Anyone with any common sense, could tell she was responsible for what happened to that child.
An innocent person does NOT act or do the things that bitch did.
This is a travesty, and the jury is full of shit.
This bitch got away with participating in her child's death, if not murder.
I hope someday, somewhere, someone will recognize this scumbag slut out on the street, and ends her useless time here on Earth.
Fucking retards on that Florida jury should have their asses kicked in.
unlike you, someone who signs their name to a jury verdict actually has to look at what the elements of the case are and see if the prosecutor proved EVERY ONE OF THEM.
and no, the prosecutor did not prove cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt.... at least not according to the jurors.
you do not convict based on what you wish. you convict based on what the prosecutor PROVES. she had to prove nothing but only raise a reasonable doubt. and apparently she did.
are you about 12? your "analysis" and reaction makes me think you might be.
grow up. you sound pathetic.
I've learned my lesson. Hide the body let it rot. Then you can't say how it died. I walk.. That sound about right? Good. Oh and I have nothing to do with Mr. JOnes.Nothing.
She did not report her child missing for 30 days. Child turns up dead.
Try leaving your kid in a hot car. That is felony child endangerment. Jail time.
Why didn't the jury at least get her for child endangerment for not reporting her missing and leading cops on a goose chase?
The charges ranged from first degree, to manslaughter, to aggravated child abuse. She's as innocent as a lamb on all three accounts. Shame on you for thinking she did something to her child. She was a good MOM.
Maybe you should read the statues on all three crimes to see if they applied first. They have specifc qualifications. Note the word "Aggravated" in the child abuse charge. That means conditions above and beyond normal abuse/neglect, and you have to PROVE said conditions beyond a reasonable doubt.
Please stop using talking point retorts to my points, that may work on others, but I am replying with clear reasons why my positions are so.
Listen.. Here's the bottom line bud. In every court room some one tells the truth and some one lies. Now it's evident you guys have chosed the liars to be the winners. It's just that simple. End of story. And the liar side was so damn effective that George and Cindy are now receiving death threats. Ain't that special?
unlike you, someone who signs their name to a jury verdict actually has to look at what the elements of the case are and see if the prosecutor proved EVERY ONE OF THEM.
and no, the prosecutor did not prove cause of death beyond a reasonable doubt.... at least not according to the jurors.
you do not convict based on what you wish. you convict based on what the prosecutor PROVES. she had to prove nothing but only raise a reasonable doubt. and apparently she did.
are you about 12? your "analysis" and reaction makes me think you might be.
grow up. you sound pathetic.
I've learned my lesson. Hide the body let it rot. Then you can't say how it died. I walk.. That sound about right? Good. Oh and I have nothing to do with Mr. JOnes.Nothing.
You would also have to have the media hype element that caused them to move too quickly and/or charge too much.
Real question here....who is worse. This Casey Anthony woman or Nancy Grace? Both will make money off a dead child.
Its sickening really.
