Casey Anthony

[Sunshine]

There are many reasons besides guilt to keep a defendant from taking the stand. One of those reasons is an unlikeable defendant. Casey is one because of her 'hard' look. Another I can recall is Tonya Harding who also is a hard looking woman, but I don't recall if she testified or not. Defendants who are not very articulate can do themselves more harm than good. They can look halting and uncertain in their answers which would cause the jury to think they were lying. Looking shabby can also go against a defendant even if it is the best they can do. Poor posture, looking lost....many many things other than guilt keep a defendant off the stand:

When the Defendant Takes the Stand - Articles - | DWI Defense - nydwi.com - New York's DWI lawyer - Ed Fiandach

 

[Sunshine]

IMNSHO, the DT has been the grandstanders. Only one gonna support their claims is ICA, and they've admitted she is a pathological liar! If each peice of evidence is looked at alone, perhaps your argument is valid. Altogether, the evidence is overwhelming that ICA is responsible for the death of her daughter. The punishment is the only question.

What you describe is the legal concept of Totality of the Circumstances. That is a very low burden of proof and a conceopt that is often used to determine if there is Probable Cause to make an arrest, etc. Once the arrest is made and criminal charges filed, the burden of proof changes to Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.


Knowledge Base: Totality of Circumstances

Illinois v. Gates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, you must remember that this is not a Probable Cause hearing. This is a capital murder case that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There have been many areas of reasonable doubt, IMO.

Research reasonable doubt, and circumstantial evidence. This case is every bit provable. A sympathetic jury will convict her of manslaughter. A not so jury will give her murder 1. The defense has been all over the map, and not swayed the jury, IMNSHO.

I did all that research in law school. Thankyouverymuch. I predict the outcome of this case will shock a lot of people. And they will not convict her of manslaughter if that verdict has not been asked for. The lesser includeds must actually be included. Fancy that!

 

[oldsalt]

There are many reasons besides guilt to keep a defendant from taking the stand. One of those reasons is an unlikeable defendant. Casey is one because of her 'hard' look. Another I can recall is Tonya Harding who also is a hard looking woman, but I don't recall if she testified or not. Defendants who are not very articulate can do themselves more harm than good. They can look halting and uncertain in their answers which would cause the jury to think they were lying. Looking shabby can also go against a defendant even if it is the best they can do. Poor posture, looking lost....many many things other than guilt keep a defendant off the stand:

When the Defendant Takes the Stand - Articles - | DWI Defense - nydwi.com - New York's DWI lawyer - Ed Fiandach

She is her only chance, and I agree, she can't pull it off.

 

[Sunshine]

There are many reasons besides guilt to keep a defendant from taking the stand. One of those reasons is an unlikeable defendant. Casey is one because of her 'hard' look. Another I can recall is Tonya Harding who also is a hard looking woman, but I don't recall if she testified or not. Defendants who are not very articulate can do themselves more harm than good. They can look halting and uncertain in their answers which would cause the jury to think they were lying. Looking shabby can also go against a defendant even if it is the best they can do. Poor posture, looking lost....many many things other than guilt keep a defendant off the stand:

When the Defendant Takes the Stand - Articles - | DWI Defense - nydwi.com - New York's DWI lawyer - Ed Fiandach

She is her only chance, and I agree, she can't pull it off.

Well then. Now would be a good time to start a pot on how long the jury will deliberate. I suspect that they are already considering the holes in the prosecution's case.

My POINT,which you seem to have missed, was that just because a person doesn't take the stand that is not an guilty plea. If it were, there would be no point in having a trial. You could start with the defendant and end it right there.

Certainly, I hope the jury is willing to wait until they hear BOTH sides of this case, which you are not willing to do, before decreeing the woman be killed. Ah, but THEY have no choice!

These days, I clearly understand why there are groups in this country trying to do away with the jury system.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Are you even reading this part of the thread?

When I brought up the question, I mentioned I had not been watching the trial. Obviousely you did not read that. I was getting bits and pieces from the local news which has been covering the trial extensively because I am in Central Florida and this case is hot around here.

I asked the question, because what I am hearing is that the prosecution has done a piss poor job in this trial. Obviously there are some on the board that disagree with me. I believe Casey is guilty and have believed so since Caylee was reported as missing. I don't want Casey to walk, but it seems that there has been nothing to directly tie her into the murder.

On the other hand, those on the board that disagree with me, seem to think that even if the prosecution has done such a piss poor job, the defense has screwed up even more so.

Now, regarding "her" hair, from what I understand they could not prove that the hair belonged to Caylee. And you are right, some hair in the trunk would be explainable. On the other hand, from what I can tell, the prosecution has not presented any evidence of other body fluids belonging to Caylee in the trunk. How the hell can that be possible?

Immie

No, I didn't read where you said that. I don't read every single post in this thread unless it is a response to something that I posted or a point that someone made that I was interested in. If you notice, this thread gains about 5 pages a day. I don't have the time to read through them all, but I have read most of them.

Well, I think that the prosecution is doing a fine job. You ask how there could be no bodily fluid in the vehicle? Could it be that she maybe was wrapped up in plastic, a blanket or something of the sort? Hell, even a tarp could have been layed down in the trunk. That no fluid argument is a weak one by them in my opinion. ~BH

Not a problem and I don't read all the posts either.

I was just trying to get a feel for other people's opinion on the prosecution.

I don't believe a tarp would have prevented the fluids from leaking onto the floor of the trunk, but I could be wrong on that. It seems to me that moving the body after it had decomposed would have spilled some of the fluids into the trunk of the car.

I am actually glad to hear that people feel the prosecution is doing better than it seems to me.

Immie

All good. Yeah but I personally think that someone could easily prevent fluid from leaking into the trunk, if that were the case. I could anyway. I know that you believe that she is guilty, and that you're just looking at this in regards to the Law. I think that she is guilty too. I am just not sure if she meant to do it, or it was an accident using chloroform. Either way though, she needs to pay.

I guess Judge Napolitano today said that he thinks any negative verdict will be overturned on appeal. I didn't sit around to watch the rest of the propaganda on Fox News to wait and see what his reason exactly was. Though I do respect the Man's Constitutional opinions.

Anyone see that today? ~BH

 

[oldsalt]

What you describe is the legal concept of Totality of the Circumstances. That is a very low burden of proof and a conceopt that is often used to determine if there is Probable Cause to make an arrest, etc. Once the arrest is made and criminal charges filed, the burden of proof changes to Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.


Knowledge Base: Totality of Circumstances

Illinois v. Gates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, you must remember that this is not a Probable Cause hearing. This is a capital murder case that must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There have been many areas of reasonable doubt, IMO.

Research reasonable doubt, and circumstantial evidence. This case is every bit provable. A sympathetic jury will convict her of manslaughter. A not so jury will give her murder 1. The defense has been all over the map, and not swayed the jury, IMNSHO.

I did all that research in law school. Thankyouverymuch. I predict the outcome of this case will shock a lot of people. And they will not convict her of manslaughter if that verdict has not been asked for. The lesser includeds must actually be included. Fancy that!

LOL, seems to me you didn't pass law school, based on your knowledge here.....

 

[oldsalt]

There are many reasons besides guilt to keep a defendant from taking the stand. One of those reasons is an unlikeable defendant. Casey is one because of her 'hard' look. Another I can recall is Tonya Harding who also is a hard looking woman, but I don't recall if she testified or not. Defendants who are not very articulate can do themselves more harm than good. They can look halting and uncertain in their answers which would cause the jury to think they were lying. Looking shabby can also go against a defendant even if it is the best they can do. Poor posture, looking lost....many many things other than guilt keep a defendant off the stand:

When the Defendant Takes the Stand - Articles - | DWI Defense - nydwi.com - New York's DWI lawyer - Ed Fiandach

She is her only chance, and I agree, she can't pull it off.

Well then. Now would be a good time to start a pot on how long the jury will deliberate. I suspect that they are already considering the holes in the prosecution's case.

My POINT,which you seem to have missed, was that just because a person doesn't take the stand that is not an guilty plea. If it were, there would be no point in having a trial. You could start with the defendant and end it right there.

Certainly, I hope the jury is willing to wait until they hear BOTH sides of this case, which you are not, before decreeing the woman be killed. Ah, but THEY have no choice!

she is the only one that can back up the DT's assertion! Where have you been???

 

[Sunshine]

Research reasonable doubt, and circumstantial evidence. This case is every bit provable. A sympathetic jury will convict her of manslaughter. A not so jury will give her murder 1. The defense has been all over the map, and not swayed the jury, IMNSHO.

I did all that research in law school. Thankyouverymuch. I predict the outcome of this case will shock a lot of people. And they will not convict her of manslaughter if that verdict has not been asked for. The lesser includeds must actually be included. Fancy that!

LOL, seems to me you didn't pass law school, based on your knowledge here.....

Sorry, you are wrong again. You are the typical message board troll who wants to claim that a person who doesn't agree with you couldn't possibly have the education they have.

I passed and graduated several years ago.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

There are many reasons besides guilt to keep a defendant from taking the stand. One of those reasons is an unlikeable defendant. Casey is one because of her 'hard' look. Another I can recall is Tonya Harding who also is a hard looking woman, but I don't recall if she testified or not. Defendants who are not very articulate can do themselves more harm than good. They can look halting and uncertain in their answers which would cause the jury to think they were lying. Looking shabby can also go against a defendant even if it is the best they can do. Poor posture, looking lost....many many things other than guilt keep a defendant off the stand:

When the Defendant Takes the Stand - Articles - | DWI Defense - nydwi.com - New York's DWI lawyer - Ed Fiandach

She is her only chance, and I agree, she can't pull it off.

Well then. Now would be a good time to start a pot on how long the jury will deliberate. I suspect that they are already considering the holes in the prosecution's case.

My POINT,which you seem to have missed, was that just because a person doesn't take the stand that is not an guilty plea. If it were, there would be no point in having a trial. You could start with the defendant and end it right there.

Certainly, I hope the jury is willing to wait until they hear BOTH sides of this case, which you are not willing to do, before decreeing the woman be killed. Ah, but THEY have no choice!

These days, I clearly understand why there are groups in this country trying to do away with the jury system.

I suspect that you are wrong. I say that they find her guilty of 1st degree murder with a sentencing of Life in Prison, without the possibility of parole. No death penalty, though I would prefer it myself. Unless she admitted to the chloroform accident. ~BH

 

[Sunshine]

She is her only chance, and I agree, she can't pull it off.

Well then. Now would be a good time to start a pot on how long the jury will deliberate. I suspect that they are already considering the holes in the prosecution's case.

My POINT,which you seem to have missed, was that just because a person doesn't take the stand that is not an guilty plea. If it were, there would be no point in having a trial. You could start with the defendant and end it right there.

Certainly, I hope the jury is willing to wait until they hear BOTH sides of this case, which you are not, before decreeing the woman be killed. Ah, but THEY have no choice!

she is the only one that can back up the DT's assertion! Where have you been???

Well today, I have been to the pulmonologist and the cardiologist. Tomorrow I go to work. And Saturday I'm taking my family on a boat trip.


As I said before, there will be surprises in this case.

 

[Sunshine]

She is her only chance, and I agree, she can't pull it off.

Well then. Now would be a good time to start a pot on how long the jury will deliberate. I suspect that they are already considering the holes in the prosecution's case.

My POINT,which you seem to have missed, was that just because a person doesn't take the stand that is not an guilty plea. If it were, there would be no point in having a trial. You could start with the defendant and end it right there.

Certainly, I hope the jury is willing to wait until they hear BOTH sides of this case, which you are not willing to do, before decreeing the woman be killed. Ah, but THEY have no choice!

These days, I clearly understand why there are groups in this country trying to do away with the jury system.

I suspect that you are wrong. I say that they find her guilty of 1st degree murder with a sentencing of Life in Prison, without the possibility of parole. No death penalty, though I would prefer it myself. Unless she admitted to the chloroform accident. ~BH

Have you seen the pleadings? Are the lesser includeds in it or not? I have not seen them and will not act like I have. In a capital case, the judge is REQUIRED to offer the jury the option of convicting the person of a lesser crime.

 

[oldsalt]

I did all that research in law school. Thankyouverymuch. I predict the outcome of this case will shock a lot of people. And they will not convict her of manslaughter if that verdict has not been asked for. The lesser includeds must actually be included. Fancy that!

LOL, seems to me you didn't pass law school, based on your knowledge here.....

Sorry, you are wrong again. You are the typical message board troll who wants to claim that a person who doesn't agree with you couldn't possibly have the education they have.

I passed and graduated several years ago.

You are the typical message board troll who posts false qualifications. If you did go to law school, you didn't learn anything.

 

[Sunshine]

LOL, seems to me you didn't pass law school, based on your knowledge here.....

Sorry, you are wrong again. You are the typical message board troll who wants to claim that a person who doesn't agree with you couldn't possibly have the education they have.

I passed and graduated several years ago.

You are the typical message board troll who posts false qualifications. If you did go to law school, you didn't learn anything.

That was pathetic.

 

[Dabs]

Careful, fellas, Dabs doesn't like anyone discussing other cases... She always has her trigger finger on the neg rep.

You betcha, and btw Maggot, it takes a bitch to know a bitch.
So careful ladies, and gents, if you aren't on Maggot's good side, you'll be Rep-ed with being called a Bitch

I guess that is not much different than being called an Asshole.

Immie

Yes there is a difference

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Well then. Now would be a good time to start a pot on how long the jury will deliberate. I suspect that they are already considering the holes in the prosecution's case.

My POINT,which you seem to have missed, was that just because a person doesn't take the stand that is not an guilty plea. If it were, there would be no point in having a trial. You could start with the defendant and end it right there.

Certainly, I hope the jury is willing to wait until they hear BOTH sides of this case, which you are not willing to do, before decreeing the woman be killed. Ah, but THEY have no choice!

These days, I clearly understand why there are groups in this country trying to do away with the jury system.

I suspect that you are wrong. I say that they find her guilty of 1st degree murder with a sentencing of Life in Prison, without the possibility of parole. No death penalty, though I would prefer it myself. Unless she admitted to the chloroform accident. ~BH

Have you seen the pleadings? Are the lesser includeds in it or not? If not, it is either guilty of captial murder or not guily. I have not seen them and will not act like I have.

Well why not? You act like you know everything else because of your so-called "education"? Grab some wood there sister, and just calm down for a minute. I could really care less about your red diaper doper baby education. Nor do I give a crap about what your leftist professor brainwashed you with, told or taught you.

Fact is, You're playing the same spin artist game that your fellow Attorneys are playing on Fox, Nancy Grace and C.N.N every night and day. Let me guess something, you're a Defense attorney eh? ~BH

 

[Sunshine]

I suspect that you are wrong. I say that they find her guilty of 1st degree murder with a sentencing of Life in Prison, without the possibility of parole. No death penalty, though I would prefer it myself. Unless she admitted to the chloroform accident. ~BH

Have you seen the pleadings? Are the lesser includeds in it or not? If not, it is either guilty of captial murder or not guily. I have not seen them and will not act like I have.

Well why not? You act like you know everything else because of your so-called "education"? Grab some wood there sister, and just calm down for a minute. I could really care less about your red diaper doper baby education. Nor do I give a crap about what your leftist professor brainwashed you with, told or taught you.

Fact is, You're playing the same spin artist game that your fellow Attorneys are playing on Fox, Nancy Grace and C.N.N every night and day. Let me guess something, you're a Defense attorney eh? ~BH

Oh hell NO! I like money WAY to much to do something like THAT!

I find it most entertaining that people who have never darkened the door of a school of higher learning know ALL about the 'dammed librul collidge perfessers.' LOL. I hear that shit ad nauseum from illiterates day in and day out. It waxes ridiculous! BTW your fig leaf just fell off.

 

[Big Black Dog]

I'd bet my next pay check that she's guilty.

 

[Dabs]

I say the jury will be out less than one week....they may be back with a verdict within 3 or 4 days, that's my prediction.
And right now, the most honest thing for me to say, is--I hope she gets some prison time.
Whether it be the death penalty, or some number of years, she deserves to sit in a prison cell.
That's what I will be happy with, CA in prison.

 

[Dabs]

Crap happy double post *sigh* (sorry)

 

[Sunshine]

I'd bet my next pay check that she's guilty.

So you aren't big on hearing both sides either?

You would most likely want ME for a juror if you were accused of a crime, but I would not want you for a juror if I were similarly accused.