Casey Anthony NOT GUILTY & Sentencing Thread 6

[Bella the Ball 360]

I will also call the jurors stupid...plain and simple.

I would also call them morally bankrupt. Who sits for 6 weeks, listening daily to testimony of a child murder, then gets rewarded with a trip to Disney?

How could you walk around my happy place with blood on your hands?

Disney has forever tarnished their reputation. What's next...Casey get's the castle suite? They put her in a parade? She gets her bun glittered at the BBB?

I know Disney is a business, but sometimes taking a firm stand against paying ANYONE associated with this tragedy is better than the money they gained from their involvement.
ETA I messed up your quote so I put my response in bold. Sorry

Wait I was under the impression that ABC sent her to Disney. I do agree that to take your family to Disney on what is for all intents and purposes blood money is just as heartless as Casey's actions. JMHO

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

See, I hate that idea. Yes, this jury does seem to have not done their job. But revealing their names serves no purpose. Except no-one will ever want to serve on a jury again. And that will totally be the end of our system of justice.

I agree--it really sets them up.

But--are juror names customarily released after a trial? If that is SOP, then it would be injustice to keep it sealed permanently.

 

[Bella the Ball 360]

I think it was mentioned up thread or maybe on another thread that this was not true.

I think it is hilarious that even the porn industry won't touch her with a ten foot pole.

No pun

 

[Aisling]

I still cannot understand how if there was no proof to them that Casey killed Caylee how is there any proof that it was an accident and that George covered it up which is what is starting to come out as something many on the jury think???

With all due respect to you and all who feel the same way, the fact that you don't understand means you're missing something that the jurors DID understand, about the law.

 

[Aisling]

No pun

and

 

[joviroxx]

I agree--it really sets them up.

But--are juror names customarily released after a trial? If that is SOP, then it would be injustice to keep it sealed permanently.

I realize its the juror's choice, but Im conflicted about this.

First, you have George. These jurors have people believing George is an abuser and has something to do with this. Part of me thinks they owe him an explanation. You just can't hit and run.

Second, part of me has a nagging issue with the whole, don't release my name, but I will release it for a price!

The only reason I think they shouldn't be released is that , in this case, there are too many really unstable people out there that can be dangerous. Media is out of control and it really might be a safety issue.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

A long time ago not only innocent people killed for crimes they didn't do and we also hung 7 year olds for theft. Do we really want to go back to that?

How did you get any of that from what I posted?


The legal system is more complicated than it used to be--I didn't say do away from a jury of your peers nor suggesting killing innocent people or hanging 7 year olds.

A simple--"please read the law and understand that you do not (even though you said you would if you needed to) don't have to give the death penalty"--explanation would have been enough.


Casey need not be killed for the crimes....

But they would not convict because they didn't want her to be killed even though it was totally within their power to make sure that she wasn't.

However, if you read that I want to kill 7 year olds for stealing....there ain't much I can do about that level of misunderstanding.

 

[bumcat]

Not sure if this has been posted. She will be out of jail July 13th.

 

[Wadecool]

I seriously doubt she will be walking around Orlando. Her lawyers will probably arrange to have her taken to an undisclosed location for her own safety, and the safety of the public. Baez stated he fears for her safety. It's not like you will run into her at the 7-11.

It doesn't matter what they do, where they release her, etc. In this age of cell phone cameras, twitter, FB, and the rest of it, people will find her wherever she goes and that's just a fact. I can guarantee that TMZ, Radaronline, and National Enquirer already have their best investigators in place ready to track her down. Anything short of Casey being put into the Federal Witness Protection Program isn't going to keep her from being located.

 

[DianeV]

NO I was actually pointing out that according to the law they quote they contradict themselves by saying they believe it was an accident based on what they were told but that was never proven either..

With all due respect to you and all who feel the same way, the fact that you don't understand means you're missing something that the jurors DID understand, about the law.

 

[mill4023]

No , there is difference between I feel she is guilty and I think she is guilty. Im not one to say something without believing it. If I tell you I think she is guilty its because Im convinced of it beyond a reasonable doubt. There was something that led me to that opinion and I didn't come to it willy nilly.

Really?
"I think" you have a very different way of interpreting the English language than most people.
I hear people say "I think..." all the time when they aren't completely sure about something.
Even just today at work, I've used those words several times when I wasn't sure "beyond a reasonable doubt".

In fact, most people I hear speaking actually use "I think" to start a sentence for the specific reason of indicating some uncertainty.

Question: Are you going to be at the meeting tomorrow?
Answer: Yes (indicates certainty)
Answer: I think so (indicates uncertainty)

I don't form opinions based on nothing. If I wasn't convinced I would say, She may be guilty but Im not sure. THAT I can understand. If you say you think she is guilty, but think the Prosecution did not prove their case, why do you think that? I can't believe it was just out of the air. There was some evidence that led you to your personal belief. Whether the prosecution presented it or you saw it elsewhere, do you form opinions without any kind of fact?

Its not about 80% or 90%. Its about no other reasonable explanation. And NO other explanation given by the defense is reasonable to me. If I follow the legal jury instructions, there is no REASONABLE doubt. Drowning? no evidence.. Abuse? No evidence.. George involved? Evidence to the contrary and on and on....

Im tired and I don't make sense LOL! This board have given me too many reasons to avoid working!

Like I said, I haven't followed this case, so I can't personally say whether I would have had any reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented.

I was just responding to the question about how someone could say they think something is true, but it hasn't been proven.

But based on some of your other statements, I'd also like to point out that the defense does not have to prove their case. It's almost as if you are implying that there should have been a guilty verdict just because the defense didn't prove she was innocent or that someone else was guilty.

 

[Mrhardy]

SHE IS GUILTY .. go to caseyisguilty.info and click "like" or discuss it..

just must be served

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I am really upset by the Disney connection here. Remember while it is all "Disney," ABC/ABC News is a separate entity than Walt Disney World Theme Parks and Resorts, Disney Cruise Line, Lake Buena Vista Entertainment, etc. If you want to write a letter, I would start with ABC News: 7 West 66th Street, New York, NY 10023

ABC runs on their own and while the $$ may intermingle on some level...the CM at Space Mountain had no control over that decision process.

 

[LisaR]

I am really upset by the Disney connection here. Remember while it is all "Disney," ABC/ABC News is a separate entity than Walt Disney World Theme Parks and Resorts, Disney Cruise Line, Lake Buena Vista Entertainment, etc. If you want to write a letter, I would start with ABC News: 7 West 66th Street, New York, NY 10023

Maybe I am just trying to make excuses for Disney but I am guessing/hoping they didn't have anything to do with the deal. I am assuming Juror #3 contacted ABC or they contacted her and she said she would do the interview if they sent her to Disney. ABC probably jumped at that opportunity since they have a lot of comp tickets they can hand out and they have an "in" with reservations.

I just wish she had asked for a gift card from Brains-R-Us instead. She could have had her brain updated with a comprehension chip!

 

[joviroxx]

But based on some of your other statements, I'd also like to point out that the defense does not have to prove their case. It's almost as if you are implying that there should have been a guilty verdict just because the defense didn't prove she was innocent or that someone else was guilty.

No, but the prosecution put on over 300 pieces of evidence . The jurors say they are believing the accident theory. I question why they would believe an accident theory with no evidence from statement from an admitted and convicted liar. They believe George lied with no evidence presented of this but they believe Casey?

As a defense, you just can't throw things into a statement and want it to stick. This is why the Judge did not allow the mention of abuse in the closing statement. But I think the jury did not disregard this as instructed. Opening arguments are NOT evidence.

If they hadn't put on a defense, I might look at it different, but they did. The story does put reasonable doubt into the equation when what they are saying can not be true. It provides POSSIBLE doubt , it provides SPECULATIVE doubt, but not reasonable.

 

[Mosoh]

With all due respect to you and all who feel the same way, the fact that you don't understand means you're missing something that the jurors DID understand, about the law.

Wow - no. Again, do you still beat your kids?

There was zero evidence that George had anything to do with this. It was mentioned in OS only. He owed duct tape, he denied it and Cruz testimony was not proof of an accident per JP instructions.

The jury clearly did not understand their duty under the law or didn't care.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Maybe I am just trying to make excuses for Disney but I am guessing/hoping they didn't have anything to do with the deal. I am assuming Juror #3 contacted ABC or they contacted her and she said she would do the interview if they sent her to Disney. ABC probably jumped at that opportunity since they have a lot of comp tickets they can hand out and they have an "in" with reservations.

I just wish she had asked for a gift card from Brains-R-Us instead. She could have had her brain updated with a comprehension chip!

Dollars to donuts, ABC paid for the trip--maybe they get an employee discount, but I seriously doubt that the resorts and ticket counter had any control on saying--NO, do not give it to THAT person.


Of course, I do not know without a shadow of a doubt that that is how it works...but I'm pretty positive that ABC doesn't call the CEO or whatever the top position is at WDW and begs permission to give away freebie trips.

 

[Bella the Ball 360]

Maybe I am just trying to make excuses for Disney but I am guessing/hoping they didn't have anything to do with the deal. I am assuming Juror #3 contacted ABC or they contacted her and she said she would do the interview if they sent her to Disney. ABC probably jumped at that opportunity since they have a lot of comp tickets they can hand out and they have an "in" with reservations.

I just wish she had asked for a gift card from Brains-R-Us instead. She could have had her brain updated with a comprehension chip!

 

[cabanafrau]

I would not attack a juror personally or feel ill will toward them.

Critical and skeptical about this jury's functioning? You betcha!

Agreed.

I'm steamed that they didn't put more care into reading the elements of all of the crimes put before them, particularly when there are indications several may have voted guilty on some charges early on. Being a juror is a sober & solemn duty. They swore an oath & had a responsibility to the Defendant, whose liberty was at stake. They also had a responsibility to the victim, the victim's loved ones and society.

I can see room not to find first degree murder, although understanding what I do about the elements of that crime I could have voted to convict. As for the manslaughter & child abuse charges, no way do I believe you can make a case to find her not guilty & shame on the jurors for not taking more care with their responsibilities.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

There was zero evidence that George had anything to do with this. It was mentioned in OS only. He owed duct tape, he denied it and Cruz testimony was not proof of an accident per JP instructions.

The jury clearly did not understand their duty under the law or didn't care.

Exactly--

It seems they considered items as proof that they were not to consider as evidence at all.

I really think the character assassination of George went beyond the scope of proving reasonable doubt and essentially put George on trial without due process.

The judge even declared that Baez did not prove what he accused George of.

What I don't understand--and perhaps those satisfied with the jurors decision would join in a sidebar discussion on why or why not it is acceptable to make accusations of George as a defense with ZERO evidence to back it up. Was his right to due process violated? Is it okay to make accusations (of any sort) of another citizen an acceptable manner of defense?

I don't think so--my DH disagrees. Even when I tried to paint a picture...of how it would be possible for someone to do the same to him, or me, or you.

I just wonder--when did this become an acceptable defense strategy and is it constitutionally sound?

Thanks for indulging in that sidebar topic.