Casey Anthony NOT GUILTY & Sentencing Thread 6

Status
Not open for further replies.
It was more of a rhetorical question, but some on this thread do present themselves as being some of the greatest thinkers of our time. One never knows when all the answers will spill forth from a Diser.
I'm sure that a Disney Free Dining Offer or some such will come out soon and distract everyone's attention from world events, once again. But I have packing to do, so ta-ta for now! :)

There are Hours of testimony you can sift through. Just because you want others to do your work for you to answer your lingering questions doesn't prove anything.

The testimony is there, as it as for the jurors, if you need clarification.:surfweb:
 
It was more of a rhetorical question, but some on this thread do present themselves as being some of the greatest thinkers of our time. One never knows when all the answers will spill forth from a Diser.
I'm sure that a Disney Free Dining Offer or some such will come out soon and distract everyone's attention from world events, once again. But I have packing to do, so ta-ta for now! :)


Really? I thought it was a real question.
 
It was more of a rhetorical question, but some on this thread do present themselves as being some of the greatest thinkers of our time. One never knows when all the answers will spill forth from a Diser.
I'm sure that a Disney Free Dining Offer or some such will come out soon and distract everyone's attention from world events, once again. But I have packing to do, so ta-ta for now! :)

Aren't you a critical one.
 

Which friend? Again, I didn't hear that.

I'm trying to find the answer for you. It's hard to look through weeks of testimony. I asked on another message board that follows this case closely and I was told that the date was wrong, that they went on June 6th, before Caylee died.

I'll keep trying to find the link.
 
Simple. You would admitting that you no longer have leverage to stay out of jail for felony theft. The leverage died by whatever means!

Cindy would NEVER turn Casey in. She begged her mother not to call the cops when Casey stole her grandfathers money.

Bottom line is, Casey hated her parents more than she loved Caylee and that is why Caylee is no longer with us.
 
Peg,

You basically called everyone who disagrees with the verdict and jury conduct a sore loser. Never mind that the opinions may be well thought out.

You didn't have to call anyone else out personally over it. Your intent was clear.

It went beyond expressing your opinion. Then you blame others for not likig that you disagreed. What they didn't like was the indignant manner you chose to express your disagreement. (that is my observation)

Lisa, You are right. And, if you go back to my original post, you will find that I edited that part out. After posting, I realized that I went to far. Unfortunately, it had already been quoted. For that I apologize.

My problem is not how you all think. You are all entitled to your opinion. I, however, feel that I am entitled to my opinion. My opinion is that I think it is wrong to be insulting the jurors. That is my opinion and I will stick with it.
 
So I guess that if the shoe were on the other foot then you would not have a problem with them coming back with a guilty verdict? I am just asking a valid question, and asked if you would think about your answer before you answered it. I am not making fun or lite of you. Just asking a valid question.

No I would not have had a problem if they came back with a guilty verdit.
 
Pardon? The question was: Which friend contradicted Maria about having ridden in Caycee's car and noticing absolutely no smell, after Caylee went missing.

I understand you question.

I also understand you have come to a conclusion based on earlier posted without knowing all the facts presents.

This is not how it is supposed to work.

As I recall Maria testimony was fuzzy at best on the date and JB took liberties. But another witness clarified when Kish was in the car and Kish poss. a week BEFORE Caylee died.
 
I wasn't directed this at YOU personally. It is directed to those in general that I see bad mouthing the jury members. They did their job as they believed it should be done. Whether you or anyone else likes the result, they did what they were asked to do.

I find it really sad that people are now slamming the jury. But then, we all had information they did not have. We had years to develop our opinions. They did not. If they had, they would not have been on the jury. Most of us developed our opinions by discussing it for months with others. The jurors were not allowed to talk about it until deliberation began. Very easy to cast stones from the outside.

You can believe anything you want. I am also entitled to my opinion. It seems every time I express an opinion different than yours, you jump on me and accuse me of telling your what to think. Last time, you said it was my method. All I did then was express an opinion different than yours. You seem to take it as a personal attack. I don't remember ever directing anything to you. Believe me, I won't. Maybe you are taking it personally because my opinion differs from yours. I left the prior threads because I didn't want to upset people, but I really don't think I should have to leave because my opinion isn't the one of popular choice.
I honestly don't care if you post here or not. Any sort of disagreement towards you, and you would announce that you didn't feel welcome and you were leaving, each time. I said it to you early on, or to someone else...you're certainly free to stay or to leave as you see fit. I have since ignored any statements (until today) you have made that you don't feel welcome and aren't coming back, for that very reason...whatever makes you feel sensitive, if you don't want to be on a thread (or, read and not post), that's up to you. I've made that decision myself many many times over the years, as others have, I'm sure.

You didn't say me specifically about thinking the jury would be considered saints, but I'm certainly in the group, along with others here, who believe the jury got it wrong. You lumped everyone together, and that lump included me.

In prior threads, you questioned why the big deal about THIS trial, yet you were one of the few on each and every thread, with the inside information because you said it was on TV daily in your area. It seemed as tho you were as enthralled as anyone, yet you had an issue with everyone else. That's what I pointed out before, and that's what offended you. :confused3

You think the jury deliberated correctly and made the correct decision. Wonderful! I, and others, had questions and doubts about their deliberations and their verdict, which are being proven in the jurors' statements and experts' evaluations, not just a DISer who was on a jury.

We all KNOW that the verdict sticks, that this is our system, etc. We get it. Done deal.

But YOU called those of us who feel this way about the jury decision "sore losers" who would have been calling the jurors "saints" if the verdict was different, and you consider THAT just "a different opinion" and not personal??
 
I'm trying to find the answer for you. It's hard to look through weeks of testimony. I asked on another message board that follows this case closely and I was told that the date was wrong, that they went on June 6th, before Caylee died.

I'll keep trying to find the link.

Why keep trying? Let him go find it himself if he is really interested.
 
I understand you question.

I also understand you have come to a conclusion based on earlier posted without knowing all the facts presents.

This is not how it is supposed to work.

As I recall Maria testimony was fuzzy at best on the date and JB took liberties. But another witness clarified when Kish was in the car and Kish poss. a week BEFORE Caylee died.

Yes! Thank you!
 
ok we need another poll.

i'm guessing KC wants Angelina to play her and Joe Pecci can be baez. and instead of saying "blah blah blah" he can say "ok ok ok anything Baez wants Baez gets"
 
http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anth...uilty-verdict-lesser-charge/story?id=14017505

Casey Anthony juror Jennifer Ford believes that prosecutors could have won a guilty verdict if they had brought a lesser charge than first degree murder, which carried the possibility of the death penalty, for the death of 2-year-old Caylee Anthony.

"If they charged her with other things, we probably could have gotten a guilty verdict, absolutely," Ford said today on "Good Morning America." "But not for death, not for first-degree murder. That's a very substantial charge."


I'm really confused. Did they even read the other two options they had that weren't for the DP? I'm assuming they did since they had to mark it as not guilty. :sad2:
 
Lisa, You are right. And, if you go back to my original post, you will find that I edited that part out. After posting, I realized that I went to far. Unfortunately, it had already been quoted. For that I apologize.

My problem is not how you all think. You are all entitled to your opinion. I, however, feel that I am entitled to my opinion. My opinion is that I think it is wrong to be insulting the jurors. That is my opinion and I will stick with it.


I agree--insulting them is uncalled for.

I don't find calling someone incompetent an insult in this context I'd it is shown that they may have been incompetent.

I had an employee once who was quite incompetent. In my venting, I do insult her because my bosses ignored my very rational arguments regarding her incompetence. But, my bosses and human resources finally realized there was merit to my observations when she tried to blame me for a company rule that she broke. I was quite professional in speaking of her incompetence---but she was indeed incompetent.


Calling them stupid and dumb and village idiots is insulting. But I can also see that people are simply frustrated as there is no recourse.


A long time ago, the legal process was much more simple. Over 200+ years it has grown complicated and we would be fools to not understand where things went wrong.

The number of people that call the state incompetent for their case boggles my mind.

Why can't we look at the jury who is admitting that they needed more proof. I am incensed as we speak because I hear people blaming the state for not proving things that were absent and not legally required. And refusing to conceit because of sentencing concerns. (it seems they were unanimous that they couldn't sentence her to die if I am inferring correctly--so what was the issue?)

If we have juries who require more than the law--then they are no different than those who find truly innocent people guilty.

I is something that needs revisiting.
 
ok we need another poll.

i'm guessing KC wants Angelina to play her and Joe Pecci can be baez. and instead of saying "blah blah blah" he can say "ok ok ok anything Baez wants Baez gets"

NO WAY I think Katie Perry is better for KC and Liam Neeson for Ashton, Angelina should play LDB....yeah I know they are not all that similar but we need to take dramatic license Someone said before that Jon Lovitz should play Baez and I tend to agree.
 
http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anth...uilty-verdict-lesser-charge/story?id=14017505

Casey Anthony juror Jennifer Ford believes that prosecutors could have won a guilty verdict if they had brought a lesser charge than first degree murder, which carried the possibility of the death penalty, for the death of 2-year-old Caylee Anthony.

"If they charged her with other things, we probably could have gotten a guilty verdict, absolutely," Ford said today on "Good Morning America." "But not for death, not for first-degree murder. That's a very substantial charge."


I'm really confused. Did they even read the other two options they had that weren't for the DP? I'm assuming they did since they had to mark it as not guilty. :sad2:

Hold the presses....a juror didn't the the facts when rendering a verdict.

Nonononononono, we've been told over and over that just can't be :headache:
 
I believe some of these jurors knew this was going to be a big case and did see noteriety and $$$. From what I have seen and read many were not even paying attention during the trial. I believe many already made up their minds that if they voted not guilty they would make money because of course people would want to know why. Some have even insinuated that they made up their mind at opening statement which they arent even supposed to do!

If they had voted guilty would anyone really care or want to talk to them? How would they make any money?

This may sound cynical but I dont know what else to think when I see the jurors and how obvious from what they are starting to say that they did not follow the instructions given and in fact, did not even take enough time to deliberate fairly. The alternate juror accidentally said 'we' many times. If he wasnt involved in the deliberations then how did he know what they were all thinking? They obviously talked about it.

I am disappointed that anyone who initially felt she was guilty gave in after such a short time. I would be interested to know what exactly makes a person change from guilty of first degree murder to not guilty of anything in a 10 hour time span. And then at some point they were equally split on manslaughter? How does that change like that so easily and quickly?

yes people are attacking this jury. They come across as not doing their job correctly. The fact that they are now looking for money to speak tells alot too

And in the meantime their personal gain lets someone get away with murdering her daughter. And if playing devils advocate she accidentally drowned, you dont make it look like a homicide. And her dad being former law enforcement how could he or why would he want to cover up an accident?

Jurors and others readily believe that George could have been involved or covered it up but was there any more proof of that then that Casey killed her? yet that is what we are hearing over and over that it must have been some horrible accident. HOW does anyone know that any more than it was a homicide?
::yes::
Per Aphrodite Jones, Baez and Casey has signed on to the William Morris agency already. :rolleyes:
I think I'm going to throw up. What else is the William Morris Agency associated with that I can boycott?
Peg,

You basically called everyone who disagrees with the verdict and jury conduct a sore loser. Never mind that the opinions may be well thought out.

You didn't have to call anyone else out personally over it. Your intent was clear.

It went beyond expressing your opinion. Then you blame others for not likig that you disagreed. What they didn't like was the indignant manner you chose to express your disagreement. (that is my observation)
Agreed. Mine too.
Tweet:

A self proclaimed liar is believed over a man with no history, with NO proof presented.....
Still can't get over that. Bizarre.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anth...uilty-verdict-lesser-charge/story?id=14017505

Casey Anthony juror Jennifer Ford believes that prosecutors could have won a guilty verdict if they had brought a lesser charge than first degree murder, which carried the possibility of the death penalty, for the death of 2-year-old Caylee Anthony.

"If they charged her with other things, we probably could have gotten a guilty verdict, absolutely," Ford said today on "Good Morning America." "But not for death, not for first-degree murder. That's a very substantial charge."


I'm really confused. Did they even read the other two options they had that weren't for the DP? I'm assuming they did since they had to mark it as not guilty. :sad2:
Here's Mare calling that juror an idiot.
 
I will go to my grave never understanding their reasoning.

I think juries may need mediation. Not meant to be an insult---but it seems they need a period of hand holding and walking through the charges and evidence.

I would have held out and demanded it!

They should also be provided with the Case law findings, such as the Supreme Court Ruling on circumstantial evidence.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anth...uilty-verdict-lesser-charge/story?id=14017505

Casey Anthony juror Jennifer Ford believes that prosecutors could have won a guilty verdict if they had brought a lesser charge than first degree murder, which carried the possibility of the death penalty, for the death of 2-year-old Caylee Anthony.

"If they charged her with other things, we probably could have gotten a guilty verdict, absolutely," Ford said today on "Good Morning America." "But not for death, not for first-degree murder. That's a very substantial charge."


I'm really confused. Did they even read the other two options they had that weren't for the DP? I'm assuming they did since they had to mark it as not guilty. :sad2:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.















Receive up to $1,000 in Onboard Credit and a Gift Basket!
That’s right — when you book your Disney Cruise with Dreams Unlimited Travel, you’ll receive incredible shipboard credits to spend during your vacation!
CLICK HERE













DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter DIS Bluesky

Back
Top