Casey Anthony NOT GUILTY & Sentencing Thread 6

[dandave]

No problem at all. You do not have to know when a body was dumped to know if a crime happened. They don't know when Bundy built his shrine of skulls on Tiger Mountain. . .doesn't prove he didn't kill those woman in ANY way! You don't have to even know exactly when a crime occurred to know that it did, in fact, occur.

Let's say you live alone and you leave for work and leave a cake on the table. You come home and the cake has been eaten. Any rational, reasonable person can infer that the dog ate the cake. We don't have to know exactly when he ate the cake. . .and we don't even have to know any of the details as to how or why he ate the cake. The simple fact that the cake has been eaten, the dog was the only one with access to the cake is enough to come to a reasonable conclusion. . .no? Now, in this case, the dog is looking at you with "wasn't me eyes" and if he could talk to you he would blame it on your imaginary cat. Is it still reasonable to believe the dog ate the cake? Yeppers.

See, I wouldn't be able to send the dog to the pound for life, on that little bit of info. A few neighbors and friends have keys to my house. My sons have keys. DH has a key. My mother in another state has a key. We lost one key. Nope. I'm not going to be able to lock the dog away.

 

[sbtrfly74]

Let's say you live alone and you leave for work and leave a cake on the table. You come home and the cake has been eaten. Any rational, reasonable person can infer that the dog ate the cake. We don't have to know exactly when he ate the cake. . .and we don't even have to know any of the details as to how or why he ate the cake. The simple fact that the cake has been eaten, the dog was the only one with access to the cake is enough to come to a reasonable conclusion. . .no? Now, in this case, the dog is looking at you with "wasn't me eyes" and if he could talk to you he would blame it on your imaginary cat. Is it still reasonable to believe the dog ate the cake? Yeppers.

LOL i like this... maybe someone should sent it to JP and add it to future jury instructions.

 

[dandave]

Because Casey had been living an imaginary life for the last two years. . .and now Caylee was talking. Casey's whole fraud of a life was going to come to an end very soon, because Caylee was now able to verbalize and rat her out. Not that Caylee could have even began to understand the lies her mother had been telling, but she surely was going to be able to tell CA and GA and anybody else who asked that, "No Mommy was not at work. Who's Zanny? I was at Tony's with Mommy." There ya go. the stealing money was small potatoes compared to what was about to be revealed.

They don't put you in prison for having imaginary nannies and friends. Cindy would have raised heck, but that's it.

 

[Mosoh]

But the fact that Jose could sling it without any repercussions absent any evidence--the TH said that IS an issue in our legal system.

It could happen to any one of us given just the right dysfunctional defendant and opportunistic attorney.

Now that this case has been lost I agree that changes need to be made



Their reasonable doubt was based on the OS and a confusion of the choices of guilt. We can conclude based on the few that have come forward this is the case. That and their haste indicates they didn't even doubt themselves, so the blah blah defense that they weren't lawyers is lost.

Be honest, only idiots fall for loaded questions anyhow.....just saying

 

[sbtrfly74]

See, I wouldn't be able to send the dog to the pound for life, on that little bit of info. A few neighbors and friends have keys to my house. My sons have keys. DH has a key. My mother in another state has a key. We lost one key. Nope. I'm not going to be able to lock the dog away.

But if you can prove that your neighbor was at work, your friends were on vacation and your son and hubby were at a baseball game. Then u can still put the dog away but maybe not for life.

 

[hambirg]

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.

Holy , Batman!

 

[dandave]

But if you can prove that your neighbor was at work, your friends were on vacation and your son and hubby were at a baseball game. Then u can still put the dog away but maybe not for life.

Not if anyone with a key gives me a suspicious answer or if I know that they have a record of lying, however.

 

[sbtrfly74]

Not if anyone with a key gives me a suspicious answer or if I know that they have a record of lying, however.

Wait I thought the dog was the liar?

Sorry, I'm just really having fun with this cause it actually is probably a more intelligent conversation that what was in the jury room.

 

[hambirg]

They don't put you in prison for having imaginary nannies and friends. Cindy would have raised heck, but that's it.

You asked why Casey would do it. And there ya go. Casey was able to lie to LE and everyone else, friends and family for that matter, to keep up her charade. . .she was not thinking about consequences, only about how she was going to continue her fraud of a life. What was of the utmost importance to her was hiding from CA that she was not being a good mom and that she was out partying and sleeping around. . .not that she was going to go to prison.

 

[mickeyboat]

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.

I absolutely do not think it was acceptable to accuse George in that manner. I think it borders on the unethical. I don't believe Baez had a good faith basis to back up his claims, and he made those accusations simply as an effort to "ring a bell" and for "shock value."

I got a completely different vibe about George than the jury did. I thought he was a broken man, but not for one moment did I feel he was not credible.

 

[hambirg]

You're talking about means and opportunity here (I've read my share of whodunnits ). I have asked myself who else had means and opportunity in Caylee's case, and unfortunately Casey is not the only one. Because Caylee was missing for 31 days Casey had to know about her death (or have some other reason for hiding the fact that she was missing), but that does not mean she had anything to do with the actual death (one possibility is that she discovered it and helped hide it for some reason unknown to us). My point is that Casey murdering Caylee is not the only possibility. Whether these other possibilities are reasonable or not is a matter of judgement and assessment of evidence, and I can't say right now whether, if I had been sequestered and had to analyze only what was admitted into evidence, I would have made a different decision. I know I would not have gone for murder (where intent had to be proven), but manslaughter would depend on whether I felt the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that Casey was responsible in some way for Caylee's death (rather than just for all the crap that came afterwards).

I can agree with that.

 

[dandave]

You asked why Casey would do it. And there ya go. Casey was able to lie to LE and everyone else, friends and family for that matter, to keep up her charade. . .she was not thinking about consequences, only about how she was going to continue her fraud of a life. What was of the utmost importance to her was hiding from CA that she was not being a good mom and that she was out partying and sleeping around. . .not that she was going to go to prison.

I think the Anthony's only put up with Caycee and supported her for Caylee's sake. That's why Cindy didn't want Caycee prosecuted for felony theft - Caylee loved her. I really feel that's why she hid Caylee's death. Like she told the cops, "If anything happened to that little girl, I know my mom would never forgive me."

sbtrfly, No worries! That #$%$ dog!

 

[Mosoh]

I absolutely do not think it was acceptable to accuse George in that manner. I think it borders on the unethical. I don't believe Baez had a good faith basis to back up his claims, and he made those accusations simply as an effort to "ring a bell" and for "shock value."

I got a completely different vibe about George than the jury did. I thought he was a broken man, but not for one moment did I feel he was not credible.

So where in the testimony were these accusations backed up?

I ask because you are full swing in defense of the jurors but this has been mentioned now from their mouths they believe it.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

It looks like this movement is actually going to go forward. There is already a representative drafting legislation.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article...online-petition-builds-interest-after-verdict

It is so sad that we have to make laws like this. I wonder if Cindy will support it?

Oh, she'll want to be there for the signing and the photo op.

Well.. Baez was told to stop touching Casey in the jail....

Yeah, he's a special one, that guy.

Anyone see the interview with Richard Grund, Jesse's father on InSession? I wouldn't be surprised if they re-show it on Vinnie Politan's show later on. Very insightful and interesting. They really welcomed Casey and Caylee into their lives, knowing Caylee wasn't Jesse's. They still have the stroller they used for Caylee.

 

[wvjules]

MikeDeForest6 Lightning has just struck the Caylee memorial on Suburban Dr., according to OCSO. No injuries. You can't make this stuff up. #CaseyAnthony

Confirmed by several sources. I can't wait to see the pictures of that. It brought a smile to my face.

 

[mickeyboat]

So where in the testimony were these accusations backed up?

I ask because you are full swing in defense of the jurors but this has been mentioned now from their mouths they believe it.

I never said they were backed up. I don't think they were and I don't think that Baez had any good faith intention to back them up. I actually wonder if sanctions might be appropriate.

That being said, it was the jury's job to determine the credibility of the witnesses. Apparently they did not feel he was credible. The following excerpt is from the jury instructions:

"WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE

It is up to you to decide what evidence is reliable. You should use your common sense in deciding which is the best evidence, and which evidence should not be relied upon in considering your verdict. You may find some of the evidence not reliable, or less reliable than other evidence.

You should consider how the witnesses acted, as well as what they said. Some things you should consider are:

1. Did the witness seem to have an opportunity to see and know the things about which the witness testified?

2. Did the witness seem to have an accurate memory?

3. Was the witness honest and straightforward in answering the attorneys' questions?

4. Did the witness have some interest in how the case should be decided?

5. Does the witness' testimony agree with the other testimony and other evidence in the case?

6. Has the witness been offered or received any money, preferred treatment or other benefit in order to get the witness to testify?

7. Had any pressure or threat been used against the witness that affected the truth of the witness' testimony?

8. Did the witness at some other time make a statement that is inconsistent with the testimony he or she gave in court?

You may rely upon your own conclusion about the witness. A juror may believe or disbelieve all or any part of the evidence or the testimony of any witness."

Many of these considerations are so subjective that it is understandable that two people could easily disagree about whether someone was credible or not.

 

[hambirg]

Did you lock all the windows? Maybe the meter reader used his stick to slide the cake near the window and ate it? Then he moved the plate back into position. I bet there are crumbs in the woods Just be sure to wash the plate, he probably peed on it!

Don't forget the dog was molested by Winnie the Pooh at one time.

 

[diznygirl]

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!

I worked for Disney in Burbank. Yes, the different divisions all operate separately, but you could definitely call in a Disney favor. There was a department for handling requests. We were able to arrange for characters at an event to impress the clients. Our department paid that department.

It's also publicity. Disney is smarmy that way. Have you watched a Disney parade on TV, or the new show on HGTV? Just long commercials for the parks.

No problem at all. You do not have to know when a body was dumped to know if a crime happened. They don't know when Bundy built his shrine of skulls on Tiger Mountain. . .doesn't prove he didn't kill those woman in ANY way! You don't have to even know exactly when a crime occurred to know that it did, in fact, occur.

Let's say you live alone and you leave for work and leave a cake on the table. You come home and the cake has been eaten. Any rational, reasonable person can infer that the dog ate the cake. We don't have to know exactly when he ate the cake. . .and we don't even have to know any of the details as to how or why he ate the cake. The simple fact that the cake has been eaten, the dog was the only one with access to the cake is enough to come to a reasonable conclusion. . .no? Now, in this case, the dog is looking at you with "wasn't me eyes" and if he could talk to you he would blame it on your imaginary cat. Is it still reasonable to believe the dog ate the cake? Yeppers.

But you can't put a dog on the stand.

 

[MaryAnnDVC]

Confirmed by several sources. I can't wait to see the pictures of that. It brought a smile to my face.

Tree struck by lightening near where Caylee's remains were found:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...thony-tree-lightning-20110707,0,4949678.story

 

[usnuzuloose]

Confirmed by several sources. I can't wait to see the pictures of that. It brought a smile to my face.

Who is this?