Casey Anthony NOT GUILTY & Sentencing Thread 6

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Ummm....no where did she say there was something wrong with it. She said there are amendments to the original constitution so over time people thought it needed to be changed. I took it to mean that just cause something is the "American way" doesn't mean it can't be changed and made better.

Precisely!

If people did not stand up and protest what they felt were very grave issues with America--those amendments would have never gotten written.

To assume that juries are without error and that we shouldn't look into it and just accept it as is...

is a tragedy.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

That's not what they said. They said that needed changes had been made to the Constitution in the past.

Exactly!

 

[joviroxx]

But can you see how determining someone's credibility based on those considerations is so subjective, and how two people can be presented with the same information but conclude completely different conclusions?

No , not in this case. Casey vs George.
Casey= Liar, evidence against her, lies proven
George= not evidence he is lying, in fact, evidence he is NOT lying

Not that subjective to me. Worst case, disregard both.

Look at the end of the day, jurors need to use common sense. They are told to make inferences. Its an evaluation, its common sense, its seeing what is reasonable vs what is just possible and then using ALL of this to come up with the most logical verdict.

That is how I see it and will continue to see it. Like the song says, That's my story and Im sticking to it (kinda like Casey LOLOL)

 

[mickeyboat]

It was tongue in cheek sarcasm to demonstrate a point.

Many think what this jury did was acceptable because they are the jury and we are entitled to a jury by our peers. They feel it is blasphemous to have an issue with what they did.

If we just accepted our constitution as it was originally written...then we would be lacking many basic civil liberties right now.

Questioning on whether or not a system needs to be improved is the American Way.

Accepting our country is fine just the way it is...

That is not what the constitution is all about.

But feel free to draw any conclusions you would like out of what I said--by inferring what I did not mean.

Thank you for clarifying. Please see post # 1665.

Of course there is room for improvement in our judicial system. It was created by humans, it is administered by humans. Humans make mistakes.

I feel that what the jury did was acceptable because I can understand how they would have been able to find reasonable doubt. I don't happen to share that doubt, but I can look beyond my own beliefs to see how they could come to a different conclusion than mine.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I apologize if I misunderstood, but I guess I don't understand how her comment applies to the discussion.

Since folks are generalizing the dissent, I went on a limb and generalized those who accept the verdict as is without complaint. The system works fine as it is. They choose to ignore the possibility that jurors are under more influence to make decisions that are not legally sound because the may have watched a little too much CSI or believed a heinous accusation towards another citizen who was not given the benefit of a trial by the jury of HIS peers.

That is my generalization. That those who think our system is fine because it is the best in the world and jurors are infallible--

likely 200 years ago would have been fine with the way things were because it was America!

John Adams didn't throw anyone under the bus with allegations to defend his clients. That's a Jose Baez thing.

 

[brunette8706]

Just think about the chances that lightning would strike that tree, today! there is a lot of energy at that site. It's just amazing. Whether you believe in signs or God or karma, there is something there. Very cool!

*
HI! Yes, dear God and His Angels are outraged too! Just remember .."You Reap What You Sow.."

 

[mhsjax]

Okay I know this is kind of off topic but the public relations person for the court I think her name is Levy .....darn but she needs some conditioner OR a no frizz product for her hair.

Wow, this poor woman is working her butt off in Orland where it is hot as hall and humidity of about 100% and some of you have the nerve to get mad when we insult the jurors. You people are a real class act.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Thank you for clarifying. Please see post # 1665.

Of course there is room for improvement in our judicial system. It was created by humans, it is administered by humans. Humans make mistakes.

I feel that what the jury did was acceptable because I can understand how they would have been able to find reasonable doubt. I don't happen to share that doubt, but I can look beyond my own beliefs to see how they could come to a different conclusion than mine.

I don't feel anything to discredit George on a baseless and unprovable allegation (with not so much as a therapist testifying on Casey's behalf--what, no therapy intervention needed?) was a valid reasonable doubt. In fact, it should have never been brought up in trial.

It angers me that all reasonable doubt points to him--and the only reason it does is because of what Jose did.


We can't let the guilty walk by condemning other people who are equally as innocent until proven guilty. George is not guilty here--there is no proof of what he did. Not a shred of proof. He was entitled to a day in court if his daughter wished to press charges. (Statute of limitations may have been an issue...I had some trouble reading that law. )

 

[mickeyboat]

Since folks are generalizing the dissent, I went on a limb and generalized those who accept the verdict as is without complaint. The system works fine as it is. They choose to ignore the possibility that jurors are under more influence to make decisions that are not legally sound because the may have watched a little too much CSI or believed a heinous accusation towards another citizen who was not given the benefit of a trial by the jury of HIS peers.

That is my generalization. That those who think our system is fine because it is the best in the world and jurors are infallible--

likely 200 years ago would have been fine with the way things were because it was America!

John Adams didn't throw anyone under the bus with allegations to defend his clients. That's a Jose Baez thing.

I couldn't agree with you more. Although I am not outraged by the jury's verdict, I definitely think Baez's character assassination of George with the baseless charges in his opening statement is disgusting and unethical. I wonder if he violated any ethical rules by getting the jury so wound up about sexual abuse - especially in such a graphic way.

I also fear the CSI effect. Maybe juries expect a smoking gun and refutable direct evidence in order to convict. But is it possible that since science has become such a long way that this is an acceptable standard of reasonable doubt?

I don't know the answers. But it is an interesting discussion.

 

[rie'smom]

You stated:


All I asked you, and maybe I can reword it.. Do you think that juries always get it right? Just asking your opinion. I never claimed you stated the jury was right or wrong, that's why I asked.. Wasn't a personal attack....

It is not up to me to decide if juries always get it right or wrong because I'm not in their seats. If you want to know if I think Casey had something to do with Caylee's death, yes, I do. At the same time, I understand why the jury voted the way they did.

 

[joviroxx]

I don't feel anything to discredit George on a baseless and unprovable allegation (with not so much as a therapist testifying on Casey's behalf--what, no therapy intervention needed?) was a valid reasonable doubt. In fact, it should have never been brought up in trial.

It angers me that all reasonable doubt points to him--and the only reason it does is because of what Jose did.


We can't let the guilty walk by condemning other people who are equally as innocent until proven guilty. George is not guilty here--there is no proof of what he did. Not a shred of proof. He was entitled to a day in court if his daughter wished to press charges. (Statute of limitations may have been an issue...I had some trouble reading that law. )

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

That's what I just can't get past. There was nothing to prove he lied. Even if you want to include the River woman's testimony and think she was being completely honest, that would be one lie compared to a tsunami of lies from Casey. He exhibited open, raw emotion on the stand, and she exhibited disgusting behavior after he child died. The conclusions they reached are unfathomable in my opinion.

And an affair does not make him a child molestor...and he would not be the first one to turn to someone else in grief.

 

[mickeyboat]

I don't feel anything to discredit George on a baseless and unprovable allegation (with not so much as a therapist testifying on Casey's behalf--what, no therapy intervention needed?) was a valid reasonable doubt. In fact, it should have never been brought up in trial.

It angers me that all reasonable doubt points to him--and the only reason it does is because of what Jose did.


We can't let the guilty walk by condemning other people who are equally as innocent until proven guilty. George is not guilty here--there is no proof of what he did. Not a shred of proof. He was entitled to a day in court if his daughter wished to press charges. (Statute of limitations may have been an issue...I had some trouble reading that law. )

And I contend that a finding of reasonable doubt does not require any belief or proof in an alternative theory. Here is the jury instruction that pertains to reasonable doubt:

"PLEA OF NOT GUILTY; REASONABLE DOUBT; AND BURDEN OF PROOF

The defendant has entered a plea of not guilty. This means you must presume or believe the defendant is innocent. The presumption stays with the defendant as to each material allegation in the indictment through each stage of the trial unless it has been overcome by the evidence to the exclusion of and beyond a reasonable doubt.

To overcome the defendant's presumption of innocence, the State has the burden of proving the crime with which the defendant is charged was committed and the defendant is the person who committed the crime.

The defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything.

Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following:

A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt.

Such a doubt must not influence you to return a verdict of not guilty if you have an abiding conviction of guilt. On the other hand, if, after carefully considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, there is not an abiding conviction of guilt, or, if, having a conviction, it is one which is not stable but one which wavers and vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt and you must find the defendant not guilty because the doubt is reasonable.

It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.

A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence or the lack of evidence.

If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.

 

[Mosoh]

That's what I just can't get past. There was nothing to prove he lied. Even if you want to include the River woman's testimony and think she was being completely honest, that would be one lie compared to a tsunami of lies from Casey. He exhibited open, raw emotion on the stand, and she exhibited disgusting behavior after he child died. The conclusions they reached are unfathomable in my opinion.

I have been looking and I agree. The only conclusion I can see is they took the OS into account.

Jury 3 claimed he was combative with both pros. and defense....but I can only recall his being combative with JB (who accused him of both abuse and hiding the body). Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only testimony I recall regarding George sparring with Ashton was when they were referring to depositions

 

[IDoDis]

Sorry if this has already been posted.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-90qlEwYgoyo/ThVNUjjW4YI/AAAAAAAAAkU/_s5Qr8MAQdo/s320/OJ_Casey.jpg

Just a little humor to add to a sorry situation!

 

[Bella the Ball 360]

Wow, this poor woman is working her butt off in Orland where it is hot as hall and humidity of about 100% and some of you have the nerve to get mad when we insult the jurors. You people are a real class act.

I stand by my comment. If one works in public relations, part of the job is related to one's appearance.

 

[chris1gill]

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.

Apparently from one of the jurors herself she did not understand. Have we come up with one reasonable scenario that did not involve Casey yet?

OMG! IT'S A GIRL!! I'M GOING TO HAVE A GRANDDAUGHTER!!

CONGRATULATIONS!!! I would love to have another little girl to buy for some day, I'm excited for you!! Imagine all the fun you guys can have together!

I dont understand why anyone would say they didnt find George credible by how he acted?

This is a man who was just publicly accused of molesting his daughter and covering up a drowning with absolutely no proof

I am sure he was trying very hard not to jump out of his seat and attack Baez. I give him credit for being as calm as he was

I agree....

Very interesting thought! Yes, I'm wondering about this now, too. Not only are the instructions hard to understand, I heard they consisted of several pages, not like a page or two.

I saw that the day it was posted. If I was a juror doing my job I can honestly say it would have taken me hours to go through to understand every charge and every burden placed on the charge, not minutes.

she's doing well - no real change. the dr said it might be sometime next week that she can come home : was hoping that they'd have stepped her down sooner but they are taking it really slowly

Well, this is good news! Next week is right around the corner! How much does she weigh now?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

It is not up to me to decide if juries always get it right or wrong because I'm not in their seats. If you want to know if I think Casey had something to do with Caylee's death, yes, I do. At the same time, I understand why the jury voted the way they did.

Let me ask you...
If we took all of George's allegations out....

keeping in mind that some of the line of questioning was only allowed because Baez was trying to PROVE he abused Casey and the Judge determined that once defense rested it was NOT proven...

keeping in mind that River Cruz was only allowed to impeach him on the affair questioning that was only allowed because of the allegations in opening...

If Baez would not have been permitted to proffer and provide actual evidence to the allegations and in not having any proof been prohibited from addressing it in any way....

that takes George's "shifty ways" out of the equation...

So without ANY reference to George in ANY way....

Could the Jury have achieved a different verdict? I think they might have.

We will never know...

But they doubted George from day 1...because of Jose...and allegations that were never ever proven in trial.

The very proof that people expect from the state for Casey, they do not require of George. Why is that?

 

[mickeyboat]

And an affair does not make him a child molestor...and he would not be the first one to turn to someone else in grief.

But lying about having an affair does shed some doubt on his credibility, which can extend to any of his other testimony.

 

[Kurby]

And an affair does not make him a child molestor...and he would not be the first one to turn to someone else in grief.

him having an affair or not has nothing to do with anything in this case. that's between him and cindy. it came down to who you believe (well rather who the jury chose to believe) george or whatever she wants to be called now.

most of us lean towards george but some the scorned women.

personally, short of a video tape of the crime i don't think that jury would have convicted no matter what the evidence showed.