Casey Anthony NOT GUILTY & Sentencing Thread 6

[Lisa loves Pooh]

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.

We will go in circles for all of eternity...

George was not reasonable doubt....it was not reasonable, because Jose failed to prove what he promised. It was not reasonable, because Jose was only allowed to treat George the way he did because he was trying to prove something.

Had that been never allowed to occur--where is the REASONABLE doubt?

 

[joviroxx]

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.

Prosecutors mess up (plenty have had their opinion on that), Defense lawyers makes mistakes and Judges make mistakes. Juries can as well.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

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

Well technically--we just have a he said/she said. There is no proof of an affair either.

 

[Mosoh]

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.

That's a good sentiment and I have felt that way in some cases. One is always a source of embarrassment for me (Westerfield )

If it comes to light that they disregarded the laws and guidelines while reaching that verdict will you still feel the same way?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

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.

And that is a travesty.

 

[Kurby]

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

she's slowly gaining wait again (she lost almost 1 full pound of that fluid but it's all out now) she's at 6lbs 8oz now.

they put her in some clothes yesterday so we brought some onesie's down but the smallest ones we have are 10lbs. she's swimming in them

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

she's slowly gaining wait again (she lost almost 1 full pound of that fluid but it's all out now) she's at 6lbs 8oz now.

they put her in some clothes yesterday so we brought some onesie's down but the smallest ones we have are 10lbs. she's swimming in them

I have been forgetting to express how happy I am that she is doing so well!

Not sure if I missed it, any idea on when she gets to come home?

 

[dandave]

Perhaps *she* should do some homework before asking uninformed questions and demanding that other people prove their points without doing obvious research for him/herself. Otherwise she/he comes over as quite lazy and quite unnecessarily argumentative.

Yep, it is a *fun* board. But emotions run high on many supposedley "fun" threads and some genuinely heartbreaking stuff gets discussed.

Compassionate posters have a little common sense, and the ability to skip a thread if they just want to argue. I've throttled myself and sat on my fingers on many other threads.

"Entertaining yourself" is not kind. Or sensible. Or productive.

Look at the FIRST POST. And have a very lovely day.

That is all I have to say to you.

walden, I stepped out of this thread earlier, and I said my very polite goodbyes.
When I was asked to cite my source last night, I did so. I asked the same, and all I got were attitudes such as yours. No one can show me any source or any testimony that goes against that of Maria Kissh. That's fine, though. I really didn't expect it, as I said.
If I wanted to look at the first post, then I would. I have no desire to do so. I watched the entire trial. I do not care what your opinion is. I came over to discuss the verdict, originally. I encountered a lynch mob in a frenzy. Instead of getting upset, I decided to see the humor in it. So much craziness in one thread devoted solely to examining Caycee Anthony's... craziness. Ironic, huh?
Please, don't hurt yourself holding back whatever else you have to say to me, walden. Let it out. Life is short.

 

[walden]

OK. From now on I'm looking for the Mare's grand-baby and Kurby's Nicole updates on this thread. So glad to hear that Nicole is doing well and I dearly hope will be home with Kurby soon. Waiting with bated breath on Mare's grand kid.

I'm just sick and tired of people wanting to be brought up to speed on the Casey trial after the fact. The charges, the evidence, the silly jurors who have come forward, trying to explain their lack of understanding of their duty and the law, and all of that garbage (or trash).

I take my hat off to those who are continuing to argue with the marginally informed, but I'm taking a time out. I'm just temporarily tired of educating the deliberately obtuse and those who are just "entertaining" themselves..

I need some deep breaths before I post again.

I'm not a chemist.

To the regulars here. You are such good people.

 

[mickeyboat]

We will go in circles for all of eternity...

George was not reasonable doubt....it was not reasonable, because Jose failed to prove what he promised. It was not reasonable, because Jose was only allowed to treat George the way he did because he was trying to prove something.

Had that been never allowed to occur--where is the REASONABLE doubt?

I can't say for certain, but I can speculate that the reasonable doubt, since it permeated all the counts charged, lies in the lack of evidence that Casey herself committed an act that led to Caylee's death.

I think that because there was no manner of death (homicide by unspecified means) and because there was no evidence that linked Casey herself to the dump site (like soil samples), the jury did not feel beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty (legally guilty).

It wasn't the fault of the prosecution, it was just because the evidence was not available.

 

[joviroxx]

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

And he had every right to be combative. He was being questioned by a man who was making false accusations, calling him a child molester, saying he faked a suicide attempt and other baseless accusations. I would have been combative too!

As a matter of fact there was actually testimony that showed George WASN'T involved. His suicide letter, no access to casey's car and the fact that nothing was impeached!

As far as the affair, well besides the point that it doesn't have any bearing, it is his word against hers.

All this just tells me the jurors heard the OS and ran with it. People always want to believe there has to be a reason people are evil like Casey and sexual abuse helps them accept that. But the truth is, its not true in this case.

 

[Mosoh]

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

How do you conclude he lied about an affair with no solid proof, that he lied about knowing what happened with no proof but believe ICA about his involvement and the drowning with no proof?

(you meaning in general, the jury)

 

[mickeyboat]

Well technically--we just have a he said/she said. There is no proof of an affair either.

So it is up to the jury to make the determination of what they think is credible.

 

[Kurby]

I have been forgetting to express how happy I am that she is doing so well!

Not sure if I missed it, any idea on when she gets to come home?

the dr today said maybe next week but who knows - there's like a dozen dr's that do rounds so it really depends on who you get on what day.

one the other day thought maybe by the weekend she'd be stepped down to level 2 which means just days before she comes home - today it's sometime next week for level 2.

i'm starting to think Mare will see her grand daughter before Nikki comes home

 

[mickeyboat]

How do you conclude he lied about an affair with no solid proof, that he lied about knowing what happened with no proof but believe ICA about his involvement and the drowning with no proof?

(you meaning in general, the jury)

This is exactly what the jury is supposed to do. They are the "trier of fact." They judge credibility based on what they heard in the courtroom. They don't really need solid proof. And since credibility is a subjective thing, it is absolutely possible for one person to come to a different conclusion than someone else.

 

[mickeyboat]

the dr today said maybe next week but who knows - there's like a dozen dr's that do rounds so it really depends on who you get on what day.

one the other day thought maybe by the weekend she'd be stepped down to level 2 which means just days before she comes home - today it's sometime next week for level 2.

i'm starting to think Mare will see her grand daughter before Nikki comes home

In my experience, it is the nurses who know what is really going on. I sure hope she comes home soon!

 

[denisem]

And I contend that a finding of reasonable doubt does not require any belief or proof in an alternative theory. <snip>

I'm stunned by that statement.

 

[Nancy]

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

I don't know that he lied about an affair. The person who said they had an affair sold her story to the National Enquirer, told police something different and then said they did have an affair in court..she is the proven liar...yet you believe her over George?

 

[mickeyboat]

I'm stunned by that statement.

Why? Did you read the jury instruction?

 

[mickeyboat]

I don't know that he lied about an affair. The person who said they had an affair sold her story to the National Enquirer, told police something different and then said they did have an affair in court..she is the proven liar...yet you believe her over George?

No I don't believe her, but I can see why a juror might.