Casey Anthony NOT GUILTY & Sentencing Thread 6

[PixieDust32]

Oh how convenient, Cindy's family will tell everything on a book that they will be SELLING in a your neighborhood books store.

BS!!! Cindy lied under oath, so what credibility do they have? Here we go again with poor George under the bus.

I don't really care what they have to say anymore or what dirty laundry they want to sell, the point is that their baby was killed and dumped like trash in a swap and the killer Casey got away with it not to mention that Cindy lied to protect her, so the whole family are a carnival of crazy people.
Now they all have something to say, now they all want to write books, they all want to make $$$$$ with Caylee's tragedy! Disgusting!

 

[Nancy]

The one thing that bothers me about juror #2 is they said they could not figure out who Caylees care taker was. WTHeck? Cindy had no custody of Caylee and Cassey was free to leave with her child at any time. This is just another excuse to not come up with a verdict?

I know...this bothers me too. Let's see, Cindy was at work, George last saw her when he left for work...that leaves??????? UMMMMMM, gee who was with Caylee? And then there is direct evidence that later that same day Casey is seen without her daughter and starts her trail of lies. But they don't know who the caregiver was

 

[hambirg]

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.

Bolding mine.

According to the jurors we have heard from. . .they were confused by the forensic evidence (something about not knowing what to think about the chloroform). It is their responsibility to consider, compare and weigh that evidence. If they do not understand it, it is their duty to have it clarified.

Again, according to the jurors we have heard from, they thought the drowning or George's somehow involvement was reason they could not convict Casey. None of that was part of the evidence of this case.

If they would come forward and say they found Dr Voss to be uncredible, or any of the other forensic witnesses, then that would be one thing. But they haven't. Basically they said that they were confused, couldn't follow the logic, and they think the reason Casey acted so unreasonable during the 31 days of not reporting Caylee missing is because George was somehow involved in a cover-up with Casey based on him abusing her. Whaaaaa. . .

 

[rie'smom]

But Baez put him on trial.

Actually nope. George cannot sue for slander. Lawyers can pretty much say whatever during opening statements and have immunity. Its supposed to be good faith. A simple claim of client privilege and Baez is golden. Its been discussed repeatedly by attorneys. I think its unethical to claim something even, disparage another human without having any evidence to say so. He didn't have evidence, the Judge told him he couldn't bring it up during closing.

Baez played the system and worked on the jurors emotions. The jurors are instructed NOT to use openings as evidence, but as per juror statements, you can see they did.


Really, because they said so, its stronger? What evidence did they produce to show a stronger case? Unless you mean their case was able to poke holes ? Im confused by this, really I am.. What expert testimony refuted was enough to make their case stronger than the ENTIRE prosecution?

.

There were a couple of experts that devalued Dr G's findings. Then, there was also a witness who said that the area where Casey was first placed was not examined properly. Instead of digging in that space for clues, the police tramped all over looking for her bones and valuable evidence was likely lost. Looking for her remains should have come after a proper and thorough examination was done. These guys were very good and very knowledgeable.

I grew up in court - my dad was an assistant DA - and generally tend to lean towards the prosecution, and as I stated previously, I started out favoring that side. It was after watching and listening that I began to doubt the prosecution was going to get a guilty verdict. Not that I think Casey was innocent but besides their experts, the defense muddied the waters enough to cause reasonable doubt.

I feel like some of us watched a totally different trial. I didn't see that the defense had any type of case. I saw them make some serious accusations and because they didn't have the burden of proof, they didn't need to and didn't bother backing it up. They were counting on the jury hanging on those opening statements and they were right.

If the trial isn't already on youtube, it probably will be eventually. Watch it again and try to look at it without prejudice. I was totally shocked when I found myself realizing that the prosecution was going to lose their case.

 

[mrsdon]

I too am coming to peace with the verdict. I will continue to go to work at EPCOT, and go to Bingo..
My personal life will go on, just like it would if she was going to rot in jail for the rest of her life.
Im sure that there will be a new hot topic that we will feel passionately about in the future.
ICA is going to be walking out those doors JUly 17 and there is not one gosh darn thing we can do to stop it.
I truly wish that karma hits her very, very hard one day

 

[mrsdon]

A little OT here but my DH is snoring so loudly
is almost as loud as the South American tour groups that chant at Disney this time of year.... LOL

 

[joviroxx]

There were a couple of experts that devalued Dr G's findings. Then, there was also a witness who said that the area where Casey was first placed was not examined properly. Instead of digging in that space for clues, the police tramped all over looking for her bones and valuable evidence was likely lost. Looking for her remains should have come after a proper and thorough examination was done. These guys were very good and very knowledgeable.

Who Dr Spitz? Who claims the duct tape was placed on the skull AFTERWARDS? The one who says someone picked up the skull, put it together and then placed duct tape on it? The one who said that Dr G didn't follow protocol when not opening skull but upon cross exam had to admit that she followed all published protocol?

Valuable evidence possibly not being lost is not contradictory evidence.


Either way, almost time for the BB live feeds!

 

[hugApug]

I apologize if it has already been mentioned, as I didn't have time to read through the boards tonight, but was anyone else disgusted by Baez discussing how Caylee would have felt about her mom going through the trial? I'm extremely disappointed and shocked by the verdict, but even more disgusted by Baez stating that Caylee would not have wanted her "mother" to go through this trial. Dear Mr. Baez, Caylee probably would have also preferred to not have been dumped in a swamp.

On another note, in looking into my silly pug's eyes tonight, I realized that I have more love & affection for my dog than Casey Anthony had for her daughter. The thought of anything happening to her (monkey the pug) makes me teary eyed. Sweet Caylee deserved so much more.

 

[hellokitty86]

Either way, almost time for the BB live feeds!

 

[hellokitty86]

A little OT here but my DH is snoring so loudly
is almost as loud as the South American tour groups that chant at Disney this time of year.... LOL

On another note, in looking into my silly pug's eyes tonight, I realized that I have more love & affection for my dog than Casey Anthony had for her daughter. The thought of anything happening to her (monkey the pug) makes me teary eyed. Sweet Caylee deserved so much more.

I feel the exact same way...right down to the pug! (Did you see my post talking about how much I love your screen name? )

 

[joviroxx]

Richard hornsby's latest blog...LOL!!

http://blog.richardhornsby.com/2011/07/for-whom-the-sentences-toll/

A Final One Finger Salute to J. Cheney Mason

Finally, I wanted to give a single finger salute to J. Cheney Mason. During Mr. Mason’s (very deserved) victory speech, he declared:


I say that dog is lower than a snake full of buckshot
“Bias and prejudice and incompetent ‘talking heads’ saying what would be and how to be — I’m disgusted by some of the lawyers that have done this. I can tell you that my colleagues from coast to coast and border to border have condemned this whole process of lawyers getting on television and talking about cases they don’t know a damn thing about.”

Mr. Mason ended that sissy fit with a proclamation that the “talking heads” would be hearing from him and his team.

The following day I received several phone calls from various sources and reporters indicating that J. Cheney Mason had in fact not been sleeping through most of Ms. Anthony’s trial, but rather had actually spent the past month compiling a list of attorneys that he was going to go after, alleging either defamation or violation of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct.

Well J. Cheney Mason, I have only one response to that.

Call Me, I’m waiting…

Cheney, my office number is (407) 540-1551, so instead of cornering reporters and brow beating them for using me, feel free to pick up the phone like a man and call me whenever you “want to talk” about what has got your boots so tight.

But since I doubt you would ever do that, here are four other suggestions for you to consider:

1. Brush up on the word Hypocrite.

2. Review your own commentary about Jose Baez and Ms. Anthony’s case.
“You can pretty well predict there’s going to be a life sentence, either a plea and get it over with or have a circus trial and then be convicted and get life.” – J. Cheney Mason (12/12/2008)

“Then all the talking, all the press interviews and the parents going on this show and that show and the lawyer [Jose Baez] going on different shows establishes they have no credibility whatsoever.” - J. Cheney Mason (12/12/2008)

3. Read this little gem on the First Amendment.

4. Sit on this and rotate

 

[JessicaR]

Who Dr Spitz? Who claims the duct tape was placed on the skull AFTERWARDS? The one who says someone picked up the skull, put it together and then placed duct tape on it? The one who said that Dr G didn't follow protocol when not opening skull but upon cross exam had to admit that she followed all published protocol?

Valuable evidence possibly not being lost is not contradictory evidence.


Either way, almost time for the BB live feeds!

What are BB live feeds? Thanks!

 

[hugApug]

I feel the exact same way...right down to the pug! (Did you see my post talking about how much I love your screen name? )

I missed your post, but I'm glad you like my screen name and share the sentiment of loving a pug! I have had a hard time keeping up on this thread (due in large part to the hyperactive pug)!

 

[T*Bird]

I apologize if it has already been mentioned, as I didn't have time to read through the boards tonight, but was anyone else disgusted by Baez discussing how Caylee would have felt about her mom going through the trial? I'm extremely disappointed and shocked by the verdict, but even more disgusted by Baez stating that Caylee would not have wanted her "mother" to go through this trial. Dear Mr. Baez, Caylee probably would have also preferred to not have been dumped in a swamp.

On another note, in looking into my silly pug's eyes tonight, I realized that I have more love & affection for my dog than Casey Anthony had for her daughter. The thought of anything happening to her (monkey the pug) makes me teary eyed. Sweet Caylee deserved so much more.

I saw that and was thoroughly disgusted, too. I'm wondering if anyone else saw the Cheney Mason interview, I believe with Jean Casarez. In it he said something to the effect of, even though he was happy that Casey
was acquitted, it was still a tragedy that young Caylee died.......SOMEHOW. I don't remember his exact words, but the point was how he said Caylee died "somehow". Well, Cheney, according to the defense, Caylee drowned. Shouldn't you have said that, or was that a slip?

 

[hambirg]

The one thing that bothers me about juror #2 is they said they could not figure out who Caylees care taker was. WTHeck? Cindy had no custody of Caylee and Cassey was free to leave with her child at any time. This is just another excuse to not come up with a verdict?

Yeah. . .considering the definition is right there in their jury instructions.

“Caregiver” means a parent, adult household member, or other person responsible for a child’s welfare.

http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/04/jury-instructions-in-the-casey-anthony-trial/

 

[joviroxx]

What are BB live feeds? Thanks!

Oh, sorry, Big Brother!

 

[hugApug]

I saw that and was thoroughly disgusted, too. I'm wondering if anyone else saw the Cheney Mason interview, I believe with Jean Casarez. In it he said something to the effect of, even though he was happy that Casey
was acquitted, it was still a tragedy that young Caylee died.......SOMEHOW. I don't remember his exact words, but the point was how he said Caylee died "somehow". Well, Cheney, according to the defense, Caylee drowned. Shouldn't you have said that, or was that a slip?

I think that Cheney's omission of the drowning defense was deliberate. This defense team demonstrated through their direct actions that winning a case (can you say champagne and flipping the bird celebration) was more important than providing support for how Caylee died. The drowning defense "stuck" in the opening statements, but was obviously baseless. Still waiting for proof.... For Caylee's sake, I hope that her death was painless & accidental, but I HIGHLY doubt it.

 

[irishbosoxfan]

ya but by that you could say judges are bought.

there are cases that do not go to juries but are judged by the judge alone.

if professional juriors are part of the legal system then maybe they should have some kind of legal background. it would be their job

or at least part of it.

I go back to medical students who get loans and have to serve a certain amount of time in the community.

I think this would work for professional jurors as well. Get new graduates in the fields of law and forensic etc and have them do 6 months/ year as jurors.

This would cut back on the failure to comprehend not only the instructions but the evidence as well. Hopefully it would mean that more sound finding is reached.

I've been away from my computer for a while, so I'm really behind on this thread. But I saw something on TV tonight that really angered me. On Nancy Grace tonight, a clip was played of an interview with Chaney Mason. I believe the interviewer was Jean Casarez. In the interview, CM said something about the loss of Caylee, who died SOMEHOW. Now I am not quoting him, because I don't remember his exact words. But the way he said "somehow" said to me that the whole drowning story was not even believed by the defense. You would think he would have said that Caylee drowned, not that she died "somehow". Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but I found it to be very telling and a slip by CM.

I think him and JB are covering their collective asses from lawsuits being filed by Texas Equusearch and the like. Distancing themselves from their OS in the hopes ppl forget about it and they can just slink away.

I'm still pretty much thinking it would be awesome if she were accidentally hit by a bus.

I seen this and thought of you.

http://www.break.com/pictures/the-best-casey-anthony-pwns-3-2080263

Warning...contains swear words

 

[Wadecool]

Mare! When you finish The Usual Suspects, might I suggest The Runaway Jury?

Remember that silly finger pistols thing Baez did in front of the camera on the morning of the jury verdict, before the jury had actually given the verdict? It's almost as if he knew something then, isn't it?

 

[Conservative Hippie]

Wow that was fast. Here's Cindy's 2nd cousin starting the Casey reputation rehabilitation train, with George all the way under the bus and with Cindy and Casey starting anew together:

http://krbe.com/portals/1/audio/rrshow/interviews/070611_CASEYANTHONY_familymember.mp3

Now who was the other person in the family who was also writing a book? Was she a cousin on George's side of the family, so she'll have a different story?

"My family may kill me for saying this." Not something I would joke about with the Anthonys!

And "surprise, surprise," more talk about how there should have been a lesser charge. Do these people not know anything about the trial whatsoever??