Casey Anthony NOT GUILTY & Sentencing Thread 6

[Wadecool]

I just saw where the PR firm who agreed to represent Baez has just dropped him because of the uproar.

 

[usnuzuloose]

Someone tell me that Jennifer Ford was not the LEADER of the group. Please....

I'm hoping some checks and balances come into being regarding juries. maybe a professional foreman or a mediator; or just someone in the room that assures the rules are followed like reminding them what can and can't be considered when deliberating.

There needs to be change in the jury system. There needs to be someone in the jury room watching. All the bullying people to make them change their minds would stop. Your suppose to trust a jury, after this one and the OJ trial I dont trust members of a hight profile case anylonger. I think most of them are looking for dollar signs.

Juror #2 said they werent sure who the caregiver was of Caylee. So with that how can they even mark the box on the special finds form that she wasnt the care giver. They werent sure it was anyone else in the house either. To me if you cant say who it was you cant mark either box.

Casey has no job, so which attorney is going to give her 20 a month to pay her bill? With most people that will get old after a while and stop giving the money. Casey will stop hanging with Baez when nothing is left for him to offer her. I am sorry but if you are found innocent you deserve no protection from the state. You are on your own. I mean how long does protection continue ater being released? She is going to have to take her chances. Baez cant hang with her every minute. Unless he is going to give up his law firm. Cant imagine his wife would go for that very long.

 

[bumcat]

Just thought I'd share:

"Casey Jury Brainwash" - Written by: Marcia Clark

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...red-jury-fell-prey-to-idiotic-groupthink.html

I think this is what so many here are trying to say. Well worth the read.

 

[usnuzuloose]

I just saw where the PR firm who agreed to represent Baez has just dropped him because of the uproar.

Okay what did I miss? What PR firm? And represent him for what?

 

[MyManGoofy!]

Pretend the defense didn't say a word. Rely only on what evidence the prosecution presented. Would that alone be able to provide reasonable doubt?

We don't know exactly how she died. The prosecution surmised that it was suffocation from the duct tape, but the coroner was not able to make this finding. We also don't have any forensic evidence of whether the duct tape was placed on her mouth before or after she died. It was there before decomp but was it there before she died? We can assume it was before she died because why would someone put duct tape over the mouth of someone who was already dead?

We don't know where she died. We can assume that it was at the Anthony home because of the presence of the duct tape, the blanket and the sticker - which was all shown to have come from the Anthony home.

We don't know who killed her. We can surmise that it was Casey because she was the last person known to have been with her and because she wanted to be free from the responsibilities of being a mother. We can also assume it was Casey since she didn't report her missing for 31 days and she lied over and over about where she was.

We don't know who put her body in the swamp. We can assume that it was Casey because it was close to the Anthony home and it was where people often buried their dead pets. But there is no forensic evidence tying her to the dump location.

Look at all the "surmises" and "assumes." There are a lot of connections between the circumstantial evidence and a lot of little leaps the jurors would have had to make in order to convict. They were not able to make those leaps beyond a reasonable doubt.

And as a caveat, my position is that she did it. I think I could have probably convicted. But I can see how the jury might have seen things differently.

Um - those "assumes" and "surmises" are reasonable inferences. And heck yeah the jury is supposed to make them. There is no case in the world where assumptions or inferences would NOT have to be made unless the jury witnesses the crime.

Your post really highlights the misunderstandings that so many have regarding the duties of a jury.

 

[joviroxx]

Pretend the defense didn't say a word. Rely only on what evidence the prosecution presented. Would that alone be able to provide reasonable doubt?

We don't know exactly how she died. The prosecution surmised that it was suffocation from the duct tape, but the coroner was not able to make this finding. We also don't have any forensic evidence of whether the duct tape was placed on her mouth before or after she died. It was there before decomp but was it there before she died? We can assume it was before she died because why would someone put duct tape over the mouth of someone who was already dead?

We don't know where she died. We can assume that it was at the Anthony home because of the presence of the duct tape, the blanket and the sticker - which was all shown to have come from the Anthony home.

We don't know who killed her. We can surmise that it was Casey because she was the last person known to have been with her and because she wanted to be free from the responsibilities of being a mother. We can also assume it was Casey since she didn't report her missing for 31 days and she lied over and over about where she was.

We don't know who put her body in the swamp. We can assume that it was Casey because it was close to the Anthony home and it was where people often buried their dead pets. But there is no forensic evidence tying her to the dump location.

Look at all the "surmises" and "assumes." There are a lot of connections between the circumstantial evidence and a lot of little leaps the jurors would have had to make in order to convict. They were not able to make those leaps beyond a reasonable doubt.

And as a caveat, my position is that she did it. I think I could have probably convicted. But I can see how the jury might have seen things differently.

Mickeyboat, I know we aren't ever going to agree LOL, but Ill just answer this way...

If you say the prosecution is surmising, well, of course they are, But they are backing it up. This idea that we need some kind of proof positive smoking gun is ridiculous . There is usually NO SUCH THING.

We aren't assuming. The prosecution is putting on their case and they are backing it up with pictures, testimony and experts. You aren't assuming anything. You can decide you don't believe it, but you aren't assuming or surmising at this point.

The juror has to decide if what they are being told has the proof behind it. I say yes . Why? Because there is no other reasonable, logical explanation.

From both sides, Caylee either died at home or in the car. (Where doesn't really matter as its not needed to prove she was murdered as per jury instructions) So we KNOW that. Its also been accepted and asserted that a family member was involved. Pro says Casey, Def says Casey/George .Those 2 facts are made, accepted,acknowledged. If you go on your own and assume or think it could be different, well then, you aren't paying attention as BOTH explanations admit only family members.

So, now you have to look at the family members.

George - there is no proof to either implicate him or to bring a reasonable suspicion that he was a part of it. The only thing we have is a claim from Casey, a known liar. In fact, there is actual clear evidence that he didn't know where Caylee was . he might have known his daughter did something, but not what nor where Caylee was. There is plenty to exonerate him.

Cindy- same thing. In fact, here, I would understand more guilty suspicion as she is a liar but she is the one that called the police

Casey- she made up the stories, she hid it, she didn't report it, she partied, she drove the car, she was last seen with Caylee, and on and on

If you logically take the evidence and balance it with what we known and proven, there is no other conclusion. You have to connect the dots. Its only 1 of those 3 as stated in court. No other suspects. No other scenarios. Now you can surmise and make inferences as instructed. Either Casey did it, or Caylee drowned and George covered it up. That is it. That is what was presented. I submit there is only 1 logical conclusion and there is no REASONABLE doubt.

In this case, the defense didn't just say the Prosecution was wrong and left you to come up with alternate scenarios on your own, they GAVE you the alternate scenario. You believe one or the other, period. And if you don't believe any of them, well then, that's a bigger issue cause you think the defense is lying.....

 

[snapppyd]

Of course! Casey has no use for Cindy anymore..... She has her new friends and her new possibilities for money...

Sounds like it's Cindy looking to make money here

 

[LisaR]

I just saw where the PR firm who agreed to represent Baez has just dropped him because of the uproar.

Looks like Jerry Springer might have an opening for him!

Jerry Springer has offered $1mil for an interview w/ ICA but CA,GA and LA have to be there as well...

If this is the only offer they get is some crap show then I can live with that.... but still wont watch it.

Would be great if any Credible shows, news programs, etc just go with the overwhelming consensus and boycott giving them the time of day and not care about their ratings.

If there is one show the Anthony family would fit in with perfectly, this would be the one.

 

[ajksmom]

not a debate i'm trying to figure out how that could be reasonable doubt.

yes it was 2 experts but the second expert got all confused on cross and had a hard time answering questions because it didn't seem to fit his "theory" about what he thought happened.

putting a stull back together and putting tape on it after it's already decomposed isn't reasonable doubt - it's far fetched - it doesn't make any sense at all. why would someone do that? not to mention Kronk - what reason would he have to do it.

i honsetly don't understand what his motive would be - he didn't get the money. he called in august and was ignored - why take the body away for months then put it back and call again.

Both of the experts believed in their own theory. Both the prosecution and the defense allowed these experts the ability to testify to it during the trial.

Why does Kronk even need to be considered when discussing the duct tape? The theory of his involvement was in the OS and never proved otherwise, so the jurors shouldn't have been thinking about Kronk.

 

[joviroxx]

Sounds like it's Cindy looking to make money here

You think? How so?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Pretend the defense didn't say a word. Rely only on what evidence the prosecution presented. Would that alone be able to provide reasonable doubt?

We don't know exactly how she died. The prosecution surmised that it was suffocation from the duct tape, but the coroner was not able to make this finding. We also don't have any forensic evidence of whether the duct tape was placed on her mouth before or after she died. It was there before decomp but was it there before she died? We can assume it was before she died because why would someone put duct tape over the mouth of someone who was already dead?

We don't know where she died. We can assume that it was at the Anthony home because of the presence of the duct tape, the blanket and the sticker - which was all shown to have come from the Anthony home.

We don't know who killed her. We can surmise that it was Casey because she was the last person known to have been with her and because she wanted to be free from the responsibilities of being a mother. We can also assume it was Casey since she didn't report her missing for 31 days and she lied over and over about where she was.

We don't know who put her body in the swamp. We can assume that it was Casey because it was close to the Anthony home and it was where people often buried their dead pets. But there is no forensic evidence tying her to the dump location.

Look at all the "surmises" and "assumes." There are a lot of connections between the circumstantial evidence and a lot of little leaps the jurors would have had to make in order to convict. They were not able to make those leaps beyond a reasonable doubt.

And as a caveat, my position is that she did it. I think I could have probably convicted. But I can see how the jury might have seen things differently.

No, I don't think there is reasonable doubt--and that is because circumstantial evidence IS evidence. There have been many convictions where the only conclusion one could draw is that the accused committed the murder.

The leaps aren't leaps at all--except to those who REQUIRE DNA or some other literal evidence that explicitly ties the accused to the crime.

We won't agree--and that is fine...

 

[usnuzuloose]

Put them on Jerry Springer, ok lets cause more trouble to an already disfunctional family just for money. Would Baez also be there to collect his fair share from casey? Might as well go for it I guess and drag in the jury while your at it. All for the love of money and nothing for Caylee who cant come back.

 

[CurlyGirl]

But:
1) Plenty of expert testimony showing how it was there before decomp
2) The mandible was held together and found together with the tape on it
3) The mandible is NEVER found attached to the skull therefore testimony that the duct tape was there before decomp and was the reason it was held together
4) Defense theory was someone picked up the bones, put it all together and THEN placed the tape on it
5)expert testimony that the condition of the tape shows it had been there much longer than it would have needed to be if the defense theory was true.
6) Defense offered a 2nd theory about using to wrap the body as they Anthony family used to wrap their pets
7) Defense theories contradict each other. Which one is it?

I still can't wrap my head around the fact that people seem to believe that unless the prosecution had a picture of caylee with the tape around her face before she decomposed, its not provable evidence.

Thank you ... and agreed!!!

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

The grand jury indicted her for murder without a body!!! Whatbsort of evidence did this jury need!?? Wowzaaa

I think Grand Juries deciding indictment have much less of a burden than it takes to get a conviction for murder.

People do get indicted but later not get convicted.

Casey isn't the first in that regard.

 

[snapppyd]

Breaking news from FOX


CA requsted a video jailhosue interview for 7pm tonight with ICA
ICA declined the request

You think? How so?

Cindy requested a video interview. Who is filming it and for what purpose?

 

[brunette8706]

Mickeyboat, I know we aren't ever going to agree LOL, but Ill just answer this way...

We aren't assuming. The prosecution is putting on their case and they are backing it up with pictures, testimony and experts. You aren't assuming anything. You can decide you don't believe it, but you aren't assuming or surmising.

The juror has to decide if what they are being told has the proof behind it. I say yes . Why? Because there is no other reasonable, logical explanation.

From both sides, Caylee either died at home or in the car. (Where doesn't really matter as its not needed to prove she was murdered as per jury instructions) So we KNOW that. Its also been accepted and asserted that a family member was involved. Pro says Casey, Def says Casey/George .Those 2 facts are made, accepted,acknowledged. If you go on your own and assume or think it could be different, well then, you aren't paying attention as BOTH explanations admit only family members.

So, now you have to look at the family members.

George - there is no proof to either implicate him or to bring a reasonable suspicion that he was a part of it. The only thing we have is a claim from Casey, a known liar. In fact, there is actual clear evidence that he didn't know where Caylee was . he might have known his daughter did something, but not what nor where Caylee was. There is plenty to exonerate him.

Cindy- same thing. In fact, here, I would understand more guilty suspicion as she is a liar but she is the one that called the police

Casey- she made up the stories, she hid it, she didn't report it, she partied, she drove the car, she was last seen with Caylee, and on and on

If you logically take the evidence and balance it with what we known and proven, there is no other conclusion. You have to connect the dots. Its only 1 of those 3 as stated in court. No other suspects. No other scenarios. Now you can surmise and make inferences as instructed. Either Casey did it, or Caylee drowned and George covered it up. That is it. That is what was presented. I submit there is only 1 logical conclusion and there is no REASONABLE doubt.

In this case, the defense didn't just say the Prosecution was wrong and left you to come up with alternate scenarios on your own, they GAVE you the alternate scenario. You believe one of the other, period. And if you don't believe any of them, well then, that;s a bigger issue.

*
Excellent points. Connect the dots. It wasn't a drowning, that did NOT make sense. If the child did in fact drowned why wasn't she in her bathing suit? Why was duct tape put over her mouth and nose? If she's dead you would not need duct tape. Another thing why would Casey be partying up a storm the weeks after the baby was missing?? I'll tell you why because she did not care about the baby, hense the tatoo "Bella Vita". Heck did anyone even listen to Tony Lazzaro's testimony (Casey's boyfriend) from May 2008 - July 2008? His testimony was very powerful. He kept saying that Casey told him the baby was with the Nanny, and the baby was Nanny at Cocoa Beach, and other theme parks. There was no nanny. That nanny did not exist. She knew right there that the baby was dead. You have to goggle Tony Lazarro's testimony and listen, it's very powerful.

Further, the jury did not connect the dots nor did they examine any further evidence, nor did they take notes. What's wrong with that picture? Would you as a juror want to take notes?

Another thing did anyone read her diary dated June 21st?

I have no regrets, just a bit
worried. I just want for every-
thing to work out okay. I
completely trust my own
judgement. I know that I made
the right decision. I just hope
that the end justifies the means.
I just want to know what the
future will hold for me. I guess
I will soon see.
This is the happiest that I
have been in a very long time.
I hope that my happiness will
continue to grow.
I've made new friends that I
really like. I've surrounded
myself with good people.
I am finally happy, let's just
hope that it doesn't
change."​

 

[mickeyboat]

Um - those "assumes" and "surmises" are reasonable inferences. And heck yeah the jury is supposed to make them. There is no case in the world where assumptions or inferences would NOT have to be made unless the jury witnesses the crime.

Your post really highlights the misunderstandings that so many have regarding the duties of a jury.

I think you are making a lot of assumptions about what I understand about the duties of a jury.

In any event, here are the jury instructions provided in this case which pertain to reasonable doubt and weighing the evidence.

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.

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.

 

[CurlyGirl]

Yes--and that is because circumstantial evidence IS evidence. There have been many convictions where the only conclusion one could draw is that the accused committed the murder.

Spot on! The perfect example is Scott Peterson. The only "concrete" evidence they had was the strand of Lacey's hair on the pliers in his boat. Everything else was circumstantial but the jury put the pieces of the puzzle together. They didn't need a "smoking gun". Not all murders have a smoking gun, a weapon, DNA, video evidence, etc. yet people are convicted.

The leaps aren't leaps at all--except to those who REQUIRE DNA or some other literal evidence that explicitly ties the accused to the crime.

Exactly!!! It would certainly be easier to convict with audio/video/DNA/murder weapon complete with DNA all over it in any trial. Not all trials have those and still get a convinction.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Cindy requested a video interview. Who is filming it and for what purpose?

All jail visits are video taped...

and in reading the article on www.clickorlando.com; I took it to mean it was same old same old-did not want to be recorded for whatever reason.

I didn't take it that a camera crew was joining along.

 

[joviroxx]

Cindy requested a video interview. Who is filming it and for what purpose?

Florida Corrections Dept. ALL visits are taped on video.