I Know Longer Believe

[Donaldswife]

No it is not. What lawyers say is NOT evidence. The judge instructed the jury that anything the lawyers say during opening and closing arguments ARE NOT EVIDENCE and cannot be considered as such. Only testimony and admitted exhibits are evidence.

Casey did not testify. She admitted nothing in open court. The job of a defense attorney, as frustrating as it is, is to put doubt in the jury's mind, to muddy the waters. That's what Baez was trying to do.

And for all the people upset with the prosecutors, please tell me how they were supposed to do more with the evidence they had. They do not control the police investigation. They cannot create forensic evidence that does not exist.

It is still their fault because they went ahead with Casey's arrest and prosecution without having enough evidence to gain a conviction. They took on the burden of proof when they decided to charge her with murder.

 

[Mosoh]

No it is not. What lawyers say is NOT evidence. The judge instructed the jury that anything the lawyers say during opening and closing arguments ARE NOT EVIDENCE and cannot be considered as such. Only testimony and admitted exhibits are evidence.

Casey did not testify. She admitted nothing in open court. The job of a defense attorney, as frustrating as it is, is to put doubt in the jury's mind, to muddy the waters. That's what Baez was trying to do.

And for all the people upset with the prosecutors, please tell me how they were supposed to do more with the evidence they had. They do not control the police investigation. They cannot create forensic evidence that does not exist.

Right, he did it in open court with testimony. Weak as it was the ladder maybe being left up was his representing her as to the drowning. Cindy waffled and George denied the drowning on the stand

No proof and in the testimony as not happening.

 

[pilferk]

No it is not. What lawyers say is NOT evidence. The judge instructed the jury that anything the lawyers say during opening and closing arguments ARE NOT EVIDENCE and cannot be considered as such. Only testimony and admitted exhibits are evidence.

Casey did not testify. She admitted nothing in open court. The job of a defense attorney, as frustrating as it is, is to put doubt in the jury's mind, to muddy the waters. That's what Baez was trying to do.

And for all the people upset with the prosecutors, please tell me how they were supposed to do more with the evidence they had. They do not control the police investigation. They cannot create forensic evidence that does not exist.

Then, by the same token, jurors shouldn't have considered it as part of her defense....which means there really wasn't much in the way of a defense.

It's a logical juxtaposition I have a hard time getting past...because it SEEMS (and we'll only know for sure if the jurors comment) they did consider it...whether they should have or not.

The prosecution should have jumped on that theory and ran with it...though I understand why they didn't want to impinge the Dad and his credibility.

 

[ols386]

Good for him/her. They went through what can only be stated as a trying situation to judge that case. If she makes a little off of it, and it does not affect the case or proceedings in any way, then more power to them.

Write a letter to the stations covering it, selling advertising off the backs of it, and I'll sign it before you send it and then get right behind you on the juror issue as well.

I feel terrible that girl died but I would not call this profiting at the expense of the little girl.

It's not right for a station covering it to make a profit, and it's also not right for a juror to make a profit. I read your first post as saying it's ok for the juror.

 

[pilferk]

Thanks for the link. I must admit - I am almost of the mind to agree with you as far as the aggravated manslaughter. But when it talks about culpability, it specifies tjat she had to have done something, or followed a course of conduct, that she knew would result in the death of Caylee. That's what I get hung up on - intent.

That she knew COULD result in death.

Again, there have been moms convicted of this charge simply by walking away from their kids in the bathtub and having them drown. Crazy, but true.

 

[U2_rocks!]

It was included.

In Florida, it all rolls up to the same charge...you don't need to distinguish. Manslaughter by Culpable Negligence is PART of the definition of Manslaughter.

This is where I think the prosecution made a blunder: They didn't really help define the charges for the jurors and provide them with other options (in arguments...though they were on the verdict sheets).

I was wondering if the jurors really understood what each of the lesser charges were and what they meant. I know the prosecution was really hoping to get murder 1 for her, and could this have stopped them from properly explaining to the jury what their other options were all about?

 

[fireflymedic]

the court system is broken when inocent people go to jail, not gulity getting off IMHO

 

[brea]

the court system is broken when inocent people go to jail, not gulity getting off IMHO

I don't agree that the court system is broken. Based on what I knew about it I think the right verdict was handed down. Not sure about the lesser charges issue and waiting for more information on it to make a determination.

 

[pilferk]

I'm not disagreeing with you as I just don't know enough to do so. I just find it odd that I'm hearing about this on the Disney boards is all. Is there something more mainstream that talks to this possibility?

No idea.

I haven't spent a whole lot of time on the mainstream press coverage of this trial and (despite my posting here) have not spent large amounts of time on this case, in general. I find it passably interesting and sort of stumbled across this thread almost entirely by accident.

I know this not from my experience with the case but from what I know of Florida State law. I imagine you can find reference to it somewhere.

 

[phinz]

It's not right for a station covering it to make a profit.

How in the world do you expect the stations to provide 24 Hour Voyeurism
For The Obsessed Masses without making a profit? They don't provide this pablum and drivel for free.

 

[pilferk]

I was wondering if the jurors really understood what each of the lesser charges were and what they meant. I know the prosecution was really hoping to get murder 1 for her, and could this have stopped them from properly explaining to the jury what their other options were all about?

Possibly.

The prosecution aimed REALLY high, and they seemed to put all their eggs in one basket (both early and late). They wanted Murder 1.

It didn't seem like they took the time to layer out the possibility of lesser charges. In many cases...that' probably sound strategy. In a case based almost entirely on circumstancial evidence....maybe not so much.

The ONE alternate juror we've heard from has said they considered the pool theory in their deliberations. Did they really? We won't know unless/until more jurors come forward. And then the question should be: Did you consider manslaughter (and maybe specifically tease out culpable negligence)? and see what the reaction is. Short of that...it's all speculation and theorycrafting.

 

[phinz]

But you give her the benefit of doubt? Nope. No one belongs on the jury if they don't have the stones to make the hard decisions

And you think this decision that all the people are shrieking and foaming at the mouth over was *easy*? Really?


I gotta do this:

 

[pilferk]

the court system is broken when inocent people go to jail, not gulity getting off IMHO

Actually it's broken when either one occurs...and the "amount" of broken is commesurate with how often either one occurs.

I do agree: Better the guilty go free than the innocent are unfairly incarcerated. BUT, having said that, that gives small consolation when you see what you think might be injustice.

 

[pilferk]

Quick google search led me here...it's not a great description, but it's close:

http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/july/273571/Casey-Anthony:-The-charges-against-her.html

He leaves out the simple child abuse count (which we know was on the verdict sheet).

But he does explain that each count is considered separately. He just doesn't do a good job of explaining the whys.

 

[ols386]

How in the world do you expect the stations to provide 24 Hour Voyeurism
For The Obsessed Masses without making a profit? They don't provide this pablum and drivel for free.

Ok, point taken.

But I think I can say, for myself personally, I would not do a paid public interview after having served on a jury in court, for justice for a dead little girl. That would mean that I (me, personally) am profiting.

 

[Mosoh]

And you think this decision that all the people are shrieking and foaming at the mouth over was *easy*? Really?


I gotta do this:

I'd laugh too if you made any sense.




They didn't take one piece of addition evidence back to the room and went over 6 weeks of testimony in under 10 hours. Sounds easy to me

 

[ols386]

And you think this decision that all the people are shrieking and foaming at the mouth over was *easy*? Really?


I gotta do this:

Really? You think it's funny? Cause I don't.

 

[mickeyboat]

I started to multiquote, but it got too long.

The defence did not present any evidence of drowning. They did not have the burden to explain what happened to Caylee. They did plant a seed of reasonable doubt by indicating a possible alternative theory, but they were under no obligation to prove it.

Attorney comments are not evidence that the jurors are allowed to consider.

 

[phinz]

It can "sound" easy to you, but 11 hours is 11 hours. Votes are taken when you are in the jury room. I can guarantee you they didn't just sit around for 11 hours staring at each other and then all vote "not guilty." There's no requirement that a jury has to look at any evidence again. At what length of time does a decision become acceptable? If they had taken 22 hours to deliberate and come up with the same decision? 11 days? 22 days and still the same? People would still be gnashing their teeth and wailing about the jury being wrong. They would just come up with some other ephemeral reason.

Heck, they'd be crying foul if she was found guilty but not given the death penalty.

 

[phinz]

Really? You think it's funny? Cause I don't.

I think the assumption that the decision was "easy" is hysterical from somebody who wasn't sitting in the jury room during deliberations. I find it comical to a high degree.