I Know Longer Believe

[NikitaZee]

Fair enough.

Since you are even farther removed I guess you're opinion is just as worthless.

All of our opinions are worthless in this matter. Except to us!

 

[Michelle67]

For everyone that finds her not guilty and feel the jurors were correct I wonder how you would feel if it was your grandchild, niece, daughter or cousin.

I have a tough time thinking you would all be for the outcome.

I think it's pretty unfair to suggest that just because people don't vilify the jury, assume they are stupid, crooked, or "just wanted to go on vacation," that we are actually cheering the outcome. I don't think there is a soul here who thinks it is wonderful.

I don't think that they said that at all. They said that the state failed to prove that she was guilty of what she was charged with. Had the charges been different, they may very well have found her guilty.

Edited to add...Does anyone remember the case of Riley Fox from Wilmington, IL?

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/riley-fox-case-scott-eby-charged-2004-assault/story?id=10866197

Exactly.

 

[pilferk]

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.

BUT, given the comments by the alternate, it sounds like they may have.

So....

If that seed is planted, and allowed to grow, it leads one to certain logical progressions...

That's what I can't get passed. IF they considered it, it's hard to understand why they wouldn't levy the Manslaughter charge. If they DIDN'T consider it, then no harm, no foul......but then I don't see much in the way of a defense, either, that WAS considered. And maybe that's the point: The defense didn't mount much because the evidence wasn't solid enough to base charges on. Their cross on the prosecution evidence/testimony was, in essence, their defense.

I know they're not "allowed" to consider the OS as "evidence"...but that doesn't mean they don't.

 

[phinz]

Prove that Casey was the last one to see Caylee alive? Here you go! <snip a bunch of stuff that doesn't give a conclusion>

Not one person has come forward to say that they saw Caylee after George said that date was the last he saw of her. No video of Caylee in a store with Casey, no video of Caylee with Casey at the video store, she wasn't with Tony, wasn't with the alleged nanny, nobody ... not one person ... saw Caylee after that date. However, Casey was quick to give excuses saying that Zanny the Nanny had Caylee, that she was in Tampa with Caylee, that she was at Bush Gardens with "Juliette Lewis and her daughter" and Caylee ... yet Juliette Lewis was a fictional character and there wasn't any evidence of Caylee with Casey at Bush Gardens.

And this proves what? It doesn't prove that Casey was the last to see her. Prove she was the last to see her. I see no evidence whatsoever that proves she was the last to see her. I see a bunch of stuff that doesn't indicate conclusively who "was the last to see her."

 

[phinz]

Based on the testimony and evidence, it is reasonable to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that this woman was directly responsible for the death of her daughter. It is difficult to come to any other reasonable conclusion.

Apparently not or there would have been a conviction.

 

[phinz]

For everyone that finds her not guilty and feel the jurors were correct I wonder how you would feel if it was your grandchild, niece, daughter or cousin.

I have a tough time thinking you would all be for the outcome.

It doesn't matter how I would feel. The evidence would matter. Your attempt at appealing to sentiment is exactly what a jury *should* avoid.

 

[joviroxx]

And this proves what? It doesn't prove that Casey was the last to see her. Prove she was the last to see her. I see no evidence whatsoever that proves she was the last to see her. I see a bunch of stuff that doesn't indicate conclusively who "was the last to see her."

Oh well heck, to hell with testimony. If its not on video or marked by some kind of definite, no way it can't be true, fact, why introduce anything?

Alert: Human testimony will no longer be used in court. Its does not provide proof!

Just like the testimony for expert Dr G , who did the autopsy, doesn't seem to matter either.

 

[pilferk]

Apparently not or there would have been a conviction.

Look, I have no horse in this race either way. I have no real strong feelings about the verdict. I'm puzzled by some of the logic behind the decision, etc...but at the end of the day I'm not as outraged as MANY, MANY people are. For me, it's an interesting case and not much more.

But...I think it's just as naive to assume a jury is infallible as it is to assume the jury failed. Juries DO make mistakes. I'm not saying they made one here, but holding up the outcome of the trial as evidence that the jury succeeded is circular logic of the worst kind. Just like holding up the verdict and saying the jury failed is....

 

[phinz]

Oh well heck, to hell with testimony. If its not on video or marked by some kind of definite, no way it can't be true, fact, why introduce anything?

Alert: Human testimony will no longer be used in court. Its does not provide proof!

Just like the testimony for expert Dr G , who did the autopsy, seems to matter either.

You make me laugh.

The testimony you quote in your earlier post *still* doesn't say whether Casey was the last to see her. It is all circumstantial. The only way you'd really know who last saw her is if that person said, "I'm the last one who saw her" or you had absolute proof that person was the last to see her. If you don't have these two, you cannot make the assumption, because it is merely speculation. Don't quote something as fact if facts don't support it. Admit it for what it is: Assumption.

 

[pilferk]

The testimony you quote in your earlier post *still* doesn't say whether Casey was the last to see her. It is all circumstantial.

Semantically true.

Casey is the last person KNOWN and DOCUMENTED to have seen her daughter alive.

 

[joviroxx]

You make me laugh.

The testimony you quote in your earlier post *still* doesn't say whether Casey was the last to see her. It is all circumstantial. The only way you'd really know who last saw her is if that person said, "I'm the last one who saw her" or you had absolute proof that person was the last to see her. If you don't have these two, you cannot make the assumption, because it is merely speculation. Don't quote something as fact if facts don't support it. Admit it for what it is: Assumption.

Im glad I can provide amusement.

George testified to it. It wasn't impeached.

Dr G testified it was homicide...not enough proof for you...

So, like you said, you accept nothing as proof unless the person , themself , admits or testifies to it. But then again, they could be lying, right? Go at it!

 

[CurlyGirl]

And this proves what? It doesn't prove that Casey was the last to see her. Prove she was the last to see her. I see no evidence whatsoever that proves she was the last to see her. I see a bunch of stuff that doesn't indicate conclusively who "was the last to see her."

OMG -- Casey was with Caylee the last day she was seen alive, at 12:30 pm, standing in the hallway with back packs by GA before they left the house. They left the house together. Casey said Caylee was going to Zanny's. There was no Zanny. Also, there was NOT ONE OTHER INDIVDUAL who has come forward to say that they saw/were with Caylee Anthony after June 16th. No evidence of store videos showing Caylee with ANYONE. Tony (CA's boyfriend) stated the last time he saw Caylee was June 1-2. There is not one store video showing Caylee with Casey after the 16th. If Casey was at the video store with Tony and without Caylee, where was Caylee!? Remember ... Tony had NOT seen Caylee since June 1-2. Not one single friend came out to say s/he saw Caylee after the 16th. Tony didn't even see Caylee on the 16th. So, exactly who was with Caylee from 12:30 til 8 pm that day!? Nobody saw her, no video of her ... she left with her mom.

Surveillence video on June 16 at around 8 pm showed Casey and Tony renting movies and they were not with Caylee. So where was she!? If she wasn't with Casey prior to 8 pm, then who was she with!? Not one friend came out and said "Oh, I was babysitting Caylee that night" or "I saw her at whatever time".

If Casey was with Caylee at 12:30 in the afternoon and was seen by GA, and was at Blockbuster without her at 8 pm, and nobody came to say they were with Caylee in the interim OR after that fact, and there is no surveillance video of them together, then who else was with Caylee? Nobody! Is that not enough evidence to show that Casey was the last one with Caylee?

 

[TLSnell1981]

Im glad I can provide amusement.
George testified to it. It wasn't impeached.
Dr G testified it was homicide...not enough proof for you...
So, like you said, you accept nothing as proof unless the person , themself , admits or testifies to it. But then again, they could be lying, right? Go at it!

Dr. G...nope. I put her in the same category as NG and JVM. All about "truth" according to them and ratings... The jury deals with fact, not emotions or vigilante justice. A beautiful little angel is dead and we still don't know, how or why.

 

[kidshop]

And this proves what? It doesn't prove that Casey was the last to see her. Prove she was the last to see her. I see no evidence whatsoever that proves she was the last to see her. I see a bunch of stuff that doesn't indicate conclusively who "was the last to see her."

There is no evidence Caylee was ever seen after June 16. No one came forward to say they saw her and she was not on any store videos. She vanished after June 16. do you think someone saw her and just didn't say it?

 

[OceanAnnie]

What is so befuddling is people have been convicted of murder with much less evidence, circumstantial or otherwise. People have been convicted of murder without a body!

 

[Mosoh]

You make me laugh.

The testimony you quote in your earlier post *still* doesn't say whether Casey was the last to see her. It is all circumstantial. The only way you'd really know who last saw her is if that person said, "I'm the last one who saw her" or you had absolute proof that person was the last to see her. If you don't have these two, you cannot make the assumption, because it is merely speculation. Don't quote something as fact if facts don't support it. Admit it for what it is: Assumption.

Hey chuckles,

Do you agree with the verdict or do you just like suddenly being on a winning team regardless of the circumstances?

 

[hambirg]

And this proves what? It doesn't prove that Casey was the last to see her. Prove she was the last to see her. I see no evidence whatsoever that proves she was the last to see her. I see a bunch of stuff that doesn't indicate conclusively who "was the last to see her."

You don't have to have conclusive "proof" as to who was the last to see her. Imagine if that was the standard in all murder cases? There is no "proof" that Ted Bundy was the last person to see any of his victims alive. There were no witnesses to the murders. But it stands to reason, using the circumstantial evidence and logical thinking that he was the last to see them alive. No murderer is ever going to claim they were the last to see the victim alive, unless they were going to plea, because being the last to see someone alive who has been murdered logically implicates that person as the murderer.

One more thing. . .the whole history of the "jury of your peers" is to protect the citizenry from an unjust, tyrannical government and court system. It's NOT to have the jurors conscience feel one way and then have to go with the way the law is written. That's exactly the opposite of why we have juries. Direct from the Yale Law Journal:

"It is not only his Right but his Duty to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgement and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court."

Just to make it more clear. . .imagine if the Third Reich had jury trials. . .it is the juries duty to use their judgement, understanding and conscience to reach verdicts, and that includes judging the law itself. If the jury finds the law unjust, based on their conscience then it is their DUTY to go against the law. HTH

So, basically. . .no, the juries duty is not to follow the letter of the law, but to use their judgement and follow their conscience, even if it is contradictory to the law. To have it any other way is to invite tyranny and unjustice.

 

[CurlyGirl]

What is so befuddling is people have been convicted of murder with much less evidence, circumstantial or otherwise. People have been convicted of murder without a body!

Can you say Scott Peterson?! He's the perfect example of convicted of murder, on death row, based on circumstantial evidence.

 

[hambirg]

You make me laugh.

The testimony you quote in your earlier post *still* doesn't say whether Casey was the last to see her. It is all circumstantial. The only way you'd really know who last saw her is if that person said, "I'm the last one who saw her" or you had absolute proof that person was the last to see her. If you don't have these two, you cannot make the assumption, because it is merely speculation. Don't quote something as fact if facts don't support it. Admit it for what it is: Assumption.

And there is nothing wrong with assumption if based on logic. If two people go down in a submarine and when they come back up, one of them has been strangled to death. . .it is a safe assumption that the lone survivor was the strangler, based on the fact that they were the only person to have access to the victim. See how that works?

I think that people that believe that there was enough circumstantial evidence to convict Casey are basing it on the logical assumption that given that she was the only one to have access to Caylee at the time she vanished, as well as access to the things found with Caylee. . .blanket from her bed, laundry bag and duct tape from the Anthony home, Casey's car with the hair from a dead Caylee. . .you get the picture. It is a logical assumption given all the evidence. . .all 300+ pieces of it. Now if the jury didn't think that was enough. . .so be it. . .but I think their logic was flawed.

 

[Mosoh]

Double post ...deleted