Anyone following the Casey Anthony trial

[TheJim]

The father is an ex cop?

Many people have been found guilty of 1st degree murder just from placing them at the murder scene at the time of death. A putrid smell in Casey's car trunk does just that. The child being in Casey's custody also suggests strongly that she was at the murder scene at the time of death - unless she has an alibi.

Did Casey have an alibi?

The SA could not prove a murder occured, nor could they produce a murder scene, or a time of death. The person that placed Casey as the last person in custody of the child is a person (Casey's dad) might have motive to do so in order to deflect attention from himself.

 

[TheNooch]

Restaurant Bans Casey Anthony Jurors

Skyline Chili, where morons meet for meals...we even have a drive thru.
Ask about our "missing finger wendy's special"
​

Notice in the background they are watching Nancy Grace? No wonder they are convinced of Casey's guilt.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The difference between engineering and a trial however, is that when determining the result of a trial, the Prosecution has to use evidence directly related to the current crime they are prosecuting. They can't say "But this person has done all of these things, so he must be guilty," which is what introducing previous criminal history is doing. It's a form of poisoning the well. "See he's a bad man, he must have done this too."

You hear this a lot from conspiracy theorists, too. "The government has lied in the past; they must be lying about this, too."

 

[TheNooch]

You are now experiencing standard operating procedures on the Amanda Knox thread.

Thanx for the warning, I was feeling like a giant tuna chasing a rusty hook.

 

[Rolfe]

You are now experiencing standard operating procedures on the Amanda Knox thread.

Thanx for the warning, I was feeling like a giant tuna chasing a rusty hook.

He's wrong, of course. One poster does not exemplify an entire thread.

Rolfe.

 

[TheNooch]

He's wrong, of course. One poster does not exemplify an entire thread.

Rolfe.

No, he's right. I was chasing a huge rusty hook, but I got away.

Here's an interesting interview with juror # 3. If this has been linked before, I apoligize.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/juror-nu...-have-no-idea-if-casey-anthony-killed-caylee/

It really just shows what they were thinking, and yes, juror # 3 comes across as intelligent, not like what Nancy Grace and many of her fan-boys on this site would have you think; That all the jurors must be idiots.

 

[shandyjan]

Is there a way for Casey to sue Nancy Grace/the tv company. It seems they had her guilty the whole 3 years. She was given trial by tv show and presumed guilty, the biased reporting etc.
(Not that I want that, I just wondered if it could be done?)

 

[PhantomWolf]

I have to say that watching commentary on cases like this is always amusing, especially those that can't seem to understand that it's up to the prosecution to prove guilt, not for the defense to prove innocence, or even that the tales they are weaving in court are actually plausable.

Everyone seems to be going on about the jury being idiots and defence spinning a load of bull. Few seem to actually be looking and saying, "The prosecution failed because they didn't met their burden of proof. They fluffed it."

 

[TheNooch]

Is there a way for Casey to sue Nancy Grace/the tv company. It seems they had her guilty the whole 3 years. She was given trial by tv show and presumed guilty, the biased reporting etc.
(Not that I want that, I just wondered if it could be done?)

IANAL but I have never heard of such a case. The Menendez Brothers, and OJ Simpson, were the trials that gave birth to COURT TV.

If there were a way to sue for this defamation, I'm sure Michael Jackson's lawyers would have found one.

 

[Beerina]

What's funny about all this is how just before the verdict, the talking heads were all over how the defense did a terrible job.

 

[A'isha]

What's funny about all this is how just before the verdict, the talking heads were all over how the defense did a terrible job.

With the exception of, perhaps, the closing argument, the defense did do a terrible job. They were lucky in that they had both a judge willing to try and instruct them regarding their numerous mistakes (rather than smack them down as he could have), and a prosecution that had an extremely weak case for premeditated murder.

The jury wanted to convict Anthony. But there just wasn't enough evidence, in their view, to justify a guilty verdict under the guidelines they were given.

 

[MikeSun5]

Restaurant Bans Casey Anthony Jurors

Good grief. I'd be willing to bet that the jurors in this case are smart enough to not want to eat a half-gallon of greasy chili dumped atop a pile of spaghetti noodles in the first place. Skyline Chili is nasty.

 

[Justinian2]

The difference between engineering and a trial however, is that when determining the result of a trial, the Prosecution has to use evidence directly related to the current crime they are prosecuting. They can't say "But this person has done all of these things, so he must be guilty," which is what introducing previous criminal history is doing. It's a form of poisoning the well. "See he's a bad man, he must have done this too."

This is why things like previous history are suppressed, because things like poisoning the well, and ad hominem attacks are, unfortunately, often persuasive to those uneducated in debate and logical fallacies, otherwise people wouldn't resort to them so often. Allowing that sort of poor logic into the court system will result in failures to gain justice. After all, for example, just because the defendant has a record of holding up KFC's, doesn't actually mean that it was actually him that held up the KFC he's currently been charged with robbing. It's up to the prosecution to prove that independent of his past.

The fact that some people who wanted suppression removed so that certain verdicts would have been different, can't understand that this sort of information is suppressed precisely because it has such an ability to change verdicts when other evidence of a crime isn't there, all while claiming that the jury would be clever enough to determine what was relevant and what wasn't, just reeks of irony or perhaps idiocy.

I believe you are correct and what you say is true.

I think that once a verdict is decided without prior history, that verdict should be given. Then the jury should be given the history and asked to again decide based on that history.

They couldn't convict a serial killer once. Jury after jury let him go. He killed more and more women. Then the judge gave the jury ALL the information and they immediately convicted him and threw away the key.

Sometimes a jury needs all the FACTUAL information.
It's also good for a judge to know whether a particular case stands on it's own merits.

 

[NotJesus]

I believe you are correct and what you say is true.

You should have quit while you were ahead.

 

[TheNooch]

Here's what I find interesting. If you remember, the prosecutors were ready, and had indicted/charged her with murder, prior to a body ever being found. The 7 charges never changed.

Here's a nice timeline link to refresh your minds.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...anthony-case/2011/07/05/gHQACqAYzH_story.html

I just wonder why they never decided to amend the charges, or add any charges. Would that have required seating another grand jury? I live out west where grand juries are few and far between, out here it's just a pre-lim and bam! you are on your way to trial.

I ask only because the charges before and after finding the body remained the same, yet there were many more charges they could have filed.

Perhaps I should call Nancy...maybe she would start railing on the DA's office for a minute.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I think that once a verdict is decided without prior history, that verdict should be given. Then the jury should be given the history and asked to again decide based on that history.

What on earth are you talking about? How could it be the case that an unrelated incident can somehow substantiate an otherwise insufficient prosecution?

For example: The jury concludes that the prosecution has failed to demonstrate that Mr. Smith was anywhere near the scene of the crime at the time the murder took place. However, upon hearing that Mr. Smith got busted for a DUI 5 years ago, the jury now believes beyond a shadow of a doubt that Mr. Smith was definitely there during the murder.

Is this how you think it would work?

 

[triforcharity]

I know very little about this case. Casey, like all mothers, is responsible for their children. Did she make a serious effort to find her daughter?

Serious effort? Not in my opinion. But, the parents certainly did.

Did she try to tell the police that she took Casey to a nanny called zanny or is that what the parents said she said?

No, she said that. That was one of the reasons she was charged with lying to police.

I don't know enough about the case to understand why she is not considered negligent.

She wasn't charged with being negligent.

Was she trying to protect her parents?

Possibly, but we don't know.

Why would anybody try to cover up a death caused by an accidental drowning?

We have no idea. Casey has never told her side of the story.

Casey: 100% guilty of negligence and significant lying. It appears as if Casey at least precipitated the death.

Never charged with negligence, and was convicted of lying to police.
I am not so sure about her participating in the death. She knows more than she is telling IMO. But, IANAL.

 

[triforcharity]

Defense attorney, Cheney Mason, may face sanctions for raising a finger in the air.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-disciplinary-action.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Warning; picture of man with finger raised...easily offended eyes should NOT click.

IANAL but I personally feel there is a time and place for "the bird", and this may have been just one of those times. He even went "full bird" by placing his left hand over his right bicep...that's a serious bird.

If you go to the Florida Bar website, there is no history of complaints against him.

http://www.floridabar.org/names.nsf/MESearchDK?OpenForm#topofpage

(James Mason)

 

[Darth Rotor]

I believe you are correct and what you say is true.

I think that once a verdict is decided without prior history, that verdict should be given. Then the jury should be given the history and asked to again decide based on that history.

Please look up the term double jeopardy and see if your idea squares with protections against that.

By the way, I find your idea a poor one. I also find trial by national lynch mob, summoned by a TV and Nancy Grace, a poor excuse for supporting our justice system.

I also find that Claus F Larsen would probably have asked, as many of the jurors asked

Where is the evidence for the claim?

Seems the jury might have made decent skeptics.

 

[triforcharity]

People that compare this system with perfection or suggest that it is better than any other I find usually work for government in one capacity or another. Do government dollars directly or indirectly pay your salary or that of any member of your family?

Why would you even ask that? That is assinine at best.

It is true that I would rather this system than others, but remember that mistakes are just as frequently made that put innocent people behind bars. It is the errors we don't want. If we are on trial for murder we want the same judicial reliability that we get when we fly a commercial airline.

Huh? Are you drunk now? WTF are you on about?