Casey Anthony trial starts today...*Found not guilty*

[Stautner]

Been there about 3 times in this thread man. But I appreciate the backup

Been here about 3 times ........ this wasn't just an alternate scenario, this was a specific account of what the defense claimed happened.

Theories are one thing - saying we don't know if A, B, C or D may have occurred is one thing - making a specific claim and providing details about that claim is another.

It's the difference between saying "we don't know if the the child suffocated, died of natural causes drowned or hit her head" and claiming "Mr. Green did it with the knife in the parlor".

I don't mean to make light of it with the "CLUE" reference, but the fact is the first is suggesting that we don't know what happened and showing there are other possible, but unknown alternatives, and the second is saying we do know what happened and making a specific claim and providing details. The standard for the first is very loose, and should be, but the standard for the 2nd should require some level of backup.

 

[Doomsday101]

Hopefully the judge gives her the maximum sentence allowed on her lying convictions and places her in general population to correct this miscarriage of Justice.

1 year for each count and then you look at time served to this point would not be much of a sentence. Lets just say the guy who shot the bird in the courtroom will do more time than Anthony.

 

[zrinkill]

1 year for each count and then you look at time served to this point would not be much of a sentence. Lets just say the guy who shot the bird in the courtroom will do more time than Anthony.

I thought the time she was serving was counting against her fraud and grand theft plea deal.

Can it be counted against both?

 

[Doomsday101]

I thought the time she was serving was counting against her fraud and grand theft plea deal.

Can it be counted against both?

Not a lawyer however I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express

 

[joseephuss]

I don't believe for a second it was accidental. They had an expert on the stand at one point (one of the only points I did see) and she said that everything about where and how the body was found was 100% consistent with years of case studies on murders.

She didn't cite any cases but I'm sure she could produce them if needed. Children drown all the time. It's horrible, some guy in my area had his little boy fall into a creek and drown about a month ago. Guess they were at a local park and one of the wooden fences had some slats missing. Not really sure on the rest of what supposedly happen but here's what I did see. I saw a guy on TV agonizing over the loss of his son and feeling absolutely terrible and filled with guilt. He could barely finish the interview he was so shaken. It was absolutely heart-wrenching.

And here's what I didn't see. I didn't see this guy on TV reenacting an episode of Jersey Shore and parading around from bar to bar. Also didn't see him fabricate some story about the child being with a fictional nanny.

Oh, and he reported it immediately and tried to get help. There were able to keep the child alive for a couple of days but he ended up passing away.

IMO, accidental drowning is probably the least likely event.

If she never truly cared about the child and was more focused on herself, then she isn't going to give off an appearance of being shaken or filled with guilt. That still is not the same as murdering the child. I think accidental drowning is a possibility even if it is not a probability.

I think she is more guilty of being selfish and self centered than being a murderer(she may be one). I could see her actions after the fact being the same whether it was an accident, a homicide or murder by her own hands. She seems happy to be free from being a parent no matter how it happened.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

By suggesting that the child drowned and her dad knew and helped her? All they had to do is make the claim and did nothing nor were required to prove that is what happened.

that's a theory, not testimony

 

[peplaw06]

Been here about 3 times ........ this wasn't just an alternate scenario, this was a specific account of what the defense claimed happened.

Theories are one thing - saying we don't know if A, B, C or D may have occurred is one thing - making a specific claim and providing details about that claim is another.

It's the difference between saying "we don't know if the the child suffocated, died of natural causes drowned or hit her head" and claiming "Mr. Green did it with the knife in the parlor".

I don't mean to make light of it with the "CLUE" reference, but the fact is the first is suggesting that we don't know what happened and showing there are other possible, but unknown alternatives, and the second is saying we do know what happened and making a specific claim and providing details. The standard for the first is very loose, and should be, but the standard for the 2nd should require some level of backup.

I seriously doubt that the defense attorney just announced as a matter of fact how the death occurred. If you'd like to link me to something that says otherwise, I'd like to take a look at it.

Attorneys cannot testify from the lectern. They have to be sworn in and take the stand and be cross-examined to testify. They can, however, make arguments in opening and closing. There are specific rules regarding what they can and cannot say in argument though. And like I said, if the prosecution allowed such a thing to occur without an objection, then they should be ashamed of themselves.

I say all that to say, I can't conceive of a time when Mr. Baez would be allowed to say definitively how the child died. Though I'd like to see how it was said, if you maintain that he did.

 

[peplaw06]

I thought the time she was serving was counting against her fraud and grand theft plea deal.

Can it be counted against both?

Yes. My understanding was she was convicted of four misdemeanors. Therefore, they it's unlikely they can be stacked.

 

[peplaw06]

By suggesting that the child drowned and her dad knew and helped her? All they had to do is make the claim and did nothing nor were required to prove that is what happened.

It's called reasonable doubt. The prosecution's evidence couldn't rule out all reasonable theories.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't know if it would have done any good or not but I probably would have brought up the fact that she never wanted Caylee in the first place. I heard this from somebody else and I thought it was interesting.

 

[Stautner]

that's a theory, not testimony

Really, a detailed account of specifically why and how the Dad covered it up is merely a theory?

If so, why not just walk into the courtroom, point at a stranger in the gallery and say that person was seen choking Caylee to death and running away from the seen of the crime? It's just a theory, right?

As I have said before, you have to remember that this wasn't just throwing out possible alternatives, this was giving a specific account of what the defense claimed to have occurred.

Saying nobody knows what happened and that X, Y or Z may have been what happened is one thing, saying you do know what happened and here are the details is another.

 

[Stautner]

It's called reasonable doubt. The prosecution's evidence couldn't rule out all reasonable theories.

There is a difference between a "theory" and a "claim" or "accusation". Again, the defense didn't merely throw out a plausable theory, they directly claimed that the child drowned, that Casey's dad planned and carried out a cover-up, and also that Casey's dad had molested Casey as a child in an effort to explain Casey's behavior.

Those things are not theories, they are direct accusations, and they could only have come directly from Casey herself. Accordingly, Casey got to present her testimony on the specific items of the defense's choosing without actually taking the stand.

 

[cowboys#1]

i bet scott petersen is in prison saying wth!?

 

[Gemini Dolly]

Casey Anthony Juror: We Were 'Sick' over Not Guilty Vote

Jennifer Ford wants to make one thing clear: acquitting Casey Anthony of murdering 2-year-old daughter Caylee should not be read as a full exoneration.

"I did not say she was innocent," Ford told ABC News on Wednesday. "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

 

[BlueStar3398]

Casey Anthony Juror: We Were 'Sick' over Not Guilty Vote

Jennifer Ford wants to make one thing clear: acquitting Casey Anthony of murdering 2-year-old daughter Caylee should not be read as a full exoneration.

"I did not say she was innocent," Ford told ABC News on Wednesday. "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

I figured they knew she wasn't innocent. They weren't willing to convict on circumstantial evidence like they did Scott Peterson.

 

[FloridaRob]

.... I think accidental drowning is a possibility even if it is not a probability.

.....

Yea, please let me know of one other case in the history of mankind that an innocent accident was staged to look like a murder.

The alternate juror was on TV last night saying it was an accident that was staged to look like a murder. He also said there was no evidence the baby was in the trunk. Are you serious??? Hopefully this guy will now go back to his single wide and never come out again. Hoepfully one day he will get a dose of common sense. Apparently the jury in this trial had 12 people without a lick of it. And I thought the dumbest jurors in the world were from Los Angeles. These morons from Pinellas make those OJ Jurors look like bright.....

 

[casmith07]

I seriously doubt that the defense attorney just announced as a matter of fact how the death occurred. If you'd like to link me to something that says otherwise, I'd like to take a look at it.

Attorneys cannot testify from the lectern. They have to be sworn in and take the stand and be cross-examined to testify. They can, however, make arguments in opening and closing. There are specific rules regarding what they can and cannot say in argument though. And like I said, if the prosecution allowed such a thing to occur without an objection, then they should be ashamed of themselves.

I say all that to say, I can't conceive of a time when Mr. Baez would be allowed to say definitively how the child died. Though I'd like to see how it was said, if you maintain that he did.

I have never seen it not result in an objection, which is immediately sustained without an explanation from the government, because the judge already sees it coming.

 

[FloridaRob]

what is even more ridiculous is that when Casey was on the phone with her parents while in jail, she scoffed at the idea that Caylee drowned in the pool. Of course that was before they found her body and Casey needed something else to hitch her wagon to.

 

[peplaw06]

There is a difference between a "theory" and a "claim" or "accusation". Again, the defense didn't merely throw out a plausable theory, they directly claimed that the child drowned, that Casey's dad planned and carried out a cover-up, and also that Casey's dad had molested Casey as a child in an effort to explain Casey's behavior.

Those things are not theories, they are direct accusations, and they could only have come directly from Casey herself. Accordingly, Casey got to present her testimony on the specific items of the defense's choosing without actually taking the stand.

Like I said, I need to see it in context. I didn't hear it, and I know you don't have the transcript. I highly doubt though that through his questioning, he directly claimed the child drowned, that her dad covered it up, and that he molested Casey as a child.

I hear that he may have done that in his opening statement. Opening statements are NOT evidence. Opening statements are what the party believes the evidence WILL show. Baez would have said essentially, I believe the evidence will show ________. It's not a claim or accusation.

Then when you get to evidence, he's questioning Casey's dad, he cross-examines him with the "theory." Baez is thinking that if he tells the truth that it backs up his theory. Apparently the evidence didn't show what he believed it would. What happens then? In closing argument, Baez CANNOT make an argument that is not supported by the evidence. The prosecution makes a Motion in Limine to prevent Baez from mentioning that theory.

If the jury is presented a theory in opening statements that is not supported by the evidence that is introduced, then it is not available in closing argument. And the jury is only supposed to consider the evidence, so the theory is basically thrown out.

So like I said, I need to know how this "accusation or claim" as you call it was presented, and the context. My first impression is that Baez could only have presented his theory in opening statements. If that's not the case, I want to see how it was done before I make a determination on whether your concern is valid.

 

[casmith07]

Like I said, I need to see it in context. I didn't hear it, and I know you don't have the transcript. I highly doubt though that through his questioning, he directly claimed the child drowned, that her dad covered it up, and that he molested Casey as a child.

I hear that he may have done that in his opening statement. Opening statements are NOT evidence. Opening statements are what the party believes the evidence WILL show. Baez would have said essentially, I believe the evidence will show ________. It's not a claim or accusation.

Then when you get to evidence, he's questioning Casey's dad, he cross-examines him with the "theory." Baez is thinking that if he tells the truth that it backs up his theory. Apparently the evidence didn't show what he believed it would. What happens then? In closing argument, Baez CANNOT make an argument that is not supported by the evidence. The prosecution makes a Motion in Limine to prevent Baez from mentioning that theory.

If the jury is presented a theory in opening statements that is not supported by the evidence that is introduced, then it is not available in closing argument. And the jury is only supposed to consider the evidence, so the theory is basically thrown out.

So like I said, I need to know how this "accusation or claim" as you call it was presented, and the context. My first impression is that Baez could only have presented his theory in opening statements. If that's not the case, I want to see how it was done before I make a determination on whether your concern is valid.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is trial advocacy 101. Heed these words and you'll have a leg up on over 80% of Americans right now when it comes to talking law.