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

[Doomsday101]

Clearly given Casey past lies there would have been nothing to gain in having her testify but a lot to lose as the prosecutor would then go on the attack.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

As a juror in a case like this, if Casey took the stand, I would have viewed that as "the defense does not believe their other evidence/testimony is strong enough to win their case." I mean guilty or not, if the defendant takes the stand, of course they will deny everything which would carry very little weight in most cases beyond emotional with the jury.

Not to mention, as joseephuss mentioned, the prosecution could limit or twist the testimony of the defendant making matters worse. Of course the defense could come back and give the defendant a chance to correct or further explain comments they made but in many cases, the damage would be done and now the situation is worse.

I think we all know that Casey Anthony was either involved in the death of Caley or at the very least negligent which led to her death. The problem is that the prosecution went to trial without enough evidence and like all good defense attorneys, they attacked it.

-Reality

It's really not out of the norm in non-high profile cases either. And in my mind the verdict is normally based on which attorney they like or they go in knowing how they want the case to come out.

So in this case, my belief is the jury had heard enough of Nancy Grace and that she didn't prove it...then their local defense pundits, etc..

If you're a native there, they are all SO tired of it. So maybe this was a good payday for them while also being able to justify it with "no reasonable doubt", even though a logical jury could have said we saw enough evidence...

Un my opinion she got lucky with this jury. And the attorneys did a fine job selecting them, I must say.

Personally, I didn't need that much physical evidence in this case. But they did present enough to convict in my opinion.

 

[Doomsday101]

It's really not out of the norm in non-high profile cases either. And in my mind the verdict is normally based on which attorney they like or they go in knowing how they want the case to come out.

So in this case, my belief is the jury had heard enough of Nancy Grace and that she didn't prove it...then their local defense pundits, etc..

If you're a native there, they are all SO tired of it. So maybe this was a good payday for them while also being able to justify it with "no reasonable doubt", even though a logical jury could have said we saw enough evidence...

Un my opinion she got lucky with this jury. And the attorneys did a fine job selecting them, I must say.

Personally, I didn't need that much physical evidence in this case. But they did present enough to convict in my opinion.

This jury was sequestered they were not getting news or information from any media source

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Clearly given Casey past lies there would have been nothing to gain in having her testify but a lot to lose as the prosecutor would then go on the attack.

I think those lies were more clever than you think. Maybe she knew it would give her all the reason to stay of the stand.

I don't know. All I know is it's been a year for me and I don't see how Casey can go on acting the way she did while she obviously knew her daughter was dead.

Missing?

Uh huh...

We believe you.

Of course, you're not to hear that evidence from the media and inject it into the trial. But it was presented at trial.

The media ought to learn not to overplay these things. They sure do get a lot of commercial profits from harping on these dead children stories..

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

This jury was sequestered they were not getting news or information from any media source

You mean during or prior to the case?

 

[joseephuss]

OK, based on your right to testify or not. If the state comes along and says you killed your child and you honestly did not kill your child, would you sit back and trust your lawyer or would you want the jury to hear you talk about it...so you can set the record straight.

Mind you, your lawyer is there to protect you. And as long as you're not lying, which I hope you wouldn't be about this, then you have nothing to hide.

That is still not specific enough. It really depends on the circumstances. I think more than likely I would want to testify, but I would leave my options open to not doing so. It would depend on how the case is playing out. There are many factors. And trusting my lawyer would be important in the decision. It is not black and white is all I am saying.

You seem to approach this as a person who loves children and your own children. There are plenty of people out there that don't love their children, yet they are not murderers. Their approach to being accused of murdering their child could differ from someone who does love their children. Being a bad parent or a bad person is not the same as being a murderer.

 

[Doomsday101]

I think those lies were more clever than you think. Maybe she knew it would give her all the reason to stay of the stand.

I don't know. All I know is it's been a year for me and I don't see how Casey can go on acting the way she did while she obviously knew her daughter was dead.

Missing?

Uh huh...

We believe you.

Of course, you're not to hear that evidence from the media and inject it into the trial. But it was presented at trial.

The media ought to learn not to overplay these things. They sure do get a lot of commercial profits from harping on these dead children stories..

My opinion the screw up was on the DA office for going after the death penalty in a case where they did not have the evidence to get Murder 1. I do think had they gone after negligent homicide then they likely would have gotten a conviction.

 

[joseephuss]

It's really not out of the norm in non-high profile cases either. And in my mind the verdict is normally based on which attorney they like or they go in knowing how they want the case to come out.

So in this case, my belief is the jury had heard enough of Nancy Grace and that she didn't prove it...then their local defense pundits, etc..

If you're a native there, they are all SO tired of it. So maybe this was a good payday for them while also being able to justify it with "no reasonable doubt", even though a logical jury could have said we saw enough evidence...

Un my opinion she got lucky with this jury. And the attorneys did a fine job selecting them, I must say.

Personally, I didn't need that much physical evidence in this case. But they did present enough to convict in my opinion.

You don't think the jurors could have gotten paid with a guilty verdict? I think there was the potential to make money if they found her guilty or not guilty.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

My opinion the screw up was on the DA office for going after the death penalty in a case where they did not have the evidence to get Murder 1. I do think had they gone after negligent homicide then they likely would have gotten a conviction.

Title sounds right. But I still think she was involved. Does Florida even have a neglectful homicide law and how does it read?

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

You don't think the jurors could have gotten paid with a guilty verdict? I think there was the potential to make money if they found her guilty or not guilty.

No, it goes away and so does she once it's over.

Nancy Grace would rant for a coupla days then find a new case with a new victim to exploit for ratings. Then the United Media Sheeple, like you and I, make the newest Nancy Grace case our next fan favorite.

 

[Doomsday101]

You mean during or prior to the case?

During the case and the lawyers did go after jury members who really did not know much about the case to start with. which is why they went outside their own county to get potential jury members

 

[Doomsday101]

Title sounds right. But I still think she was involved. Does Florida even have a neglectful homicide law and how does it read?

I agree I think she was involved and according to one Jury member it made her sick to the stomach to rule as she did but they did not give enough evidence for capital murder and they were not going to send Anthony to death row given the lack of evidence.

If I was in their shoes there is no way I could have handed down a death sentence to Anthony. I think the DA messed up and would have had a better chance had they gone for the lesser charge.

 

[Hoofbite]

Chloroform doesn't kill..

Also, i don't understand why this is still a discussion.

If you can't prove that a person killed this child, or even that she was at the scene of the murder.. or that you don't even know where or when the murder occured, how in the blue hell do you expect to get a conviction?

It sure as hell can.

You have a dead body, found in a manner completely consistent with a murder and the defense claiming drowning.

Think about that.

The mother knows how the child died but says drowning is the cause. Expert testimony says years of case study shows this case to be completely consistent with murder.

The "where" is provided by Casey, the "how" is provided by Casey and the date is provided by Casey.

The trial is to determine if she did kill the child.

Now, given the fact that she has ZERO credibility and has spun a giant web of lies, who are you going to believe? The mother knows how and when the child dies. All you have to do is determine if she is lying and who are you going to believe?

Expert testimony or Casey Anthony?

You have one expert who says all her years of work tells her this is a murder and you have another expert who says that chloroform levels in the trunk are "shockingly high".

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

During the case and the lawyers did go after jury members who really did not know much about the case to start with. which is why they went outside their own county to get potential jury members

Just watching archives of the case; I did not watch Nancy Grace to know that...I didn't follow this case at all much other than her few clips lying to the police until the verdict. Now I have just been watching the trial and Baez is slick and he really makes the impression on the jury of the underdog who came from nowhere.

He is a likable, great attorney. And, honestly, so is Casey when she is sitting there in white and pink...innocently dressed.

But looking through the b.s., she's guilty.

Through the looking glass, this is the reality of our system.

 

[casmith07]

So there was proof provided in court those claims were true? I must have missed that. Can you point me to it because that would answer my question on this?

-Reality

They were not claims, they were only theories.

The thing is, outside of Jim Crow era court proceedings, there isn't a judge in this country that would sit idly by and allow an attorney to testify before the bench, and there isn't an attorney worth his JD that would not immediately object if that were to occur.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

The mother knows how the child died but says drowning is the cause. Expert testimony says years of case study shows this case to be completely consistent with murder.

The "where" is provided by Casey, the "how" is provided by Casey and the date is provided by Casey.

The trial is to determine if she did kill the child.

Now, given the fact that she has ZERO credibility and has spun a giant web of lies, who are you going to believe? The mother knows how and when the child dies. All you have to do is determine if she is lying and who are you going to believe?

Expert testimony or Casey Anthony?

You have one expert who says all her years of work tells her this is a murder and you have another expert who says that chloroform levels in the trunk are "shockingly high".

Agreed. They presented enough evidence to convict.

Regarding the bold portion, she never said that. Even when the media captured her mother telling her that's what the media is saying her defense is, she says, "wouldn't you know"..or something that led me to believe she knew she didn't drown.

 

[Hoofbite]

Agreed. They presented enough evidence to convict.

Regarding the bold portion, she never said that. Even when the media captured her mother telling her that's what the media is saying her defense is, she says, "wouldn't you know"..or something that led me to believe she knew she didn't drown.

The defense claimed drowning. I'd find it awfully hard to believe that wasn't Casey's take.

Either way, her side claimed drowning.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

I agree I think she was involved and according to one Jury member it made her sick to the stomach to rule as she did but they did not give enough evidence for capital murder and they were not going to send Anthony to death row given the lack of evidence.

If I was in their shoes there is no way I could have handed down a death sentence to Anthony. I think the DA messed up and would have had a better chance had they gone for the lesser charge.

So let me get this correct. The prosecution was going for the DP and the jury had no say so during punishment phase.

I just think the jury has to use better discretion.

I don't think she should be DP'd myself. But I do think a long jail term is just.

Would be a burden for me too. But I think she is in control of who she chooses to pick her punishment.

And I don't believe DP is the only penalty in Florida. Surely not...

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

The defense claimed drowning. I'd find it awfully hard to believe that wasn't Casey's take.

Either way, her side claimed drowning.

Hang on, I'll find you the clip.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

The defense claimed drowning. I'd find it awfully hard to believe that wasn't Casey's take.

Either way, her side claimed drowning.

Funny thing, maybe Peplaw should watch this clip. . .

Baez actually claims she drowns during opening....


"How in the world can a mother wait 30 days before ever reporting her daughter missing?" Baez asked in open court. "It's insane. It's bizarre. Something's just not right about that .

"Well, the answer is relatively simple -- she never was missing. Caylee Anthony died on June 16, 2008, when she drowned in her family's swimming pool."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...866417.html#s303160&title=Casey_Anthony_Trial