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

[peplaw06]

Oh no, they were claims. In the defense's opening statement they said it was a drowning that Casey's father decided to cover up after Casey panicked, and they claimed Casey's father had molested her as a child, and they said they would prove these things durning the trial. Thse weren't mere, "what ifs".

Still not evidence. I don't know how many times I have to say it, but opening statements are NOT evidence.

 

[Stautner]

I never said it was wise to represent yourself. Even attorneys don't do that. Taking the stand isn't a horrible idea, though, if your story is straight.

If your story is that straight you probably aren't going to be the subject of a murder trial. The state may be putting you on trial wrongfully, but you can bet there is something they can latch onto that the defendent will have trouble refuting.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

If your story is that straight you probably aren't going to be the subject of a murder trial. The state may be putting you on trial wrongfully, but you can bet there is something they can latch onto that the defendent will have trouble refuting.

Yeah, that's not the issue. I'm just telling you I hang out with some of the best lawyers in this area. I know the professors, etc. They put witnesses on stand.

Now some have lost doing it. But they lose not doing it.

Painting it with such a broad umbrella isn't really looking at the facts. People do take the stand, successfully I might add.

The key is picking which defendant should or should not take the stand.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

This is just naivete speaking.

And I'll go with flat out ignorance on this one. Like your they did't claim it bit.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

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".

No body was ever found in the trunk of the car, and no proof that a dead body was ever in the car.

Again, we don't know where, when, or how Caylee died.

No conviction was ever going to come without that knowledge. You can't put Casey at the scene of the murder when you don't know what happened. They couldn't place her at the remains of the corpse either.. hence, no murder conviction.

Its really not that difficult to understand, im not sure how this dicussion is still going on to be honest.

There are certain criteria that you are sworn to follow as a juror when arriving at your veridct. If the evidence doesn't satisfy all the criteria, you simply can't arrive at a guilty veridct. That's all. Its simply a bad prosecution and an embarassment for the state of Florida.


Edit: Now we're discussing the jury let this woman off because they knew they could profit from it?

Please.. somebody shut this thread down before it gets REAL silly.

 

[bbgun]

Prosecutor goofed by going for 1st degree murder, which held the prospect of the death penalty. As such, the average person would not be inclined to send a woman like Casey Anthony to the electric chair based on the circumstantial evidence that was presented.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

No body was ever found in the trunk of the car, and no proof that a dead body was ever in the car.

Again, we don't know where, when, or how Caylee died.

No conviction was ever going to come without that knowledge. You can't put Casey at the scene of the murder when you don't know what happened. They couldn't place her at the remains of the corpse either.. hence, no murder conviction.

Its really not that difficult to understand, im not sure how this dicussion is still going on to be honest.

There are certain criteria that you are sworn to follow as a juror when arriving at your veridct. If the evidence doesn't satisfy all the criteria, you simply can't arrive at a guilty veridct. That's all. Its simply a bad prosecution and an embarassment for the state of Florida.

So does any amount of "circumstantial" evidence do it for you or do you need to be at the scene of the crime yourself?

Just curious, if the DP wasn't involved, would you as a juror convict or not convict?

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Prosecutor goofed by going for 1st degree murder, which held the prospect of the death penalty. As such, the average person would not be inclined to send a woman like Casey Anthony to the electric chair based on the circumstantial evidence that was presented.

Bingo. This is what I was just concluding.

 

[Stautner]

Yeah, that's not the issue. I'm just telling you I hang out with some of the best lawyers in this area. I know the professors, etc. They put witnesses on stand.

Now some have lost doing it. But they lose not doing it.

Painting it with such a broad umbrella isn't really looking at the facts. People do take the stand, successfully I might add.

The key is picking which defendant should or should not take the stand.

The point is each lawyer has to weigh all factors and decide if it is best to put their client on the stand, and not putting their client on the stand is not, and should not be viewed as, an admission of guilt.

Taht said, of course there are times it can work in the defendents favor, even if the defendent really did commit the crime. The converse is also true, it can work against the defendent even if they did not commit the crime.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

So does any amount of "circumstantial" evidence do it for you or do you need to be at the scene of the crime yourself?

Just curious, if the DP wasn't involved, would you as a juror convict or not convict?

Im not judging any other cases but this one right now.

Do you know the criteria for proving murder or manslaughter?

It wasn't satisfied.. it was a shell of an argument put up by the prosecution. So many holes. They never had a chance.

 

[Alumni2k11]

 

[Doomsday101]

One of the 12 jurors who acquitted Casey Anthony of first-degree murder told ABC News that she didn't think there was enough evidence to convict the Florida mother of killing her 2-year-old.

Jennifer Ford, or juror No. 3, said the jurors were "sick to their stomach" after coming to the decision. "I did not say she was innocent," Ford, a 32-year-old nursing student told ABC. "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4365161.../anthony-juror-sick-our-stomach-over-verdict/

 

[RoyTheHammer]

One of the 12 jurors who acquitted Casey Anthony of first-degree murder told ABC News that she didn't think there was enough evidence to convict the Florida mother of killing her 2-year-old.

Jennifer Ford, or juror No. 3, said the jurors were "sick to their stomach" after coming to the decision. "I did not say she was innocent," Ford, a 32-year-old nursing student told ABC. "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4365161.../anthony-juror-sick-our-stomach-over-verdict/

Black and white.. by the book.

There's no room for emotion or assumptions in the courtroom.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Im not judging any other cases but this one right now.

Do you know the criteria for proving murder or manslaughter?

It wasn't satisfied.. it was a shell of an argument put up by the prosecution. So many holes. They never had a chance.

Not in my view. I inclined to agree with bbgun. Everyone knew she was responsible for her child's death. The father did it, brother molesting stuff is just a slimy but effective defense front.

In the end, if the defense chooses the jury during punishment phase then the jury is ultimately in charge. Perhaps the jury didn't want the judge killing this piece of trash had the defense elected for the judge during punishment phase.

I'll jump out of this thread as I don't want to spend the day looking at this failed system at the moment.

I just hope the Nancy Grace media stays out of these things in the future. I hope she realizes what a burden she is to justice and bows out.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

I always hated that line because so many MCs use that as if it's original or something... but that one made me laugh.

 

[joseephuss]

Im not judging any other cases but this one right now.

Do you know the criteria for proving murder or manslaughter?

It wasn't satisfied.. it was a shell of an argument put up by the prosecution. So many holes. They never had a chance.

In more ways than one. I think they probably would have been criticized if they didn't take someone to trial or even pursued a lesser charge. People would have been questioning why nothing was seemingly being done or why they were getting off easy. Sometimes you are just in a tough spot especially if it is nearing an election year for some involved in the process.

 

[zrinkill]

Incredible that people could defend her or the outcome of this farce.

What has happened to this world.

 

[Stautner]

Im not judging any other cases but this one right now.

Do you know the criteria for proving murder or manslaughter?

It wasn't satisfied.. it was a shell of an argument put up by the prosecution. So many holes. They never had a chance.

This doesn't jive with what Juror #3 said. She said they all agonized over the decision and that had 1st degree murder not been the charge they likely would have convicted. That said, I'm not sure why they didn't convict on the lesser count, but maybe they it would be hypocritical to say there was reasonable doubt on one charge and not the other. That may not have been a fair way to look at it, but the fact remains that she indicated that there would have been a very good chance of conviction had the prosecution not gone after the 1st degree charge.

 

[bbgun]

Im not judging any other cases but this one right now.

Do you know the criteria for proving murder or manslaughter?

It wasn't satisfied.. it was a shell of an argument put up by the prosecution. So many holes. They never had a chance.

True. I have no doubt that many of the jurors thought they were letting a murderer go free, but based on the high bar set by the prosecutors, and the evidentiary demands of a 1st degree murder conviction, what choice did they have? "Suspicious" behavior ain't enough to take someone's life.

 

[Doomsday101]

Black and white.. by the book.

There's no room for emotion or assumptions in the courtroom.

I can sympathize with the jury. I think anyone in their right mind knows damn well Anthony was involved in some way. In her lies it allowed time to pass before a body was found and once the body was found there was no evidence or determination of death but I think everyone knows this girl died and her body dumped and Casey damn well knows what happened.

I guess the bottom line is “Not Guilty” does not mean innocent

I said before I understand our system is not perfect none are and there is not another system I would rather have over ours