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

[Stautner]

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

Jury No. 3 said this - that the "not guilty" verdict should not be viewed as the jury feeling she was innocent. It was purely a matter of burden of proof, particularly with a 1st degeree charge, where the prosecutions case fell short.

 

[Doomsday101]

Jury No. 3 said this - that the "not guilty" verdict should not be viewed as the jury feeling she was innocent. It was purely a matter of burden of proof, particularly with a 1st degeree charge, where the prosecutions case fell short.

Yep, had the DA gone for a lesser charge than capital murder they may have gotten their conviction but it is hard to send a person to the death chamber or life in prison without hard core evidence to back it up. No one wants that hanging over their head that they sent an innocent person to the death chamber.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

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.

You still don't seem to get it..

I could have defended her in this case, with no legal background whatsoever.

I could have come in the courtroom, sat down, and shut my mouth the entire time.. and i would have won.

Is doesn't matter if everybody in the world "knows" she must have done it.

If you can't prove that she did it, how it was done, or even that she was there.. then you don't get a conviction for murder.

Again, its black and white.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

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

What has happened to this world.

Who's defending her?

Haven't seen one person in this entire thread defend Casey Anthony dude lol.

 

[peplaw06]

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

Yeah what do I know? I just practice the stuff. You should stick to reading books and chatting with your teachers.

And I'm pretty embarrassed for you that you couldn't pick up the point of the "claim" debate. I was merely using the terminology presented in the argument. It's pretty clear the underlying point was that what is said in opening statements is not "testimony." What school is it you're going to again?

Oh, and you didn't answer it for me, how many times have you been a criminal defendant? I'd be interested to know about all these times you've testified after being admonished about your 5th amendment rights...

 

[peplaw06]

Who's defending her?

Haven't seen one person in this entire thread defend Casey Anthony dude lol.

It's a technicality.

 

[casmith07]

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.

It's actually stimulating my mind in the criminal law field. I've been working in military justice this summer and have seen four proceedings so far and will prosecute a fifth in two weeks. Two of them have been courts-martial and the other three are non-judicial separation hearings...basically they are very similar to a court proceeding without a judge present...there is a 3-Officer board assigned to hear each side of the case and make a determination on whether to separate a Soldier from the service based on evidence presented.

But I digress...the discussion is still going on in part because peplaw and I are having a good time practicing our client services skills in explaining the law

 

[joseephuss]

Who's defending her?

Haven't seen one person in this entire thread defend Casey Anthony dude lol.

I am going to defend her now. Before I just could see where they didn't have the necessary evidence to convict. Now I say she is innocent of murder. I think she is guilty of a cover up, but had no hand in actually killing the child. She certainly is guilty of being a bad mother and a bad person. May basis being that I am a pet psychic. Word has spread throughout the animal kingdom and not even a mouse could be found that witnessed Casey Anthony killing her child.

 

[Stautner]

Yep, had the DA gone for a lesser charge than capital murder they may have gotten their conviction but it is hard to send a person to the death chamber or life in prison without hard core evidence to back it up. No one wants that hanging over their head that they sent an innocent person to the death chamber.

Exsctly

Yeah what do I know? I just practice the stuff. You should stick to reading books and chatting with your teachers.

And I'm pretty embarrassed for you that you couldn't pick up the point of the "claim" debate. I was merely using the terminology presented in the argument. It's pretty clear the underlying point was that what is said in opening statements is not "testimony." What school is it you're going to again?

Oh, and you didn't answer it for me, how many times have you been a criminal defendant? I'd be interested to know about all these times you've testified after being admonished about your 5th amendment rights...

You apparently have allowed the entire point to sail over your head. No, it's not "techinically" testimony, but when a lawyer makes a claim of fact that can only be properly made through the testimony of someone wh has knowledge of that fact, and then the lawyer fails to produce that testimony, then he has made the claim in lieu of the required testimony. He has circuimvented the rules of the court that allow the other side to question the witness who has made the claim of fact - essentially meaning he has submitted testimony in lieu of another party who by the rules of the court should have made the claim on the stand.

He worked the system - he circuimvented the system - he screwed the system, and I think he did so intentionally

 

[Doomsday101]

Sad thing is it was her lies and the wild goose chase that keep justice from taking place. Had medical examiner been able to examine the body before total decomposition took place they could have given a cause of death.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

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.

Exactly.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Yeah what do I know? I just practice the stuff. You should stick to reading books and chatting with your teachers.

Sort of scary. I've seen you say they can't make claims, etc. etc. Then say he did not make the claims. And they didn't do it. Yeah, I've been doing really poorly being where I'm at now, peppy. Forget what the pep stands for, but you seem to have a lot of bogus input that I usually ignore as likely some troll-lawyer.

And I'm pretty embarrassed for you that you couldn't pick up the point of the "claim" debate. I was merely using the terminology presented in the argument. It's pretty clear the underlying point was that what is said in opening statements is not "testimony." What school is it you're going to again?

For anyone who ever believed this guy was a lawyer, go back and look at his statements and then tell me who should be embarrassed he just got the horns.

Oh, and you didn't answer it for me, how many times have you been a criminal defendant? I'd be interested to know about all these times you've testified after being admonished about your 5th amendment rights...

Ad hominem if you can't beat my argument, go for my character or assassinate my testimony.

You're the kind of guys I pick on in class. LOL

 

[Hoofbite]

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.

Sure you do. If you believe the defense she drown at the family house on June 16th.

Or, if you believe the expert testimony of someone who works in this field and has years of experience, Caylee was murdered.

Where and when does not matter. Where and when does not change the fact that it was murder. Those are nice details but not needed.

Again I ask, has there never been a conviction based solely on the knowledge that a murder occurred without knowing when, how or where?

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.

It's going because you keep saying that you have to know when, where and how. It's not Clue. If someone is murdered, how it was done, when it was done and where just doesn't mean anything.

So in this situation, you have two options. Caylee drown as the defense claimed or she was murdered as the expert testimony says. Those are the only two options.

If you go with the defense, there's a whole new can of worms you have to dig through. Like, how did Casey find out about the drowning? What did she do with the body after finding out?

If you go with murder, then you just need to determine if Casey was responsible.

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.

I don't think the jury plans to profit off it, although I have seen one guy (an alternate) give two interviews since.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Yeah what do I know? I just practice the stuff.

Oh, quick question. How many criminal cases have you handled?

 

[bbgun]

Oh, quick question. How many criminal cases have you handled?

Just one: he cleared his cousin Vinnie of a murder rap.

 

[peplaw06]

You apparently have allowed the entire point to sail over your head. No, it's not "techinically" testimony, but when a lawyer makes a claim of fact that can only be properly made through the testimony of someone wh has knowledge of that fact, and then the lawyer fails to produce that testimony, then he has made the claim in lieu of the required testimony. He has circuimvented the rules of the court that allow the other side to question the witness who has made the claim of fact - essentially meaning he has submitted testimony in lieu of another party who by the rules of the court should have made the claim on the stand.

He worked the system - he circuimvented the system - he screwed the system, and I think he did so intentionally

Your original post that I responded to stated that because he made this claim, essentially testifying in Casey's stead, that Casey should be REQUIRED to testify. Which is, of course, ridiculous, given the 5th amendment. You would have to know ahead of time what each and every witness was going to say, and if they were going to lie or not, ahead of time, and be prepared that if such and such witness were to lie, that if you stated any one thing that they lied about and the only person who could contradict that is the defendant, you just waived your client's 5th amendment right.

If that were the case, the defense would essentially not be able to put on an opening statement.

Sort of scary. I've seen you say they can't make claims, etc. etc. Then say he did not make the claims. And they didn't do it. Yeah, I've been doing really poorly being where I'm at now, peppy. Forget what the pep stands for, but you seem to have a lot of bogus input that I usually ignore as likely some troll-lawyer.

And your reading comprehension sucks too. You got some learnin to do boy. Have you taken criminal law yet?

For anyone who ever believed this guy was a lawyer, go back and look at his statements and then tell me who should be embarrassed he just got the horns.

Yeah, I'd like to see that. Let's see the rush of people backing up a 1L over a lawyer.

Ad hominem if you can't beat my argument, go for my character or assassinate my testimony.

Hey, you stated that you had testified in your own behalf and won, and implied it had been more than once. I pretty much think that you're talking about a civil trial of some sort, in which case, you'd be talking out your ***, since that's not the same AT ALL. But if you had testified on your own behalf in a criminal trial, I'd like to know about it. It's not ad hominem. I honestly want to know. You made the statement, then didn't answer the question.

BTW, you probably shouldn't be complaining about ad hominem attacks when you can't help yourself from doing it.

You're the kind of guys I pick on in class. LOL

Oh, I have no doubt you're probably the guy who sits at the front of the class and answers all the questions and THINKS he's the smartest guy in the class picking on everyone else. In reality, if you can't recognize when actual real-world experience is kicking you in the butt and you keep screaming at the top of your lungs, you're going to make a terrible lawyer if you make it that far.

Oh, quick question. How many criminal cases have you handled?

Hundreds. Admittedly, it is not my primary field of practice. But I can run circles around someone who "talked to a bunch of lawyers and professors" and testified for himself in a civil case a couple times.

 

[peplaw06]

the discussion is still going on in part because peplaw and I are having a good time practicing our client services skills in explaining the law

I was having a good time, till the Holiday Inn Express lawyers started in.

 

[TheKey]

Here is my question that has not been answered: If she drowned in the pool, how did she end up in the woods with duct tape on her?

 

[Hoofbite]

She gets out next week.

Can't wait for all the disgusting press she's going to get.

 

[Aikmaniac]

Here is my question that has not been answered: If she drowned in the pool, how did she end up in the woods with duct tape on her?

Is there proof that she drowned?