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

[zrinkill]

Thanks for taking my discussion of a specific issue and then making an over generalization.

I did not ...... evidence is evidence ..... The Jury needs to see it all.

 

[joseephuss]

I did not ...... evidence is evidence ..... The Jury needs to see it all.

Again, that is not what you said earlier:

In that case there is no reason for them to see any evidence ..... just hear what experts say about it.

Also again, the jury did see the "smell" evidence as presented by the expert witnesses. In this very specific set of circumstances I think that is sufficient. Give me another set of circumstances and I will provide an opinion that meets them.

 

[zrinkill]

Again, that is not what you said earlier:

I was commenting on your post ..... that why I quoted you.


I said they need to see all the evidence .....

You said they did not because an expert told them about the evidence ....

So I said .... in that case they do not need to see any evidence.

Which of course I do not believe.

 

[peplaw06]

I did not ...... evidence is evidence ..... The Jury needs to see it all.

No they don't. There's a reason why certain types of evidence aren't excluded. You don't allow evidence of past crimes in the guilt-innocence phase because it's prejudicial. It's always that way. You don't try defendants on things they have may have done in the past.

 

[peplaw06]

Hey, pep, it's almost check out time. But they did leave a light on for you. I heard pep was going to be 2nd chair, but got kicked of the defense team when he proposed self-defense as Casey's defense.

Hey, I thought it was creative,though, Peppy.

ad hominem

It was his aunt. State v. Tot Mom and he claimed self-defense. He has experience with cases just like this one.

ad hominem

Oh, wait, she didn't, couldn't have and can't make claims nor can her defense attorney.

You. Sir. Have obviously never tried a case in your life.

And keep on thinking.

It helps us see through you.

ad hominem

You fail.

What school was that you're going to again? I didn't know ITT offered a law degree online.

 

[zrinkill]

I repeat ...... evidence is evidence ...... the Jury needs to see it all.

 

[Stautner]

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.

You aparently don't understand the 5th amendment. While it is true that she is not required to testify, neither the 5th amendment nor our court system allows for the attorney to give what would be her testimony in her place. Any claims that are based on what she would testify to if put on the stand can only be presented if she is put on the stand. That's the way the system is supposed to work. For the lawyer to make direct accusations/claims that only Casey can testify to, and then not put on Casey (or anyone else) on the stand to corroborate that claim is a clear misuse of the system.

I saw a film clip of a portion of Mr. Baez opening statement this morning. He said that Casey learned to lie at an early age, because she learned to get up and spend the morning with her father's ***** in her mouth, then go to school and act as if nothing had happened.

Can you honestly say it is eithical to make that statement/accusation without presenting any testimony to corroborate it? If so, you obviously feel it is acceptible for lawyers to be sleeazy and unethical, and you don't believe in the law the way you claim to.

 

[joseephuss]

You aparently don't understand the 5th amendment. While it is true that she is not required to testify, the 5th amendment does not allow for the attorney to give what would be her testimony in her place. Any claims that are based on her testimony have to be presented by her testimony. For the lawyer to make direct accusations/claims that only Casey can testify to, and then not put on Casey (or anyone else) to corroborate that claim is a clear misuse of the system.

I saw a film clip of a potion of Mr. Baez opening statement this morning. He said that Casey learned to lie at an early age, because she learned to get up and spend the morning with her father's ***** in her mouth, then go to school and act as if nothing had happened.

As the lawyer you claim to be, can you honestly say it it eithical to make that statement/accusation without presenting any testimony to corroborate it? If so, you are the lowest slimeball kind of lawyer I can imagine.

I believe the judge rule that Baez could not mention any of those theories in his closing arguments.

I don't recall anyone saying that Baez actions were all ethical. If there were great questions or concerns of his ethics, the prosecution and the judge had the opportunity to do something about it. As I mentioned the judge did so by limiting what Baez could mention in his closing.

 

[joseephuss]

I repeat ...... evidence is evidence ...... the Jury needs to see it all.

And I repeat once again, they did(at least the smell stuff).

 

[Stautner]

I believe the judge rule that Baez could not mention any of those theories in his closing arguments.

I don't recall anyone saying that Baez actions were all ethical. If there were great questions or concerns of his ethics, the prosecution and the judge had the opportunity to do something about it. As I mentioned the judge did so by limiting what Baez could mention in his closing.

The judge may have said that, and if so it was because Baez improperly made that claim without presenting testimony to support it.

As for the prosecution having their opportunity to do something about it, they couldn't at the time Baez made the claim, because during opening statements it is understood that any such claims/accusations are just setting out what will be proven, or that will attemt to be proven, by testimony. As for at the end of the trial when this didn't happen, I have mentioned this before, but a panel of attorneys I saw on TV a day or two ago discussed this very issue, and the reason they believe the prosecution did not push it more is that it would have come perilously close to suggesting to the jury that Casey should be viewed in a negative light for failing to testify, which obviously would be a big no no.

 

[casmith07]

Isn't that what you think?



Thanks for taking my discussion of a specific issue and then making an over generalization.

That's exactly what he was saying. Makes no sense, whatsoever.

 

[jimmy40]

I'm glad that those who adamantly denounce murder are willing to commit it.

What's that quote about casting stones again?

uhhhhhhh don't throw stones if you've killed your own daughter before?

 

[casmith07]

I was commenting on your post ..... that why I quoted you.


I said they need to see all the evidence .....

You said they did not because an expert told them about the evidence ....

So I said .... in that case they do not need to see any evidence.

Which of course I do not believe.

I mean this seriously when I ask, but do you understand how expert testimony is considered evidence?

Do you understand that all witness testimony is considered evidence?

You have testimony (what tells) and exhibits (what shows). For things that are determined by the government to be basically above the knowledge base of the jury, experts are called to the stand in order to testify to those special exhibits in order to explain what they are, i.e. a firearm and ballistics forensics expert testifying about the entry/exit points of a gunshot wound, or something similar.

 

[casmith07]

You aparently don't understand the 5th amendment. While it is true that she is not required to testify, neither the 5th amendment nor our court system allows for the attorney to give what would be her testimony in her place. Any claims that are based on what she would testify to if put on the stand can only be presented if she is put on the stand. That's the way the system is supposed to work. For the lawyer to make direct accusations/claims that only Casey can testify to, and then not put on Casey (or anyone else) on the stand to corroborate that claim is a clear misuse of the system.

I saw a film clip of a portion of Mr. Baez opening statement this morning. He said that Casey learned to lie at an early age, because she learned to get up and spend the morning with her father's ***** in her mouth, then go to school and act as if nothing had happened.

Can you honestly say it is eithical to make that statement/accusation without presenting any testimony to corroborate it? If so, you obviously feel it is acceptible for lawyers to be sleeazy and unethical, and you don't believe in the law the way you claim to.

For the billionth time...

OPENING STATEMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE.

 

[peplaw06]

You aparently don't understand the 5th amendment. While it is true that she is not required to testify, neither the 5th amendment nor our court system allows for the attorney to give what would be her testimony in her place. Any claims that are based on what she would testify to if put on the stand can only be presented if she is put on the stand. That's the way the system is supposed to work. For the lawyer to make direct accusations/claims that only Casey can testify to, and then not put on Casey (or anyone else) on the stand to corroborate that claim is a clear misuse of the system.

I saw a film clip of a portion of Mr. Baez opening statement this morning. He said that Casey learned to lie at an early age, because she learned to get up and spend the morning with her father's ***** in her mouth, then go to school and act as if nothing had happened.

Can you honestly say it is eithical to make that statement/accusation without presenting any testimony to corroborate it? If so, you obviously feel it is acceptible for lawyers to be sleeazy and unethical, and you don't believe in the law the way you claim to.

don't tell me what I do and dont understand.... how many of your clients have been accused of crimes or admonished of their 5th amendment rights?

And presumably there would be 2 people who could testify to the sexual abuse.
George was put on the stand right?

 

[TellerMorrow34]

For the billionth time...

OPENING STATEMENTS ARE NOT EVIDENCE.

Nope. Agreed.

But if the jury hears it then it puts that thought in their mind. I'm sorry but I don't believe for one minute that those people heard statements like that about her fathers ***** and then just conviently forgot about them in order to judge just what they heard, afterwards, about the trial.

I imagine such things stuck with them and that immediately sets a tone for people to feel sorry for her cause she was abused, allegedly.



As for the rest of it....I'm no lawyer. I'm not expert on any of this. It seemed to me that she was guilty but that is simply opinion and nothing more, obviously.

But here's my deal. Even if she didn't actually kill her. Lets say it really was an accident. She's just as guility, IMO, as if she'd actually killed her for lying about it, covering it up, and doing all that other BS in a 'state of panic' as people lable it.


As a parent of 2 I just don't see how a person does all the things she did, allegedly of course, to cover up an 'accident' and then goes on about her life as if nothing happened. She was out partying, living it up, and doing whatever else with no signs of guilt, remorse, or anything like that.

As a parent I just don't see how that's possible for a person who honestly cared about their child and lost them in an accident and then paniced.


But let me make this clear as well. I do not fault the jury, at all, for coming to a not guility vertict. They made that based on the case presented to them and in my humble, and very limited knowledge of trials and how they work, the defense team did a spectacular job of completely destroying the prosecution.

The prosecution was absolutely dreadful, IMO, right from their opening statemtent it seemed pretty clear to me that they were destined to lose.

 

[Garland powerplay]

There should of been a red flag when everything they came out of her mouth was a lie. Is that not important anymore in court like taking police to a job she hadnt worked at in 2 years? sheesh..

Looks like a coverup w/ a bunch of distractions.

What did sexual abuse have to do w/ her case? If anything this would contribute to her guilt. How did the defense explain all those lies and the parties?

 

[RoyTheHammer]

But let me make this clear as well. I do not fault the jury, at all, for coming to a not guility vertict. They made that based on the case presented to them and in my humble, and very limited knowledge of trials and how they work, the defense team did a spectacular job of completely destroying the prosecution.

The prosecution was absolutely dreadful, IMO, right from their opening statemtent it seemed pretty clear to me that they were destined to lose.

Agree with the entire post.. except for this one line.

The defense attorney was a complete buffoon, and honestly, any one could have won that case for her. She could have done it without a lawyer even. Just came in.. sat there.. and said nothing the entire time. She still would have won. The prosecution was that bad. They had no case.

 

[Garland powerplay]

This appears to be one time where it was won or lost in the courtroom.

 

[casmith07]

This appears to be one time where it was won or lost in the courtroom.

It was lost long before that when there was no evidence collected.