21
   

Casey Anthony found not guilty of murder

 
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Fri 8 Jul, 2011 12:27 pm
@Linkat,
Linkat wrote:

Weird didn't know I was particularly arguing with the same people over or over.

I don't keep track and actually thought that sometimes I agree with people that I sometimes disagree with on other stuff.

Do I always agree with you Arella? Actually do not remember having too many discussions one way or the other with you before.


Actually, you and I have had rare occasion to say much to each other. I was just thinking about that. By the way, it is nice to talk to you.
Linkat
 
  1  
Fri 8 Jul, 2011 12:36 pm
@Arella Mae,
Yeah nice to talk with you as well - I did a quick search and no we were not on many of the same discussions - but now just to irrate certain people I will have to follow you and continue agreeing with you whether I do or not.

Now that is was pointed out to me that it bothered some - it might just be plain old fun.
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Fri 8 Jul, 2011 12:38 pm
@Linkat,
Laughing
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Fri 8 Jul, 2011 12:46 pm
@Arella Mae,
Arella Mae wrote:

I apologize. I didn't mean to offend you. I was truly curious about it. That's why I asked.


Not offended at all, no worries.

Except, I might say, by the sensationalism of this whole issue. But that's hardly your fault.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Fri 8 Jul, 2011 01:31 pm
@Linkat,
Tell you what, Linkat. I read your posts and scroll past 80% of the others.
Linkat
 
  1  
Fri 8 Jul, 2011 02:19 pm
@roger,
Now are you one I argue with or agree with?
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Fri 8 Jul, 2011 02:20 pm
@Linkat,
Definitely agree with roger! Wink
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Fri 8 Jul, 2011 03:00 pm
@Linkat,
For myself, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference. Your stuff is usually relevent, interesting, and not totally predictable.
Linkat
 
  1  
Fri 8 Jul, 2011 03:04 pm
@roger,
Well thank you very much - I resemble that remark.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Fri 8 Jul, 2011 05:00 pm
@Arella Mae,
Quote:
People are angry, firefly. I believe Casey is guilty but if I were on the jury I would have had to vote the same way they did and quite frankly lots of people are very angry about it.

I can understand why people feel angry. If I had been on the jury, they'd still be deliberating because I'd be insisting they focus on all of the evidence pointing to her guilt. I could not have voted to acquit her of all charges related to her child's death because I think the state made a very convincing case, with more than enough evidence to at least convict her of aggravated manslaughter of a child, beyond a reasonable doubt. But I'm not angry at the jury--they saw the evidence differently, and they'll have to live with their consciences and their doubts about Casey Anthony's innocent.

Once a jury renders a decision that's it, case closed. All of the protestors, and the media that continues to give them airtime and facetime, and the TV stations that are continuing to mount "specials" on this case, are all contributing to keeping the anger going and turning a legal decision into a media event and a form of soap opera entertainment. It doesn't matter whether the public agrees with those 12 jurors, the case is over and done with, and the media should give it a rest. There is no justice possible for Caylee Anthony, her life is gone, and punishing her mother for her role in bringing that about is no longer a possibility. The media should stop fueling and feeding a pointless controversy that's not going to leave anyone feeling less frustrated or more satisfied with the outcome of this case.

As to what the public can do, I am in agreement with this columnist. People should do whatever they can to see that Casey Anthony does not profit from this situation.
Quote:
Is Our Jury System Broken? Are Jurors Expecting Too Much Evidence? What Can the Public Do?
Posted: 7/8/11
Wendy N. Powell

The public wants answers. Watching their reaction to the acquittal of Casey Anthony is heartrending and troublesome. Justice for Caylee Anthony was not achieved.

Our judicial system that has been in effect for centuries still works, but have we evolved to expect too much evidence from the prosecution? And have we allowed too much reliance on unsupported testimony on the part of the defense? It's one thing for a judge to announce that the jury should not consider unsupported evidence, but the jury has already heard it and processed it.

In an ABC interview, Juror #3, Jennifer Ford, claimed that they (the jury) could not punish someone without knowing how Caylee died. Ford added, "I have to know how." She claimed that they wept after the verdict was read. Why? We might infer that they believed they had just acquitted a murderer. Ford added, "'Not guilty' does not mean 'innocent.' ... Without the death penalty, we could have gotten a guilty sentence." Actually, they did have a choice to convict Casey of a lesser charge. The echo of those words will reverberate for a long, long time: "not guilty" does not mean "innocent." They just couldn't or wouldn't wrap their arms around it.

The "wild goose chase" for several months when Casey intentionally and criminally lied to her family and searchers was a critical factor for conviction. Casey herself created the problem with "lack of evidence."

Jurors now expect the TV type of evidence that is shown week after week on endless crime shows. Tragically, they observed a toddler's skull wrapped in duct tape taken from the family home, placed inside a laundry bag and garbage bags. It's pretty clear how she died. Did the jury ignore the mounds of circumstantial evidence, and did they understand its weight? It appears that Mr. Baez's unsupported testimony at his opening statement was not ignored.

We have become a society of potential jurors expecting too much evidence. We need Jethro Gibbs and Abby Sciuto from NCIS to swoop in and save the day with forensic evidence beyond belief and technology. I was recently in a jury pool where the lawyers explained, "Don't expect the type of evidence you see on TV, because it largely does not exist." Do we think that type of sophisticated forensic technology on TV really exists? Some does, but interestingly enough, and ironically, the prosecution presented cutting-edge analyses that was obviously and largely ignored.

Instead, Jose Baez, in his opening statement, made shocking statements that were not supported by evidence; the jury heard him. Casey Anthony did not testify, but she certainly got her message through by smirking, mouthing her testimony and shaking her head; the jury saw it. Should that be a part of our formal court proceedings? Perhaps there should there be more stringent control over "unofficial" testimony of the defendant and counsel.

After the verdict was read, it was heartbreaking to observe celebrating, laughing, winking and jumping in the courtroom. There was no regard for the reality that a precious toddler was murdered. And later, attorney Cheney Mason made lewd gestures, flipped the bird and grabbed himself in an obvious attempt to flaunt his victory at the public. The defense partied by popping champagne literally across the street from the courthouse. The legal team, including Dorothy Clay Sims, was jumping, laughing and taking pictures of the news media, appearing as unprofessional gloaters. Of course, they won, but rubbing salt in the raw wounds of the caring public is astonishing. Celebrate in private, for Heaven's sake.

Many ask whether there anything more that we can do for Caylee Anthony. Indeed there is. There is a new bill that has been filed, House Bill 37, from Boca Raton, Fla., called Caylee's Law. It would make it a legal requirement to report a missing child within 48 hours and a death or corpse location to police within two hours. Non-compliance would result in a felony charge. Ms. Anthony, in case there was a shred of innocence, could have made a big difference had she reported the absence/death/kidnapping. Instead her fictitious nanny had taken Caylee because Casey was an unfit mother. Remember, Casey never reported the child missing to authorities; her mother Cindy did when she realized that her granddaughter was gone.

Casey will be out of jail next Wednesday, July 13. She will likely become a millionaire literally overnight. What else can we do? When Casey is paid for interviews, tune her out, refuse to patronize the advertisers. When she writes the satirical book about life and God (that she told jail inmates about), don't buy it. If they make a movie about this tragic case, boycott it. We have the ability to control her future success, and hopefully the lack of it. Without the consuming public, Casey Anthony will go far, far away. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendy-n-powell/is-our-jury-system-broken_b_892699.html
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Fri 8 Jul, 2011 05:06 pm
@firefly,
As much as I like to read true crime books that is one book I won't buy nor would I ever see the movie.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  2  
Fri 8 Jul, 2011 05:33 pm
@firefly,
They'd still be deliberating if I were on the jury, too. Thanks for saying that. I think the verdict was utter bullshit or cowardice. I wouldn't have gone for the death penalty, but I certainly would have gone for manslaughter.

The woman was the ONLY one anywhere near being implicated in the murder and disposal of her daughter and she should be spending a chunk of change in prison.

They'd have to order a new trial because I would not have ever caved.
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Fri 8 Jul, 2011 05:39 pm
I sincerely believe if the death penalty had not been on the table the jury would have found her guilty of at least manslaughter.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Fri 8 Jul, 2011 05:52 pm
@Mame,
I'm odd and probably culpable in that I take that the woman on trial seems exceptionally stupid. How everything happened, I don't know.

I haven't read much about this phantasmagoria, just the odd bits, recently - I've avoided this because of inate bias.

But, re trial procedure - - - -

I'm wondering about judicial instruction.

It sounds like jurors were confused on decision making, or one juror went to town.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  2  
Sat 9 Jul, 2011 08:31 am
@Arella Mae,
Quote:
I sincerely believe if the death penalty had not been on the table the jury would have found her guilty of at least manslaughter.

I think that might have been the case also. But, if that was true, the jurors erred in considering the possible penalties rather than the charges. Casey Anthony could have been found guilty of first degree murder, for instance, but the jury could have voted against the death sentence in the later penalty phase.

On some program, I heard Marsha Clark (one of the prosecutors in the O.J. case) say this jury just didn't want to convict, but they didn't give Clark time to offer a guess about why that might have been the case. According to Clark, the first vote the jury took on the top charge was 10-2 in favor of acquittal. Well, what about those 2 jurors who did feel she was guilty of first degree murder? Were they listened to, or were they pressured to go along with the majority? And, according to Clark, the first vote on the aggravated child abuse charge was a complete split of 6-6--which signals significant disagreement among jurors that shouldn't have been so quickly resolved. Why did 6 jurors then change their minds about guilt on that charge? Did the other 6 just steamroller them? The jury didn't ask for copies or tapes of any testimony or evidence to be reviewed, so what on earth were they talking about or considering? Did they simply disregard, or fail to understand, all of the scientific forensic evidence the state presented that indicated homicide, and, instead, just latch onto the defense's totally unsubstantiated claim of an accidental drowning? Was that the entire argument against guilt--that it could have been an accident? Well, Caylee could also have been hit by lightening, or choked on food while in the care of the imaginary "Zanny the nanny", or any one of a limitless number of fantasies--but that sort of speculation is not evidence, it is not "reasonable doubt", and it does not counter or punch holes in the state's case that all available evidence directly pointed to Casey Anthony, and only Casey Anthony, as being directly responsible for her child's death by a homicide.

I don't know how accurate Marsha Clark's info was regarding those initial votes by the jurors, but I'd like to know much more about what went on after those votes were taken, and how some jurors were able to convince/pressure others to change their minds, without reviewing transcripts of actual testimony, and without taking a significant amount of time to accomplish that unanimity of agreement. If we can believe Juror #3, a lot of jurors were in emotional turmoil after they reached a verdict of not guilty? Why? Were those the jurors who had initially felt Anthony was guilty? Were they still uncomfortable because they felt they were letting a murderer walk free? If that was the case, these jurors really hadn't finished deliberating, they just caved-in to the others to get it over with. This jury had been sequestered for a long time, they even had to sit in that courtroom on weekends, they may have just wanted to get out of there ASAP, and "not guilty" was the faster, and easier choice to make.

It's too facile for this jury to claim "not enough direct evidence" for all of the charges, because I think that's a cop-out when it comes to either the aggravated manslaughter or the aggravated child abuse charges--the child was in her mother's care at the time of her death, and she did not die as a result of natural causes. Did the jury really totally reject the compelling evidence that the child died as a result of homicide? Did they put aside all of the prosecution evidence presented at trial, and instead decide this case on totally unfounded statements made by Jose Baez in his opening argument--that the child accidentally drowned? If that's what happened, then judges have to spend considerably more time explaining "reasonable doubt" to juries in circumstantial cases like this one, exactly what "reasonable doubt" means, what it doesn't mean, and what it should be based on.

Eventually these jurors will tell, or sell, their stories, and maybe we'll get a better idea of what happened in that jury room. I actually think the public is going to be even more upset when they learn more about that because I think it's going to involve a disregarding of the evidence, and particularly a disregarding of the evidence that the child's death was a homicide.



firefly
 
  2  
Sat 9 Jul, 2011 08:49 am
@Arella Mae,
Quote:
If the LAW were in effect then Casey Anthony would not be walking out of jail next Sunday!

The main problem I have with Caylee's Law, regarding the reporting of missing children, is the fact that Caylee was never "missing". She was alive and with her mother until she died--and no one disputes that, regardless of what is believed about the manner of her death. So, to name a missing children's bill after Caylee seems both inappropriate and wrong.

A bill bearing Caylee's name should refer to the immediate mandatory reporting of the death of a child, and not to whether they are "missing". If that sort of law had been in effect, Casey Anthony would not be walking out of jail this weekend, and forensic evidence would not have been destroyed.

BTW, I think the Caylee's Law bill introduced in Florida refers only to the reporting of missing children under the age of 12, so BillRM's objections about applying it to children in their late teens would be irrelevant.

Arella Mae
 
  1  
Sat 9 Jul, 2011 10:05 am
@firefly,
IF Caylee had been reported "missing" sooner there is a possibility DIRECT evidence might have been found and used to convict Casey. Obviously, with all that time passing there was some covering up of evidence somewhere.

I see the law working in a different way I think. I am surely not saying it is the correct way but it's how I see it. In the case of Casey Anthony it would have been beneficial in seeing that she served more time for what she did. I do not see it as a law that people are going to be prosecuted if a child is not reported immediately and is found safe. Of course, I'd have to read the entire law to understand it.

As far as the jurors go, can a person really totally ignore the fact it is a death penalty case and what the ramifications of that might be? If Casey had been convicted of murder can you imagine what would have happened if she had NOT been given the death penalty?
djjd62
 
  3  
Sat 9 Jul, 2011 10:11 am
in the end, i think the most reprehensible person in this whole debacle is Nancy Grace, she made a career out of this little girls death, and is probably inwardly happy that Casey was acquitted, as it allows her to continue with her child murder porn show
djjd62
 
  2  
Sat 9 Jul, 2011 10:14 am
@djjd62,
i wonder if it's too late to recall the jury and see about getting a death penalty conviction for Grace (and Gloria Allred for good measure)
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Sat 9 Jul, 2011 10:18 am
@djjd62,
You do know that there was a murder of a child in her family? Personally, I'd like to think a lot of her zeal comes from wanting that to not happen to others but I can only take so much of her myself. I do think she is too over the top and when that happens then the "truth" seems to blurr a bit if you know what I mean? Maybe it's a case of she started out with the right intentions but "fame" skewed those intentions.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/22/2021 at 11:59:58