Casey Anthony Trial

[Real Deal]

lol party animal, who cares how she dressed in the court the other day.

 

lol good thing I live in america and not a country like Iran, if I'm being accused of murder and being put on the death penalty, i want REAL SOLID EVIDENCE, I want PROOF that it WAS ME. I want a trial based on the LAW and not what a person "feels" or "thinks is right". If the police would have recovered the body sooner, maybe they would have had better evidence. The prosecutors did a pretty lousy job with this case, and that is why casey is innocent and is a free woman.

LOL, nice job not putting anything together, rather just explaining everything individually. This all happened at once. This isn't you trying to explain all of your screw-ups while you were in elementary school.

[Real Deal]

This isn't the case about the child being tied to the bed is it?

 

http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2010/04/23/springer-parents-to-spend-years-in-prison/

 

If it isn't, I would like to read about the story because I'm guessing there is more to it than you are leading me to believe.

Sounds like the one, I don't remember their names.

[Real Deal]

Incredible read, written by an OJ prosecutor. First, she tells how a sequestered jury leads to everyone in the group thinking alike (didn't even know the jury was sequestered, which is another reason why this shit went south so quickly). Then...

 

Ms. Ford’s primary complaint was that the prosecution didn’t prove cause of death. As she put it: “How can you punish someone for something if you don’t know what they did?...[The prosecution] didn’t even paint a picture for me to consider.”

 

That was defense attorney Jose Baez’s strategy, through and through. And it has nothing to do with what’s legally required to prove a homicide.

 

The truth is, the prosecution doesn’t have to prove cause of death. It only need prove criminal agency—that the death was a homicide, as opposed to an accident. It’s nice to have a body, a murder weapon, a cause of death, but it’s certainly not essential. I’ve had cases where not only was there no murder weapon, there was no body. We had no evidence to establish cause of death. Still, those cases resulted in convictions—in fact that jury returned a verdict of first-degree murder in one of them.

 

And the Anthony prosecutors could have done it too, because the evidence was more than sufficient to prove a homicide: a baby disappeared and the last person seen with the child—the mother—lied repeatedly for a full month about her whereabouts; deliberately lied in a way that prevented anyone from searching for the child. The mother’s researching of chloroform on the computer matched up to the finding of chloroform traces in the trunk of the car. The same car trunk where a hair consistent with Caylee's was found; a hair that was arguably from a decomposing body. The same car trunk from which the smell of a decomposing body emanated strongly. The child’s decomposed body was found bagged in the woods near the mother’s house. Significantly, the child’s mouth and nose had been duct taped. And while that child’s body lay decomposing in the woods, the mother euphorically and gleefully partied with her buddies knowing full well that not only was her child dead but she was actively preventing anyone from finding out. That evidence not only proved a homicide, it proved that Casey Anthony committed it.

 

How did the defense counter this compelling body of evidence? They put up a bit of a fight on the forensics. Especially as to whether the hair could be definitively said to have come from a corpse. Okay, fine, let that one go.

 

Then what about the duct tape? There’s no reason to put duct tape on the face of a child who’s already dead. The defense made a lame attempt to counter that by asserting that ‘some other dude’ put the duct tape on the baby’s face—but the testimony offered to prove that (Dr. Werner Spitz) was laughably weak, and thus didn’t even dent the prosecution’s case.

 

When all was said and done, the only things the defense really had going for it were the unproven allegations of molestation and the wholly unsubstantiated claim that the baby drowned in the swimming pool.

 

But if you listen to Juror Jennifer Ford’s interview, those unproven, unsubstantiated claims are exactly what the jury hung its collective hat on.

 

When she complained that they never knew exactly how the child died, she was asked: “So you believed it was an accident?”

 

Her answer: “I’m not saying that, I’m saying it’s a lot easier to get to that conclusion. I can walk from here to there and make it happen. But the chloroform I’m all over the place, I’m in a maze, I don’t know where I’m at.”

 

The child’s body was found in a plastic bag with duct tape over the mouth and nose, and left to decompose in the woods while Casey Anthony told everyone the baby was with Zanny the Nanny, and she found it “easier” to believe it was an accident? Frankly, I don’t see how you “walk from here to there” to make that happen.

 

So where did she get the idea that it was easier to believe this was an accident? Baez’s opening statement—where he claimed that he’d prove this was an accident. The only problem is, he didn’t. Usually, juries hold lawyers accountable for those flops. Not here.

 

Ms. Ford also claimed the prosecution never showed a motive. What did all those party pictures mean to her? The tattoo Casey Anthony got days after her baby died: “Bella Vida”?

 

To that, Ms. Ford said, “It looks very bad…but bad behavior is not enough to prove a crime.”

 

Sound familiar? It’s exactly what Jose Baez said: You can believe she’s a liar, a slut, a lying slut, but that doesn’t mean she killed her baby.

 

But where Baez’s non-evidence had the greatest impact was on the jury’s perception of George Anthony. Here, Ms. Ford’s answers are very telling. Her statements are somewhat contradictory, and show incredible antipathy for—and suspicion of—Casey’s father.

 

“He did not help the State’s case,” she said. “He was clearly dishonest. He was evasive. His story seemed to change.”

 

But there was an obvious explanation for the father’s behavior. George Anthony was a man undergoing an incredible conflict: he wanted to defend his daughter, yet, being a police officer, he surely knew the evidence against her was compelling. And on top of all that, his daughter's defense strategy set him up as an incestuous child molester. Given all those circumstances, it’s not hard to see how he veered from one side to the other, his loyalties and love for his daughter and his granddaughter in conflict and sorely tested. The jury could have reasoned it that way too. But it didn’t.

 

When asked whether she believed George Anthony had some part in the demise of little Caylee, Ms. Ford said: “I don’t know if he had anything to do with it, but I think he was there.”

 

And where would the jury get the idea that George Anthony was “there”? Surely not in the evidence—there was not one shred of evidence to support that notion. Once again, that was speculation that was raised in Jose Baez’s opening statement but was nowhere in the evidence.

 

Then what did the jury think happened to Caylee? Now this is where the reasoning finally falls through the hole in the floor.

 

According to Ms. Ford, “Something happened, at some point she probably needed medical care or at least there could be some attempt…to save the child’s life that was never made. That bothered me.” But if it was just an accident, then why would the body wind up in a plastic bag in a swamp? “You’re covering up something…it’s either an accident or…nobody knows what it is.”

 

This is exactly what Jose Baez told them to believe. That since they couldn’t know how Caylee died, they couldn’t convict his client. That it was an accident—and he’d prove it. Didn't matter that he never proved it, didn't matter that the notion of accident had no basis in fact or logic, didn’t matter that only his client had motive to kill the child, didn’t matter that his client was the last to be seen with the child, put duct tape on the child’s mouth and nose, hid the fact of the child’s death, carried the child’s body around in her trunk, then stashed the body in a plastic bag and hid it in the woods. Never mind all that.

 

Juror Ford said she didn't believe it was their duty to "connect all the dots," and that the prosecution was required to answer every question about Caylee's death, including why and how it was committed.

 

First of all, there is no such thing as a case in which the prosecution answers every question. It isn't possible. Second of all, the prosecution doesn't have to. The prosecution is only required to prove the elements of the crime - and that does not include motive nor does it include cause of death.

 

Moreover, it is most certainly the jury's duty to "connect the dots." The jury is required to consider all of the evidence and to draw the reasonable inferences that evidence suggests. Note I said reasonable - that doesn't mean concocting scenarios out of thin air based on nothing but a lawyer's opening statement.

 

And by the way, what about that duct tape? How did the jury get around that one? Here’s what Ms. Ford said:

 

“In our country unfortunately we have to prove it…it smells bad, looks bad, yeah I get that. But it’s someone else’s life and if I’m wrong, I can’t live with that.”

 

In other words: no answer. I said it early on in this case and I’ll say it again: that duct tape was the murder weapon. No innocent explanation—that is, any viable one—was ever produced. And the jury never found one either. Nevertheless, they bought the defense and acquitted Casey Anthony, who most surely killed that child.

 

That’s what I can’t live with.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/08/casey-anthony-trail-the-sequestered-jury-fell-prey-to-idiotic-groupthink.html

 

Love it.

 

Also, Juror #3's answers to everything she was asked were ridiculous, and just more proof that she (and the rest of the jury) were ignorant.

[EastCoastNiner]

Incredible read, written by an OJ prosecutor. First, she tells how a sequestered jury leads to everyone in the group thinking alike (didn't even know the jury was sequestered, which is another reason why this shit went south so quickly). Then...

 

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/08/casey-anthony-trail-the-sequestered-jury-fell-prey-to-idiotic-groupthink.html

 

Love it.

 

Also, Juror #3's answers to everything she was asked were ridiculous, and just more proof that she (and the rest of the jury) were ignorant.

 

Which part do you love? The part where Marcia Clark is probably still pissed she couldn't convict O.J., or the part where she doesn't understand the point of having a sequestered jury? If there is no sequestered jury, they have a great chance of getting sucked into the media being the 13th juror, just like Nancy Grace was trying to be. Good thing she's apologized to the Duke Lacrosse players.....oh, wait.....she never did!

 

HOWEVER, I do agree a lot of what she said about juror #3. I don't get why juror #3 said they aren't supposed to connect the dots. That's exactly what you are supposed to do........

 

I've never once altered my stance on my belief that Casey did something to Caylee because I 100% think (know) she did, however, I'm starting to move over to the prosecutions side of the case in terms of if the juror's could have convicted her based upon the evidence. I need to read more into what the jurors are actually instructed to do, but I'm starting to change my stance on the jury's decision, largely based on juror #3's answers.

 

Honestly, I think I've just been playing Devil's advocate a little bit, but I really am starting to move to the prosecutions side. My whole stance about the jury's decision is based upon what they are supposed to actually do with the evidence, and whether or not they COULD convict Casey with the evidence they had.

Edited July 9, 2011 by DaBearsfan101

[Real Deal]

Honestly, I think I've just been playing Devil's advocate a little bit, but I really am starting to move to the prosecutions side. My whole stance about the jury's decision is based upon what they are supposed to actually do with the evidence, and whether or not they COULD convict Casey with the evidence they had.

Just finished watching something on MSNBC.

 

http://dateline.msnbc.com

 

Go on there and look for the Sweetwater County case, the Mystery at Lost Dog Road (Bob Duke).

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZEOaBXQF1s

 

There's a six-part video on Youtube for it.

 

Long story short, he claims his wife and 5-year old son fell off a cliff, by accident. There was no evidence (physical or forensic) that he pushed them off, at all, yet he ended up getting life in prison because he asked an old buddy of his to kill his parents, and a girl testified that she was with him while he was married, and he had lied about never being on that cliff before.

 

Needing DNA, or a cause of death, to put someone away? There are so many guilty verdicts that didn't need it. At the end of the day, Casey Anthony got away with murder because the jury:

 

1) didn't know all of the evidence

2) was prematurely set on the not guilty verdict before the trial was over

3) felt the only thing acceptable was DNA evidence + a cause of death

 

If Anthony had lit Caylee on fire and basically cremated her, again, there would be no way anyone could ever have a cause of death...and what DNA evidence could be pulled from ashes dumped into water? She could've done both of those, and nothing would have put her away for good? And that's supposed to be "the law" and why a jury would find her not guilty? I don't believe that, at all.

 

It shouldn't take 15-16 different reasons why she killed her own child...but it did, yet that wasn't enough.

 

Which part do you love? The part where Marcia Clark is probably still pissed she couldn't convict O.J., or the part where she doesn't understand the point of having a sequestered jury? If there is no sequestered jury, they have a great chance of getting sucked into the media being the 13th juror, just like Nancy Grace was trying to be. Good thing she's apologized to the Duke Lacrosse players.....oh, wait.....she never did!

She probably is still angry about not being able to convict OJ, because he also got away with murder. The ONLY reason why he wasn't convicted was because those gloves didn't fit his hands, and that is just insane.

 

If the jury had access to the media, they would've heard all of the evidence, had the dots connected for them, and could've made a better decision. You can say they needed sequestered to understand the decision, but you were watching the television, and you're providing me reasons as to why their decision was correct.

 

To say the jury didn't adopt the same ideas earlier in the trial is an understatement. They were done with it. They came to the conclusion that they needed DNA evidence, or this wasn't happening. The third juror really told us this, and from what we've heard coming out of the mouths of a few others in the jury, most of them believed Casey actually did it. That tells you right there that they were dead set on looking for DNA evidence, NOT connecting the dots, and that's simply bad practice. That's not how a jury of 12 is supposed to operate, and it's exactly why Casey will be out next Sunday.

[reno]

Incredible read, written by an OJ prosecutor. First, she tells how a sequestered jury leads to everyone in the group thinking alike (didn't even know the jury was sequestered, which is another reason why this shit went south so quickly). Then...

 

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/08/casey-anthony-trail-the-sequestered-jury-fell-prey-to-idiotic-groupthink.html

 

Love it.

 

Also, Juror #3's answers to everything she was asked were ridiculous, and just more proof that she (and the rest of the jury) were ignorant.

Ignorant? Far from ignorant, far far far from ignorant

The jurors were great, about as good as we can get in a free system. The last thing we need is to have the media or lawyers play the role as the jurors. That would be terrible and extremely biased.

[reno]

 

 

Needing DNA, or a cause of death, to put someone away? There are so many guilty verdicts that didn't need it. At the end of the day, Casey Anthony got away with murder because the jury:

 

1) didn't know all of the evidence

the prosecutors brought up stuff that we have never seen before in the court system

2) was prematurely set on the not guilty verdict before the trial was over

Yah, you're innocent until PROVEN GUILTY.

3) felt the only thing acceptable was DNA evidence + a cause of death

femur bone showed nothing, brain showed nothing, no dna. Nothing that can prove that casey anthony murdered her child. You could make as strong of a case that it was her father was the one that committed the crime based on what was shown.

 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2011 by EastsCoastNiner

[Real Deal]

Not sure what else to say to you. You haven't been around long enough to see tons of people get put away without DNA evidence, I guess. You trying to explain how a jury's early verdict is a good thing and is acceptable...is actually you just wanting someone to talk to you about it, unless you're Casey Anthony. Sorry.

[?QuestionMark?]

Not sure what else to say to you. You haven't been around long enough to see tons of people get put away without DNA evidence, I guess. You trying to explain how a jury's early verdict is a good thing and is acceptable...is actually you just wanting someone to talk to you about it, unless you're Casey Anthony. Sorry.

 

 

And how many innocent people have gone to jail because this?

 

No time of death, no cause of death, no witnesses, the defense poked holes in the chloroform theory, and there's no motive. Every element of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to find the accused guilty. Unfortunately, all the state had was speculation and therefore the jury had enough reasonable doubt not to convict.

Edited July 12, 2011 by ?QuestionMark?

[Real Deal]

And how many innocent people have gone to jail because this?

 

No time of death, no cause of death, no witnesses, the defense poked holes in the chloroform theory, and there's no motive. Every element of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to find the accused guilty. Unfortunately, all the state had was speculation and therefore the jury had enough reasonable doubt not to convict.

Speculation and physical evidence are two different things, but for the last time, I understand that a video of Casey Anthony duct-taping her baby's mouth after she killed her was required, so I see where some of you stand at this point.

[?QuestionMark?]

So even you disagree with the DA's theory.

 

DA has been claiming the tape was the cause of death. You say Casey placed the tape after the death. That's reasonable doubt.

 

The rest of the evidence was shaky. State says there were high levels of chloroform in the trunk, FBI expert says they were normal. State brings in a witness saying there the hair found in the trunk was of a corpse, yet the same witness says the hair test they ran can't positively link the hair to Caylee without DNA. The state says there was a strong odor of a decomposing body in the trunk, yet no blood or DNA was found the trunk. So that leaves the duct tape with no finger prints.

 

All of our guts/instincts tell us Anthony killed her child, but our guts, unfortunately in this case, isn't the standard used to find someone guilty.

[Real Deal]

So even you disagree with the DA's theory.

 

DA has been claiming the tape was the cause of death. You say Casey placed the tape after the death. That's reasonable doubt.

 

The rest of the evidence was shaky. State says there were high levels of chloroform in the trunk, FBI expert says they were normal. State brings in a witness saying there the hair found in the trunk was of a corpse, yet the same witness says the hair test they ran can't positively link the hair to Caylee without DNA. The state says there was a strong odor of a decomposing body in the trunk, yet no blood or DNA was found the trunk. So that leaves the duct tape with no finger prints.

 

All of our guts/instincts tell us Anthony killed her child, but our guts, unfortunately in this case, isn't the standard used to find someone guilty.

Like I said multiple times already, it's easy to sit there and find explanations for every little thing, but you aren't connecting them AND THEN giving me an explanation.

 

Just as one of the jurors pointed out, it's not their job to connect the dots. That's an incorrect statement, but I'll stop there because that's exactly why Casey is free.