Casey Anthony Verdict

[southsider2k5]

1.) That's very unfair. I think you should take that back. You can't argue or answer my points about how she could have been convicted on the second or third counts and come up with that? The only crime I've ever committed was drinking and driving in college and never caused an accident or got caught and stealing candy from a store as a kid. I'd be a jury equivalent of a nut who ATTACKED somebody? Geez.

 

2.) Lying to police is endangerment of her child. At that point child was 'supposed' to be alive.

 

3. Breaking news: Casey Anthony's attorneys have filed a notice of appeal for her four convictions of lying to police. The document was filed at Orange County Court Courthouse Friday by Anthony's lead defense attorney, Jose Baez.

 

And state of Florida has to fit the bill because she's indigent.

That is irresponsible. The woman lied to police and that's documented. What is Baez looking for here? Sad.

 

And yes I'm ashamed I drank and drove in college. That was wrong. Luckily nothing came of it. I have a zillion friends with DUIs.

 

You are basically saying that the jurors should have taken the law into their own hands, vigilante style. Yes, I have a problem with that.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

WTF? Wouldn't you at least want a positive ID before you try to kill someone?

 

People are stupid

[greg775]

You are basically saying that the jurors should have taken the law into their own hands, vigilante style. Yes, I have a problem with that.

 

I have a problem with you calling me a nut and comparing me to somebody trying to kill somebody.

If it was me, I'd go back and kill that post. But I'm not a mod.

 

And you again conveniently fail to point out I feel there WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE to convict on some charges.

Why is that being a vigilante.

Holding out? Why is that being a vigilante? I want justice.

Edited July 15, 2011 by greg775

[StrangeSox]

2.) Lying to police is endangerment of her child. At that point child was 'supposed' to be alive.

 

Not if you assume she was already dead due to an accident. Then it's a panicked 20-something trying to forestall reality, but it doesn't make it murder or abuse or endangerment.

[greg775]

Not if you assume she was already dead due to an accident. Then it's a panicked 20-something trying to forestall reality, but it doesn't make it murder or abuse or endangerment.

 

And what if I as a juror don't buy the 'accident' argument, which is my right.

Then it is endangerment.

[southsider2k5]

I have a problem with you calling me a nut and comparing me to somebody trying to kill somebody.

If it was me, I'd go back and kill that post. But I'm not a mod.

 

And you again conveniently fail to point out I feel there WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE to convict on some charges.

Why is that being a vigilante.

Holding out? Why is that being a vigilante? I want justice.

 

You are talking about convicting a person of first degree murder, despite the evidence being found lacking by a 12 person jury who was involved in the evidence from day one. The prosecution failed, and despite that, you want her to get what would in effect be her death sentence. Convicting someone without enough evidence would be akin to killing her in this case. Trust me, I think she was guilty too, but you can't go vigilante and make the system do something that it isn't supposed to do.

[StrangeSox]

And what if I as a juror don't buy the 'accident' argument, which is my right.

Then it is endangerment.

 

You've still got the burdens mixed up. The prosecution needs to show it was a murder beyond any reasonable doubt, not the other way around. If there's a slight-but-realistic chance it was accidental, you have to vote not guilty.

 

And I'm not sure why anyone would assume the daughter was alive during that 31-day period, which is what you're basing your endangerment on.

[StrangeSox]

You are talking about convicting a person of first degree murder, despite the evidence being found lacking by a 12 person jury who was involved in the evidence from day one. The prosecution failed, and despite that, you want her to get what would in effect be her death sentence. Convicting someone without enough evidence would be akin to killing her in this case. Trust me, I think she was guilty too, but you can't go vigilante and make the system do something that it isn't supposed to do.

but those 6 jurors were just lazy and wanted to go home! 6-6 is good enough for GUILTY!

[greg775]

You are talking about convicting a person of first degree murder, despite the evidence being found lacking by a 12 person jury who was involved in the evidence from day one. The prosecution failed, and despite that, you want her to get what would in effect be her death sentence. Convicting someone without enough evidence would be akin to killing her in this case. Trust me, I think she was guilty too, but you can't go vigilante and make the system do something that it isn't supposed to do.

 

How is saying I believe there's enough evidence to convict her on the other charges wanting the first degree murder charge only? I say there WAS enough evidence. Obviously the jury at some point agreed as well as it was 6-6. It is my right to try to convince everybody else without being a VIGILANTE or some street thug trying to kill somebody with my car.

 

And I can't believe you aren't backing down on the insult. I'm out of this thread.

This really pisses me off.

I think if I posted something like you did, I'd be banned. That's just bulls*** to insult me like that. Bulls***.

[StrangeSox]

Obviously the jury at some point agreed as well as it was 6-6.

Stop saying this, it's just dumb. Obviously HALF of the jurors agreed at one point early on, but after deliberation and discussion changed their mind.

[StrangeSox]

also lighten up, it's just a post on a forum.

[Jordan4life_2007]

I have a problem with you calling me a nut and comparing me to somebody trying to kill somebody.

If it was me, I'd go back and kill that post. But I'm not a mod.

 

And you again conveniently fail to point out I feel there WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE to convict on some charges.

Why is that being a vigilante.

Holding out? Why is that being a vigilante? I want justice.

 

2K5 is right. You can't send folks away for life or worse due to emotion. The physical evidence was severely lacking in this case. f*** popular opinion. The case was s*** and pretty much circumstantial. The dumbasses that are calling for her to be beheaded are lacking standard intelligence on how the legal system works and fell for the media propaganda.

[StrangeSox]

NANCY GRACE WOULD NOT LIE TO ME!

[southsider2k5]

Stop saying this, it's just dumb. Obviously HALF of the jurors agreed at one point early on, but after deliberation and discussion changed their mind.

 

This important. The life of a jury negotiation is dynamic. Just because you vote one way, one time, doesn't mean that is what you believe at the end of the day. Once a jury starts discussing evidence in detail, plus people's testimony, they could very well realize that viewed something incorrectly, or didn't understand what the burden of proof was. A 6-6 vote could mean that the jury bought into the circumstantial evidence, but once they really got in and talked about the basis in fact, they realized they were wrong.

 

Realize that jury is a lot like a thread like this. People all are exposed to the same things, and turn it into what they hear it as. Then they are charged with taking all of those different view points and coming to a consensus.

[southsider2k5]

How is saying I believe there's enough evidence to convict her on the other charges wanting the first degree murder charge only? I say there WAS enough evidence. Obviously the jury at some point agreed as well as it was 6-6. It is my right to try to convince everybody else without being a VIGILANTE or some street thug trying to kill somebody with my car.

 

And I can't believe you aren't backing down on the insult. I'm out of this thread.

This really pisses me off.

I think if I posted something like you did, I'd be banned. That's just bulls*** to insult me like that. Bulls***.

 

You have said multiple times that you would have gone out of your way to commit an illegal action if you were on that jury because of your belief. That is the textbook definition of vigilante.

 

[Iwritecode]

You have said multiple times that you would have gone out of your way to commit an illegal action if you were on that jury because of your belief. That is the textbook definition of vigilante.

 

I'm not quite sure how we got from voting "guilty" as part of a 12-person jury to wanting to intact vigilante justice.

 

If Greg was on the jury and truly believed she was guilty the very best he could have accomplished was a hung jury.

[greg775]

You have said multiple times that you would have gone out of your way to commit an illegal action if you were on that jury because of your belief. That is the textbook definition of vigilante.

 

Yeah and I would go out of my way to take my car and ram it into somebody and kill them.

What mod can I contact to issue my complaint about your post? Who is in charge here?

You are out of line.

 

I am on a jury. I have a right to convict after hearing evidence that 70 percent of the country after examining it agrees with me. But I am as bad as some idiot who tries to kill somebody?

Great example you are setting for wanting a f***ing discussion on here.

Edited July 15, 2011 by greg775

[Balta1701]

Yeah and I would go out of my way to take my car and ram it into somebody and kill them.

What mod can I contact to issue my complaint about your post? Who is in charge here?

You are out of line.

If you have a serious complaint about a mod/admin, spell it out to one of the other admins, and we will, likely in private, take action deemed appropriate by consensus of the remaining mods/admins.

[greg775]

If you have a serious complaint about a mod/admin, spell it out to one of the other admins, and we will, likely in private, take action deemed appropriate by consensus of the remaining mods/admins.

 

Thanks Balta.

[Jordan4life_2007]

I'm not quite sure how we got from voting "guilty" as part of a 12-person jury to wanting to intact vigilante justice.

 

If Greg was on the jury and truly believed she was guilty the very best he could have accomplished was a hung jury.

 

Look, this was a case of a defenseless/innocent white child, yes, I said white because I don't believe the outrage would be the same if the girl had been black or mexican, and people need somebody to blame. Somebody has to be held accountable. If the mom didn't do it, who did? No, it had to he the mom. Why does it have to be the mom? It could've been me. It doesn't take a genius to murder and get away with it. Yes, it takes some work. But its doable. Greg is cool. But he doesn't know what he's talking about here. Pure emotion on his part.

[southsider2k5]

Yeah and I would go out of my way to take my car and ram it into somebody and kill them.

What mod can I contact to issue my complaint about your post? Who is in charge here?

You are out of line.

 

I am on a jury. I have a right to convict after hearing evidence that 70 percent of the country after examining it agrees with me. But I am as bad as some idiot who tries to kill somebody?

Great example you are setting for wanting a f***ing discussion on here.

 

70% of the country wasn't on the jury, and neither were you. What everyone else thinks who was not in that courtroom doesn't matter. You are talking about intentionally hanging a jury just because you want to see another trial take place. That is illegal. You are talking about putting a person on a life sentence, when none of the 12 jurors came to that conclusion. A life sentence is pretty much a death sentence in this case. The conclusion is very easy to reach via your own posts.

 

You can report the posts to anyone whose name has a fancy color behind it if you like, instead of using it as a part of your argument.

[Iwritecode]

You are talking about intentionally hanging a jury just because you want to see another trial take place.

 

Is it really illegal or just immoral and unethical?

 

I'd imagine it'd be extremely difficult to prove somebody was doing that.

[southsider2k5]

Is it really illegal or just immoral and unethical?

 

I'd imagine it'd be extremely difficult to prove somebody was doing that.

 

To do it intentionally is illegal. Of course it would be hard to prove, but in this case this is exactly what Greg told us he would have done.

[BigSqwert]

So awesome

[Balta1701]

To do it intentionally is illegal. Of course it would be hard to prove, but in this case this is exactly what Greg told us he would have done.

Being the holdout who causes a hung jury though isn't illegal...if he genuinely believed that the person was guilty and would not vote to acquit, then that's not illegal.