Casey Anthony Verdict

[greg775]

Your dad kills someone, you get death for it? Sounds reasonable.

 

 

Obviously they didn't or she wouldn't have walked.

 

1.) Yes because she made up that lie. If she wants to throw the jury off and I'm on the jury and there's absolutely no reason to believe it was a drowning, I'm not leaving the room til the jury is hung.

2.) I said they obviously bought it (for a while) then chickened out or wanted to get home after the 4th of July. 6-6 proves at one point they considered it a reasonable case and she was guillty.

[Jenksismyhero]

1.) Yes because she made up that lie. If she wants to throw the jury off and I'm on the jury and there's absolutely no reason to believe it was a drowning, I'm not leaving the room til the jury is hung.

2.) I said they obviously bought it (for a while) then chickened out or wanted to get home after the 4th of July. 6-6 proves at one point they considered it a reasonable case and she was guillty.

 

Under your view of the justice system we should have killed her when the initial charges were brought. Nancy Grace told us she was guilty three years ago, why believe otherwise? Who needs a trial? Who needs the government to prove their case when they can use media headlines to obtain a verdict?

 

 

[StrangeSox]

greg is making me question the legitimacy and wisdom of jury trials.

 

I'm pretty sure you've got your burden of proof backwards here, greg. Casey's lawyers were not trying to prove her innocence, nor did they have to. Their job was to cast doubt on the prosecution's case. Just because the jury was 6-6 at one point doesn't mean they "chickened out," it could be they discussed it more and several of them came to a new point of view they hadn't concerned or realized some fatal flaw in the prosecution's case.

Edited July 14, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Jenksismyhero]

greg is making me question the legitimacy and wisdom of jury trials.

 

As my partner (a state attorney for like 15 years) told me after this verdict - jury's are incredibly unpredictable. You'll win 50% of the cases you're supposed to lose and you'll lose 50% of the cases you're supposed to win.

[LittleHurt05]

As my partner (a state attorney for like 15 years) told me after this verdict - jury's are incredibly unpredictable. You'll win 50% of the cases you're supposed to lose and you'll lose 50% of the cases you're supposed to win.

 

Let me tell ya something Stone Pony. In any baseball season, there's 60 games that you are gonna win, 60 that you are gonna lose. It's what you do in those other 42 that matter, dabgummit.

[GoodAsGould]

I think Greg needs to read 12 Angry Men or whatever that book is called, that seemed like a pretty easy guilty verdict they were talking about too.

[greg775]

Under your view of the justice system we should have killed her when the initial charges were brought. Nancy Grace told us she was guilty three years ago, why believe otherwise? Who needs a trial? Who needs the government to prove their case when they can use media headlines to obtain a verdict?

 

No, I'd have made sure the jury was hung so there'd be another trial and maybe the 'truth' would come out.

I am basing my feelings on what I've learned through the trial.

 

I mean, folks, this woman lied and lied and lied.

The duct tape? This was no accident caused by daddy.

She has to sit in jail for at least 10 years on some charge. So I'd hang the jury. I would because I feel there was enough evidence to convict her.

And she even told somebody in another lie she used chloroform to get the baby to sleep at times.

 

This is a human life we're talking about. She is the one who instituted the defense that it was an accident caused by dad. With all these lies, she CANNOT walk as she is about to do.

Edited July 15, 2011 by greg775

[southsider2k5]

No, I'd have made sure the jury was hung so there'd be another trial and maybe the 'truth' would come out.

I am basing my feelings on what I've learned through the trial.

 

I mean, folks, this woman lied and lied and lied.

The duct tape? This was no accident caused by daddy.

She has to sit in jail for at least 10 years on some charge. So I'd hang the jury. I would because I feel there was enough evidence to convict her.

And she even told somebody in another lie she used chloroform to get the baby to sleep at times.

 

This is a human life we're talking about. She is the one who instituted the defense that it was an accident caused by dad. With all these lies, she CANNOT walk as she is about to do.

 

So what would you do with your time in jail?

[greg775]

So what would you do with your time in jail?

 

Why would I go to jail? A lot of people agree with me that there was enough evidence to convict. Why would I be imprisoned for hanging the jury?

[Iwritecode]

I think Greg needs to read 12 Angry Men or whatever that book is called, that seemed like a pretty easy guilty verdict they were talking about too.

 

The Crime: Murder

 

The Ruling: Not Guilty by Reason of Independent Investigation by the Jury.

 

This is the classic courtroom movie, based on an equally famous play. 12 Angry Men follows the deliberation of a jury on a case we never get to see in the courtroom -- we spend the whole story with the members of the jury. The case they're examining involves a young man accused of killing his father.

 

At the start, 11 of the 12 men are convinced the defendant is guilty, but Juror No. 8 is a stubborn bastard who's determined to get this murderer off the hook. He questions every piece of evidence that the prosecution brought forward and even buys a knife similar to the murder weapon to prove to the other jurors that it was not as unique as the prosecution led them to believe.

Slowly he sways each juror, one by one, into the territory of reasonable doubt by making ridiculous claims such as "that witness had glasses indents on her nose, so she probably wasn't wearing her glasses and didn't see anything." He makes a similar claim about an old man who heard the crime happening and as a group they conclude that the old man probably didn't hear anything and made it up to feel important for once in his life.

 

In the end, after piecing together some radical assumptions about the witnesses and evidence presented, they find the defendant not guilty by reason of not wanting to argue with Juror No. 8 anymore.

 

The Law:

 

The guy should have been kicked off the jury the moment he went out and bought the knife. By law, juries are not allowed to conduct their own investigations, and if the other jurors had just reported Juror No. 8 for that, he'd have been replaced by an alternate. Yes, it's cool for characters in a movie to take the law into their own hands. In real life, you like to leave tasks like that to the people who have years of training and law enforcement experience.

 

 

 

But that aside, Juror No. 8's whole line of reasoning is wrong at almost every step. According to the law, it's the jury's job to determine the veracity of the evidence presented, as is -- not to question and interpret the evidence any way they choose and make wild assumptions about witnesses. For instance, you don't just dismiss blood evidence as "probably planted or some s***" unless you are presented with evidence that it has been planted. Likewise, you can't just hand-wave away jury testimony based on, "Her eyes are probably bad."

 

It's kind of important that people stick to their roles in the criminal justice system. It's the lawyers' job to pick apart witness testimony and find any inconsistencies, just as it's the cops' job to hunt down evidence, and it's the prosecutor's job to present it. Once a juror decides to start doing all of that stuff himself, it's probably time to find a new juror.

 

 

Read more: The 5 Most Wildly Illegal Court Rulings in Movie History | Cracked.com http://www.cracked.com/article_18815_the-5...l#ixzz1SBOBlSKt

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

No, I'd have made sure the jury was hung so there'd be another trial and maybe the 'truth' would come out.

I am basing my feelings on what I've learned through the trial.

 

I mean, folks, this woman lied and lied and lied.

The duct tape? This was no accident caused by daddy.

She has to sit in jail for at least 10 years on some charge. So I'd hang the jury. I would because I feel there was enough evidence to convict her.

And she even told somebody in another lie she used chloroform to get the baby to sleep at times.

 

This is a human life we're talking about. She is the one who instituted the defense that it was an accident caused by dad. With all these lies, she CANNOT walk as she is about to do.

 

Just because she's a liar and a terrible mother doesn't mean she's the one that killed her kid. Maybe she was just involved in the cover-up? Maybe the kid died in an accident and she tried to cover it up to get out of this exact situation? Who knows. The prosecution couldn't say how the kid died or why Anthony would have done it (really? Just to party? you believe that? All indications were she could have just left the kids with the gparents, why take it the extra step and kill the kid?)

 

As many people have said, the prosecution screwed up by not charging her properly.

[Balta1701]

Read more: The 5 Most Wildly Illegal Court Rulings in Movie History | Cracked.com http://www.cracked.com/article_18815_the-5...l#ixzz1SBOBlSKt

That review is correct that a Juror can't bring outside items into the deliberations without permission, but the law regarding what jurors can do as far as I understand it is far less open and shut than is presented there. Although judges can give substantial amounts of guidance about the rules jurors can follow, a juror actually has wide latitude to decide how to go about considering a case.

[Iwritecode]

That review is correct that a Juror can't bring outside items into the deliberations without permission, but the law regarding what jurors can do as far as I understand it is far less open and shut than is presented there. Although judges can give substantial amounts of guidance about the rules jurors can follow, a juror actually has wide latitude to decide how to go about considering a case.

 

I didn't know how accurate it was considering the source but I thought it was interesting. It's been awhile since I've seen the movie. It was in an English class during my sophomore year.

 

[BigSqwert]

 

Woman Who Looks Like Casey Anthony Attacked By Driver In Oklahoma

 

A woman outraged over the Casey Anthony verdict was arrested in Oklahoma for allegedly attacking a convenience store clerk who resembles the Florida mom acquitted of murdering her daughter.

 

After leaving work in Chouteau on Friday, Sammay Blackwell said a customer who had told her that "you look like Casey Anthony" followed her for several miles and then crashed her car into Blackwell's, causing her to flip several times, local TV station News Channel 6 reported.

 

Blackwell said that suspect Shireen Nalley stared at her and gave her the creeps when she came into the store at 10 p.m. to buy gas. Blackwell's shift ended half an hour later and claimed that she saw Nalley sitting in a minivan watching her, WTSP reported.

 

For several miles, Nalley allegedly followed her and eventually rammed Blackwell's car twice. The second collision flipped Blackwell's truck two and a half times.

 

Police chased Nalley down and charged her with assault and battery with a deadly weapon, leaving the scene of an accident, resisting arrest and reckless driving, Channel 6 said.

 

The controversial acquittal of the real Casey Anthony in the murder of her daughter Caylee has had unexpected consequences for people around the country. A Pennsylvania man named Casey Anthony said he's been inundated with Facebook friend requests and phone calls since the Florida mom was found not guilty on July 5.

 

In an ironic twist, Blackwell has a daughter named Caylee too, Channel 9 said.

[StrangeSox]

jesus christ

[Milkman delivers]

I half expected that to be an Onion article. I hate people so much. I'm seriously rooting for the world to end in 2012.

[BigSqwert]

jesus christ

 

 

I half expected that to be an Onion article. I hate people so much. I'm seriously rooting for the world to end in 2012.

I typically don't wish ill will towards people but I hope the woman that did that gets AIDS.

[Milkman delivers]

I typically don't wish ill will towards people but I hope the woman that did that gets AIDS.

 

Well, she'll be going to jail. There's a good chance for that.

[greg775]

The prosecution couldn't say how the kid died or why Anthony would have done it (really? Just to party? you believe that? All indications were she could have just left the kids with the gparents, why take it the extra step and kill the kid?)

 

This is what Dennis Miller was talking about. People saying, 'there's no way she could have done this, no mother could do this.'

Yes, someone deranged could do this. Yes she wanted to get rid of the kid so she could party every day and be unburdened.

You say all indications she could have left the kids with the gparents? She said dad was responsible for the death!

 

The woman made up the nanny; the woman took the police to universal studios where she worked, finally admitting upon arrival she didn't work there (wasting their efforts when they could have been really looking for caylee), the woman out of nowhere accuses dad of the crime.

I may be mistaken, but there were 3-4 things she could have been found guilty of, I think No. 2 was child endangerment or abuse. Yes if I was on the jury she'd have been found guility of some crime that would have kept her in jail 10 years or so.

People that are talking so solemnly about how I don't understand the law, etc., I don't think are focusing on wanting justice for a little kid who died a horrible death. The mother has no desire to help police find her child; has no desire to help. First she says nanny did it; there was no nanny. Then dad did it. Why would she say these things and not assist police? Because she was involved. Whether or not you think she suffocated the child, she still was responsible for her death.

She deserves to sit 10 years or more in prison with the current evidence and the jury should have made her do so.

 

The focus of the crazies at least has been on the baby who died a horrible death.

You guys talking about the law don't even seem to want her to have been convicted of count 2 or 3.

Edited July 15, 2011 by greg775

[southsider2k5]

Woman Who Looks Like Casey Anthony Attacked By Driver In Oklahoma

 

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

[StrangeSox]

This is what Dennis Miller was talking about. People saying, 'there's no way she could have done this, no mother could do this.'

Yes, someone deranged could do this. Yes she wanted to get rid of the kid so she could party every day and be unburdened.

You say all indications she could have left the kids with the gparents? She said dad was responsible for the death!

 

The woman made up the nanny; the woman took the police to universal studios where she worked, finally admitting upon arrival she didn't work there (wasting their efforts when they could have been really looking for caylee), the woman out of nowhere accuses dad of the crime.

I may be mistaken, but there were 3-4 things she could have been found guilty of, I think No. 2 was child endangerment or abuse. Yes if I was on the jury she'd have been found guility of some crime that would have kept her in jail 10 years or so.

People that are talking so solemnly about how I don't understand the law, etc., I don't think are focusing on wanting justice for a little kid who died a horrible death. The mother has no desire to help police find her child; has no desire to help. First she says nanny did it; there was no nanny. Then dad did it. Why would she say these things and not assist police? Because she was involved. Whether or not you think she suffocated the child, she still was responsible for her death.

She deserves to sit 10 years or more in prison with the current evidence and the jury should have made her do so.

 

The focus of the crazies at least has been on the baby who died a horrible death.

You guys talking about the law don't even seem to want her to have been convicted of count 2 or 3.

 

I want people to be convicted of crimes for which the prosecution has met the burden of proof. I don't want vigilante juries who don't understand the law and instead seek to punish people to get "justice."

[greg775]

I want people to be convicted of crimes for which the prosecution has met the burden of proof. I don't want vigilante juries who don't understand the law and instead seek to punish people to get "justice."

 

So she couldn't have been punished for the second or third counts??

She didn't abuse or endanger the child with her actions??

Somehow I think not reporting any missing child for 31 days would have gotten you or me in a load of trouble. Somehow this woman skated.

 

The woman is guilty. The jury was lazy and wanted to get home right after the fourth of July. Even the jury had a 6-6 vote at first to convict of murder. They backed off. Disgraceful.

Edited July 15, 2011 by greg775

[southsider2k5]

I want people to be convicted of crimes for which the prosecution has met the burden of proof. I don't want vigilante juries who don't understand the law and instead seek to punish people to get "justice."

 

Greg is pretty much telling us he would be the jury equivalent of this nut in OK who attacked a woman for looking like Anthony.

[StrangeSox]

So she couldn't have been punished for the second or third counts??

She didn't abuse or endanger the child with her actions??

Somehow I think not reporting any missing child for 31 days would have gotten you or me in a load of trouble. Somehow this woman skated.

 

She's a terrible person and a worse mother. She was involved in her child's death undoubtedly. The argument that she killed her or abused or endangered her is not quite as convincing. Trying to cover up an accidental death is not murder, abuse or endangerment.

 

The woman is guilty. The jury was lazy and wanted to get home right after the fourth of July. Even the jury had a 6-6 vote at first to convict of murder. They backed off. Disgraceful.

 

I love the assumptions here, that the only way six of them changed their minds was because they were "lazy." This of course ignores why 6 of them didn't vote guilty in the first place or quickly change their votes so they could get home and accuses them of extreme narcissism.

[greg775]

Greg is pretty much telling us he would be the jury equivalent of this nut in OK who attacked a woman for looking like Anthony.

 

 

She's a terrible person and a worse mother. She was involved in her child's death undoubtedly. The argument that she killed her or abused or endangered her is not quite as convincing. Trying to cover up an accidental death is not murder, abuse or endangerment.

 

 

 

I love the assumptions here, that the only way six of them changed their minds was because they were "lazy." This of course ignores why 6 of them didn't vote guilty in the first place or quickly change their votes so they could get home and accuses them of extreme narcissism.

 

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.

There have been polls taken where something like 70 percent of all Americans think she deserved jail time and I am a nut? Great.

 

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.

Edited July 15, 2011 by greg775