# Casey Anthony cleared



## Zac495 (Jul 5, 2011)

I was sure there would already be a thread.
I'm so shocked. Thoughts?


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 5, 2011)

I'll post the same thing I posted on another forum...

Hate to say it (because I do believe she's guilty), but I never heard anything that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that she murdered Caylee vs. an accidental killing of Caylee. The prosecution had their sights on murder.

I will admit that I did not follow the trial closely, so if I'm wrong, please share why you think she was guilty of murder vs an accident. I know about the searches on the home computer.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jul 5, 2011)

The woman was at least guilty of child abuse, supposedly not having any idea where her daughter was.  The prosecution chose to charge her with First Degree Murder, and and they couldn't prove their case.  

She is a liar, and lying continuously about everything to do with Caylee.  Where there's smoke there's fire, and the lies made her look guilty.  No one parties with her child missing, but Casey did.  It's disappointing there is no justice for Caylee.


----------



## Tia (Jul 5, 2011)

I was very surprised  when I heard it earlier today myself. Guess Casey can get on with her partying now .


----------



## CapriciousC (Jul 5, 2011)

rickandcindy23 said:


> The woman was at least guilty of child abuse, supposedly not having any idea where her daughter was.  The prosecution chose to charge her with First Degree Murder, and and they couldn't prove their case.
> 
> She is a liar, and lying continuously about everything to do with Caylee.  Where there's smoke there's fire, and the lies made her look guilty.  No one parties with her child missing, but Casey did.  It's disappointing there is no justice for Caylee.



I agree completely.  At a minimum, it seems likely that she is responsible for the death of her child, whether through negligence or an overt act.  Even if Caylee's death was an accident, her mother's behavior afterward was reprehensible.  

I'm not a lawyer, so forgive me if this is a stupid question, but is this it?  I know she can't be tried twice for the same crime, but does that mean that they couldn't attempt to pursue her for negligence or some form of manslaughter?


----------



## Passepartout (Jul 5, 2011)

*NOT THE SAME AS INNOCENT*

I haven't followed this too closely, but it is hard not to at least get the gist of how it's going from all the headlines.

This reminds me of the OJ verdict. In time she, like OJ will show her true colors and justice will be done.

She was found 'not guilty of murder'. It's not the same as innocent. The jury just couldn't find beyond a shadow of a doubt. Her parents know their daughter and wouldn't speak to her after the announcement.

Jim Ricks


----------



## TUGBrian (Jul 5, 2011)

as i listened to the judge read the verdicts, one of the counts was indeed some form of child abuse...jury also found her not guilty of that either.

Definately a sad day all around.


----------



## mbger1 (Jul 5, 2011)

The problem was the First Degree murder charge. I also believe that she is guilty, but you cannot execute someone unless you have absolute proof positive that she did it. That evidence was apparently not presented to the jury. 

While the media is jumping all over this because they were ALL wrong, I believe the jury made the right call with what was presented to them. Hate to see her walk, but they should have gone for 2nd degree with the case they had.


----------



## TUGBrian (Jul 5, 2011)

jury still aquitted on manslaughter and child abuse along with the 1st degree murder charge...

find it difficult to believe 2nd degree would have made any difference at all given the not guilty verdict on the other two lesser charges.


----------



## DonM (Jul 5, 2011)

TUGBrian said:


> ...find it difficult to believe 2nd degree would have made any difference at all given the not guilty verdict on the other two lesser charges.



Good point


----------



## DonM (Jul 5, 2011)

mbger1 said:


> ... but you cannot execute someone unless you have absolute proof positive that she did it. That evidence was apparently not presented to the jury.



If she were found guilty of first degree murder, it wouldn't necessarily follow that she would be executed, and you don't need to have absolute proof positive to convict for murder. You just have to proven them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt- I think there's a difference!

don


----------



## Sandi Bo (Jul 5, 2011)

*Too many lies*

Shocked and saddened. Casey told too many lies for me. No justice for Caylee.


----------



## sail27bill (Jul 5, 2011)

Unfortunately it appears to me that most of the evidence was circumstantial, and without proof of how exactly poor little Caylee died, the jury was bound to acquit due to reasonable doubt.  Personally, I believe Casey was guilty, what mother lies aout the wereabouts of her child unless she is trying to hide something.  One does not party if your child is truly missing.  Poor Caylee, I fear justice will never be served.  

Anita


----------



## bass (Jul 5, 2011)

We were stunned.   She got away with the murder of an innocent little girl.   Hopefully, she won't have an easy life.   Her ex-boyfriends (the ones that were real) are already speaking out against her.  My thoughts are of Caylee.

Nancy


----------



## kwilson (Jul 5, 2011)

Haven't heard this anywhere else, but the Feds can still charge her with violating her daughter's Constitutional rights.


----------



## Kona Lovers (Jul 5, 2011)

kwilson said:


> Haven't heard this anywhere else, but the Feds can still charge her with violating her daughter's Constitutional rights.



Exactly.  There was a case years ago in California where the perp was acquitted on murder charges and it was re-filed as you mentioned and the verdict was guilty.


----------



## DonM (Jul 5, 2011)

kwilson said:


> Haven't heard this anywhere else, but the Feds can still charge her with violating her daughter's Constitutional rights.



What is the max penalty one can get for this?


----------



## MelBay (Jul 5, 2011)

I have to believe in karma.  She'll get what she has coming to her.  And that's all I have to say about that.


----------



## ampaholic (Jul 5, 2011)

kwilson said:


> Haven't heard this anywhere else, but the Feds can still charge her with violating her daughter's Constitutional rights.



I think she should have been convicted. 

I also think your statement shows how barbaric the American "justice" system is - anywhere else in the western world (even Italy) when you are acquitted you are _*DONE*_ with the justice system.

Here if we don't like you we just keep you pinned to the wall and keep stoning you.

Just my $.002 worth


----------



## Wonka (Jul 5, 2011)

Justice under the law appears to be a myth.  I didn't expect a conviction for 1st degree, but with the alternatives available it's hard to believe the jury could only reach a guilty verdict for lying.  This type of outcome with all the lying makes a mockery of the judicial system.  Why not lie?  There are no risks for perjury.  Most likely she'll get released for time served and become a very wealthy liar.  No more "shot girl" for Casey.  I'm very upset and angry with the verdict.


----------



## nightnurse613 (Jul 5, 2011)

Well, I for one wasn't shocked (disappointed perhaps but, not shocked). I thought the prosecutor did a good job speculating on what might have happened to the little girl but never was able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.  Of course not finding the body when it was originally suggested didn't help.  You can say the Anthony family is dysfunctional but they kept their mouths closed and their stories straight (mostly) for three years.  Now that the verdict has been rendered I'm thinking we had better keep our eyes open for the next dysfunctional act (watch Mr. Anthony).:ignore:


----------



## jerseygirl (Jul 5, 2011)

Sadly, justice was not served today.  I think the whole family should be behind bars.


----------



## MommaBear (Jul 5, 2011)

I feel that Casey was culpable in her daughter's murder, but since it could not be proved how she died, when she died or at whose hand, the murder could not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. I was actually more surprised when she did not get convicted of child abuse. Not reporting her daughter missing for a month is a fact and at least shows neglect- which is part of the abuse statute.

It is a sad day for Caylee.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 5, 2011)

Of course I don't know what happened but the police found a body without any DNA evidence pointing to the mother.  That hurt the prosecutions case big time.  Furthermore, the coroner had no physical evidence on the body of a homicide.  The coroner ruled it a homicide because the body was found "hidden".  Basically, there appears to have been a considerable amount of reasonable doubt that there was any kind of homicide.


----------



## pjrose (Jul 5, 2011)

She's definitely guilty of being a poor mother and a big liar, but without hard evidence, reasonable doubt came into play.  

I thought there was enough circumstantial evidence....but I wasn't there listening to it all and I wasn't charged with making the decision.

I can't imagine that it could have been anything but homicide - since when do you duct tape an accident victim?


----------



## Big Matt (Jul 5, 2011)

The way I look at it is this.

Our system is set up to protect people who may be wrongfully accused.  Every once in a while we let a guilty person through the system due to the way it works, but I'll trade that 100 times out of 100 if it spares an innocent person from death.  

I dont' know if she did it, and nobody on this board does either.  I'm happy with the verdict because there wasn't any real evidence or proof.  It would be a worse crime to convict her to a death penalty if she is in fact innocent.


----------



## mrsstats (Jul 5, 2011)

I am saddened by the verdict.  If not murder, then surely child abuse.


----------



## KarenLK (Jul 5, 2011)

As i watched her the last few days, she had a look that bothered me, like she was being highly inconvenienced by having to sit there when she had better things to do. 

Guilty, yes, but not provable. How soon will she get back to all that partying she has been missing??

If they release her for time served, I doubt she would be welcome back into the Anthony household, but then again, who knows??


----------



## bass (Jul 5, 2011)

Maybe one of her lawyers could take her in as a permanent house guests.

Nancy


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 5, 2011)

Big Matt said:


> The way I look at it is this.
> 
> Our system is set up to protect people who may be wrongfully accused.  Every once in a while we let a guilty person through the system due to the way it works, but I'll trade that 100 times out of 100 if it spares an innocent person from death.
> 
> I dont' know if she did it, and nobody on this board does either.  I'm happy with the verdict because there wasn't any real evidence or proof.  It would be a worse crime to convict her to a death penalty if she is in fact innocent.



This is exactly what I've been thinking - thanks for speaking my mind.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jul 5, 2011)

sail27bill said:


> Unfortunately it appears to me that most of the evidence was circumstantial, and without proof of how exactly poor little Caylee died, the jury was bound to acquit due to reasonable doubt.  Personally, I believe Casey was guilty, what mother lies aout the wereabouts of her child unless she is trying to hide something.  One does not party if your child is truly missing.  Poor Caylee, I fear justice will never be served.
> 
> Anita



These are my thoughts as well. Its extremely troubling to hear a mother partying while her daughter is missing. I know 99% of parents would be distraught over the events and would be doing nothing but looking for their child. However we only heard what the media told us, the jurors heard everything, so I have my doubts.

Its possible that the mom was just a horrible mother, and the baby did die in an accident, we'll never know.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 5, 2011)

I agree that strange things happened in this case.  I didn't follow the trial and can't say the jury came to the correct decision.  It may have not been the right decision, however, it doesn't appear that the jury acted irresponsibly and without justification for their conclusion.  They could not convict if they had a reasonable doubt and it appears that there was enough holes in the case that a jury could conclude there was a reasonable doubt.


----------



## kwilson (Jul 5, 2011)

MOXJO7282 said:


> , the jurors heard everything, so I have my doubts.
> .



The jurors never hear everything. Only what the judge rules proper. Often pertenent facts are kept from the jurors.


----------



## Kona Lovers (Jul 5, 2011)

KarenLK said:


> How soon will she get back to all that partying she has been missing??



Maybe even tonight.  Remember the day of the OJ verdict?  The news out here covered a big time bash held at his house that very night!


----------



## jerseygirl (Jul 5, 2011)

kwilson said:


> The jurors never hear everything. Only what the judge rules proper. Often pertenent facts are kept from the jurors.



Huge pertinent facts were kept from the jurors in this case ... rightly so, under our system of justice .... but the outcome would almost assuredly have been different if the jurors had heard "all the dirt."


----------



## 6scoops (Jul 5, 2011)

*This is complete BS!!*

She should at least have been convicted on one of the lesser charges.  I think this jury was way off!!  They came back way to quick.  This is so much worse than the OJ trial.  I'm so mad about this verdict.  How did she get off on Aggrivated Manslaughter of a child???  UNREAL!!!


----------



## dioxide45 (Jul 5, 2011)

The reason that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is the in our justice system we would rather let a guilty person go free than to condemn someone who is innocent. That is how it is and why she is "not guilty". It isn't proof of innocence, but rather that she is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

I didn't follow the case very closely, but was initially shocked. Though after reading more in to it, I think the jury had the right verdct in the end based on how our judicial system works.

It is sad as there likely will never be justice served.


----------



## tombo (Jul 5, 2011)

The child was missing for weeks and she didn't look for her. She told family and friends she was on a trip with her nanny Zanny. Then she lied to her mother and the police saying the nanny kidnaped her. There was no nanny. If she didn't know the child was dead she wouldn't have made up stories. The body had duct tape over her mouth. One does not duct tape the mouth of an accident.  Her mom and dad said the trunk of her car smelled like there was a dead body in it. The cadaever dog hit on the trunk. 

The child died, the body was hidden, and the mother lied for weeks and months saying she knew where her child was, that she was on a vavcation with the nanny, then when confronted she said the nanny stold her. In court she allowed her lawyers to portray her problems as the result of sexual abuse from her father and brother. They said her father buried the body. They placed blame everywhere but where it belonged to create doubt. Shame on those lawyers who want to win at any cost with no concerns about right or wrong.

The burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt. If I was on the jury we would still be there. It would either be a guilty verdict or a hung jury because no reasonable person thinks anyone else did it. The police are not about to launch a new investigation looking for Kaylee's murderer because they know the murderer just got off scot free. Plenty of people have been convicted of murder when they never found the body. To not convict because cause of death wasn't provern is BS. She died and was hidden and buried. The mother rather than wondering where her child was made up lies about where she was and went out partying. She needs to be glad I wasn't on the jury because whether it was an accident or on purpose I feel beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey killed her daughter and lied about it and buried her. My vote would have been guilty of at least manslaughter and the other jurors could have agreed with me or we would have been a hung jury.  May her lawyer and his entire legal team join casey in Hell. JMHO.


----------



## Pat H (Jul 5, 2011)

My personal opinion is that Casey taped Caylee's mouth and nose shut to keep her quiet. Poor Caylee suffocated and her "loving" mother put her in a trash bag and dumped her in the woods where the animals could eat her body. Circumstantial evidence is just that. Caylee didn't die a natural death. There was enough circumstantial evidence to convict Casey of manslaughter. Beyond reasonable doesn't mean NO doubt. It means what a reasonable person would believe. 

With all the police shows showing all this great forensic evidence, I think that people have come believe that's the way all cases should be. Just doesn't happen that way.


----------



## easyrider (Jul 5, 2011)

We can only guess as to what really happened. Only the jurrors know why they voted the way they voted. One thing for sure is that the cost of this trial was very expensive for the Florida tax payer and when the book and movie deals are signed the Florida tax payer will feel screwed again.


----------



## 6scoops (Jul 5, 2011)

tombo said:


> My vote would have been guilty of at least manslaughter and the other jurors could have agreed with me or we would have been a hung jury.



I feel exactly the same way, no way I would of voted not guilty.  No way in hell!!
Something will come out about this Jury.  This is backwards.  She is every bit as evil as Susan Smith, but she somehow got away with it.  There was plenty of evidence to send her away, it was ignored!


----------



## MuranoJo (Jul 6, 2011)

easyrider said:


> One thing for sure is that the cost of this trial was very expensive for the Florida tax payer and when the book and movie deals are signed the Florida tax payer will feel screwed again.



Absolutely what I've been thinking.  

What puzzles me is why this particular case has gotten so much media coverage, when similar child abuse/murder cases are not that unusual.


----------



## pjrose (Jul 6, 2011)

To what extent are our perceptions influenced by the fact that she is a very unlikeable young woman?  

Suppose she was crying, distraught, etc, with no partying, no odd demeanor, no string of lies, but the same evidence - the unexplained disappearance, the duct tape, the odor in the car - would we feel the same way?  

None of us knows what really happened - we can put together our opinion based on the circumstantial evidence and her apparent character (or lack thereof) - but still I guess there wasn't hard undeniable evidence linking her directly to the crime.  

I know I will not buy a book or watch a movie; no way do I want any of my money lining her pockets.


----------



## pjrose (Jul 6, 2011)

muranojo said:


> Absolutely what I've been thinking.
> 
> *What puzzles me is why this particular case has gotten so much media coverage, when similar child abuse/murder cases are not that unusual.*



I was wondering that too.  The media feeds on itself - they show it, people watch, they show more, people watch more.....

Also, perhaps because the coverage was allowed, where in other trials the cameras might not have been.

And possibly because in a perverse way this is fascinating - to see such an unimaginably cold and unlikeable "mother" (she was a breeder, clearly not much of a mother)?


----------



## MuranoJo (Jul 6, 2011)

And tonight they showed people offsite of the courthouse waiting for the verdict.  They were obviously upset at the outcome.  One said something _to the effect_,_ "She had better watch her backside, as there are a lot of people upset with this_."


----------



## 6scoops (Jul 6, 2011)

pjrose said:


> Suppose she was crying, distraught, etc, with no partying, no odd demeanor, no string of lies, but the same evidence - the unexplained disappearance, the duct tape, the odor in the car - would we feel the same way?
> 
> .



Yes, for sure I would feel exactly the same way.  There is incontrovertible evidence that points to only one person, Casey Anthony.  It was ignored!  It was enough for a  reasonable jury to find her guilty.  This jury was not reasonable, they fell for the side show put on by the defense attorney's.


----------



## RALnGA (Jul 6, 2011)

*Who dropped the ball?*

It was so much "wrong " in this case. The prosecution could not prove who killed her or how she died, bottom line.
Casey was arrested before they ever found a body.They had to make a case against her after they arrested her, not investagate then make an arrest .She was the only person they pulled phone records.They were after her and did not look at anyone else.
Too many people LYING ..Her Mother ...Father ...Guy that found the body ...guy that took the 5th while on the stand.
Her father tyring to "kill" himself. He had been a policeman,don't you think he would know how to do it if he really wanted to? He wrote a 6 page note ,then took a 6 pack of BEER and blood pressure medicine to a hotel room in Daytona then waited for the police to rescue him...By the way they read the Letter read at the trial ,to prove HIS innocent.I thnk it was his plan all along.
Then the father threw his daughter under the bus buy telling her lawyer(the defense) in court .."Casey was the last person he had seen with the little girl ,1 and 1 adds up to 2 to me." 
Guy that found the body called police 3 time in August or October ...They neve looked for it until he called back in December,by that time all evedince was washed away.Plus he tappered with the body by then,Pictures do NOT show tape on the skull.
I think her father had something to do with her death. He may have been molesting her and she was now at the age to tell on him.Defense made mention that he(George) told Casey that she had drowned in the pool.
(MY thinking)Thats why he wouldn't want to call police they would do autopsy and find out he had been molesteing the little girl ....So he need to hide the body and his (STUPID) daughter agreed to protect her father...
I know this may sound far fetched but it sounds like it could of happened that way..Casey is STUPID but being STUPID isn't against the law.
No matter who or why it is a sad case for all ...
Just my thoughts..
RAL


----------



## Kay H (Jul 6, 2011)

My take on the verdict is that the jury was sequestered longer than they had been told, some had plans (1 person was going on a cruise) and they wanted to go home.  Possibly a few were unsure if she was guilty or not so everyone agreed on the quickest verdict. 

 Nancy Grace said last night that the jury didn't request any of the evidence to look at.  I think it is a travesty that she got away scott free.  JMHO.  She'll probably get rich quick on books, public appearances and the like.


----------



## myoakley (Jul 6, 2011)

I agree 100% with Tombo.  If I had been on that jury, there is no way that she would have gotten off.  REASONABLE DOUBT DOES NOT MEAN NO DOUBT AT ALL!  And PatH hit the nail on the head:  TV shows rely on elaborate forensic evidence to produce a "Perry Mason" moment, and this has become the standard.  However, in real life, when this isn't available, people no longer seem able to use their common sense and think logically.  I am very disappointed and angry with this jury.  My consolation is believing that there will be divine justice either in this world or in the next, and Casey Anthony cannot escape that!


----------



## irish (Jul 6, 2011)

i am right there with ya!! i would have hung the jury and voted GUILTY all the way!!


----------



## tombo (Jul 6, 2011)

RALnGA said:


> It was so much "wrong " in this case. The prosecution could not prove who killed her or how she died, bottom line.
> Casey was arrested before they ever found a body.They had to make a case against her after they arrested her, not investagate then make an arrest .She was the only person they pulled phone records.They were after her and did not look at anyone else.
> Too many people LYING ..Her Mother ...Father ...Guy that found the body ...guy that took the 5th while on the stand.
> Her father tyring to "kill" himself. He had been a policeman,don't you think he would know how to do it if he really wanted to? He wrote a 6 page note ,then took a 6 pack of BEER and blood pressure medicine to a hotel room in Daytona then waited for the police to rescue him...By the way they read the Letter read at the trial ,to prove HIS innocent.I thnk it was his plan all along.
> ...



Of course she was arrested before they found a body. Many peiople have been convicted of murder when no body was ever found. When the police questioned Casey about where her missing child was she told lie after lie. She got caught in all of the lies and the presumption became based on missing child , lies, smell in the trunk, etc that Kaylee was dead. Why would a parent lie about where their small child was unless the true answer was bad? Guess what, the police were correct. They were correct in arresting her for a dead child. Kaylee did not show up later returning from a trip to Disneyland with rich friends. Casey was lying because her daughter was dead.

The child died. That was proven. How she died is irrelevant because the mom lied about where the child was for over a month. If it was an accident she wouldn't have had any reason to lie. The mother lied about where her missing child was as she partied. The mom was the last one seen with her. The mom was the only family member not looking for the missing child. 

Did Casey's father lie to police in any way that was proven in court? Did Casey's father invent a Nanny? Did Casey's father party while the search was continuing? Did the guy that found the body have access to the inside of  Anthony's house to get the articles including duct tape found with the body? Do you believe that Casey's mom searched for Chloryphyll and got chloroform many times including times when she was at work but was searching on the home computer? Nope, nope, nope, nope, nope,and nope!

Do you actually believe everything the defense said while ignoring the facts? The defense threw the entire family under the bus to save her. The defense lied and accused everyone but the obvious killer. When Casey's mom AND DAD were begging Casey to tell them what happened and where Kaylee was she told lie after lie. Why would she lie if it was all her Dad's fault? Why invent Nanny and rich friends vacationing with a child that was missing? The OBVIOUS reason is she was trying to hide her crime hoping that the body wouldn't be found. Police don't search for a body of a child vacationing with the nanny or friends, they search for a live child. Until Casey's mom smelled what she said smelled like a dead body and called 911 the police never were called. If the grandmother hadn't called police Casey NEVER would have. Friends would have been told lie after lie until no one remembered she had a child or until she said her daughter had been adopted. No innocent person could let a child be missing and not look or care unless they already knew where she was. Casey didn't need to waste time looking for a child she already knew was dead.

If your child accidentally drowns or suffocates you call an ambulance, you call 911, you don't put the body in your trunk. You don't bury an accident in the woods. You don't invent stories about rich friends taking her on vacation, invent a nanny, tell your parents and police that the nanny kidnapped your child. You don't hide an accident and invent lies and alibies. You don't spend 31 days drinking and partying if you don't know where your child is, you at least spend a day or 2 looking for her. She knew where her child was. She placed her body there.

It is so ridiculous that Casey didn't have a problem with her Dad until the lawyers made him a scapegoat. There were recordings of her saying that she loved him and he was the best Dad in the world. These recordings were from prison after she was charged and awaiting trial. So he had molested her, killed her child, hid the body, and Casey was charged for a murder her father comitted yet she tells him she loves him and he is a great Dad. Give me a break.

Casey was and is so selfish that she would do anything as long as it benefits her including destroying her family and killing her child. Casey allowed her brother to be slandered to save her sorry hide accusing him of sexual abuse. She allowed her father to be blamed for killing Kaylee and hiding the body to create doubt. She let or told her legal team to blame her lying on her Dad for sexually abusing her. She sat there while her legal team brought forward her Dad's alleged mistress putting another nail in the coffin of the Anthony family. She destroyed the lives of everyone who loved her to save herself. 

Casey was beyond any reasonable doubt guilty IMO. The defense muddied the water enough to get her off. Our legal system does not always work like it should. She was found not guilty, but I will never believe she was innocent.


----------



## KarenLK (Jul 6, 2011)

She may be getting out of prison, BUT her life will be worse outside. 

She will live a living hell, ala OJ, for the rest of her life, with paparazzi following her everywhere. 

The poor parents will not have a life, either.


----------



## glypnirsgirl (Jul 6, 2011)

I did not follow this case at all. The only things that I know about it, I have read right here. I am curious - did she testify?

The reason that I ask is that I have a belief that in cases where the defendant does not testify, the jury focuses just on the strength or weakness of the prosecutor's case. When the defendant testifies, then the jury focuses on the weakness or strength of the defendant's case.

elaine


----------



## Tia (Jul 6, 2011)

I don't believe I heard Casey testified.....


----------



## Patri (Jul 6, 2011)

Pat H said:


> My personal opinion is that Casey taped Caylee's mouth and nose shut to keep her quiet. Poor Caylee suffocated and her "loving" mother put her in a trash bag and dumped her in the woods where the animals could eat her body. Circumstantial evidence is just that. Caylee didn't die a natural death.



I think this too. Caylee was bothering her so she taped her mouth to quiet her down. Accidentally blocked her breathing too.


----------



## 6scoops (Jul 6, 2011)

RALnGA said:


> It was so much "wrong " in this case. The prosecution could not prove who killed her or how she died, bottom line.
> Casey was arrested before they ever found a body.They had to make a case against her after they arrested her, not investagate then make an arrest .She was the only person they pulled phone records.They were after her and did not look at anyone else.
> Too many people LYING ..Her Mother ...Father ...Guy that found the body ...guy that took the 5th while on the stand.
> Her father tyring to "kill" himself. He had been a policeman,don't you think he would know how to do it if he really wanted to? He wrote a 6 page note ,then took a 6 pack of BEER and blood pressure medicine to a hotel room in Daytona then waited for the police to rescue him...By the way they read the Letter read at the trial ,to prove HIS innocent.I thnk it was his plan all along.
> ...



What is sad about your opinion is,...  This is the *conclusion* the Jurors were led to by the defense!!  These are all unproven conclusions.  The defense wanted to cast doubt and they did it with the grandfather.  That poor guy is a big reason why his daughter got away with killing his grand daughter!!


----------



## myoakley (Jul 6, 2011)

No, Casey never testified.  Her lawyers didn't dare put her on the stand because they knew that the prosecution would take her testimony apart and show her for the lying, narcissistic, evil person she is.


----------



## myoakley (Jul 6, 2011)

Patri said:


> I think this too. Caylee was bothering her so she taped her mouth to quiet her down. Accidentally blocked her breathing too.



If this were "accidental", how do you explain the presence of chloroform in the trunk of the car?  And, does it take a genius to know that putting tape over the mouth and nose of a child will prevent that child from breathing and cause her to suffocate?


----------



## glypnirsgirl (Jul 6, 2011)

myoakley said:


> No, Casey never testified.  Her lawyers didn't dare put her on the stand because they knew that the prosecution would take her testimony apart and show her for the lying, narcissistic, evil person she is.



It isn't that her lawyers didn't dare put her on the stand, it is that by not putting her on the stand, it keeps the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt. 

The alternate juror that spoke said that they didn't prove a cause of death. No evidence that linked her to the death of the child. If the prosecutor could not put on ANY evidence, what is a jury supposed to do?

In listening to the prosecutor talk about the case, it sounds like the prosecution was relying on the jury to speculate as to the cause of death and speculate as to the defendant's involvement without evidence to support the speculation. 

It sounds like the alternate juror did not even believe that the prosecution had proved that this was a homicide. 

When asked, "Will we ever know what happened to Kaylee?" the prosecutor's answer was not, "we know now what happened to her" but "we will never know what happened to her." Sounds to me that the prosecutor isn't convinced of the prosecutor's case.

elaine


----------



## bogey21 (Jul 6, 2011)

The prosecuters screwed this up.  They used untrue testimony that there were 84 computer searches for chloroform.  When defense rebutted with testimony that there was only one such search and that it immediately followed a Face Book search in which her boyfriend used the word chlorform, prosecution chose not to  (maybe could not) respond.  Further, prosecution argued that chloroform was instrumental in the child's death but found none (or any ingrediants to make it) in the Anthony house.  If prosecution intentionally misled here, how could jurors believe any of their presentation.

George


----------



## BevL (Jul 6, 2011)

myoakley said:


> No, Casey never testified.  Her lawyers didn't dare put her on the stand because they knew that the prosecution would take her testimony apart and show her for the lying, narcissistic, evil person she is.





glypnirsgirl said:


> It isn't that her lawyers didn't dare put her on the stand, it is that by not putting her on the stand, it keeps the burden on the prosecution to prove guilt.



Haven't followed the case at all, frankly - guess I've been under a rock for the last weeks, but it is very important to remember that the onus is completely on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  It's not enough that they are probably guilty or likely guilty.  

In fact, in jury instructions in Canada, if the accused has not testified, it's standard for the judge to indicate that the accused should not be discredited in the eyes of the jury for that.  They are under no obligation to explain their actions.  They are innocent until proven otherwise.  I would expect it would be the same in the US.


----------



## tombo (Jul 6, 2011)

glypnirsgirl said:


> The alternate juror that spoke said that they didn't prove a cause of death. No evidence that linked her to the death of the child. If the prosecutor could not put on ANY evidence, what is a jury supposed to do?
> 
> In listening to the prosecutor talk about the case, it sounds like the prosecution was relying on the jury to speculate as to the cause of death and speculate as to the defendant's involvement without evidence to support the speculation.
> 
> ...



The jury was supposed to be reasonable and realize that the mother lied that she knew where her daughter was and who she was with when in fact she was dead and dumped in a swamp. If her mom had said she is lost, stolen, etc perhaps not enough evidence to convict. Even if she had said her daughter was lost it should have been reported the first day to police, not after the grandmother called 911. The jury should have said we have a dead child who's body was hidden and we have a Mom who was making up lies about who her daughter was with and where she was during the time she was missing and now know tomhave been dead. It is not rocket science, she was guilty. At least they should have handed down a manslaughter or child endangerment conviction based on the above and nothing more.


So a preponderence of evidence doesn't count anymore? Reasonable doubt has been replaced by ANY doubt. So if you don't have a medical expert testify that it was murder from forensic tests, and have that opinion of murder  survive cross examination without any doubt, then you can never convict for murder? Once a body has decomposed to a point where soft tissue is gone there can be no suffocation murder convictions? 

Her daughter was missing. She lied and said she was fine and with other people for months. Her daughter was found dead in a swamp she could not have gotten to on her own, yet it might have been an accident so she must be acquitted since murder can't be proven? Wow the mother made up alibies, witnesses, a nanny her daughter never had but she deserves to be aquitted because there is still doubt? That is not reasonable doubt and that level of burden of proof placed on the prosecution is ridiculous. No rational person can believe she lied for any reason other to to keep herself out of prison. That is reasonable and I have no doubts.


----------



## Patri (Jul 6, 2011)

myoakley said:


> If this were "accidental", how do you explain the presence of chloroform in the trunk of the car?  And, does it take a genius to know that putting tape over the mouth and nose of a child will prevent that child from breathing and cause her to suffocate?



Who said Casey was a genius? 
Don't know about the chloroform. Could have put her to sleep first. Do you think Casey intentionally murdered her? Or anyone, for that matter?


----------



## tombo (Jul 6, 2011)

bogey21 said:


> The prosecuters screwed this up.  They used untrue testimony that there were 84 computer searches for chloroform.  When defense rebutted with testimony that there was only one such search and that it immediately followed a Face Book search in which her boyfriend used the word chlorform, prosecution chose not to  (maybe could not) respond.  Further, prosecution argued that chloroform was instrumental in the child's death but found none (or any ingrediants to make it) in the Anthony house.  If prosecution intentionally misled here, how could jurors believe any of their presentation.
> 
> George



Casey lied about her daughter being on vacation with friends. She lied about her daughter being with her nanny. She lied and said that her nanny had kidnapped Kaylee. There never was a nanny. All these lies while her daughter was missining.

So if the prosecution makes a statement shown to POSSIBLY be wrong they are not to be believed. When the defendant flat out lies and is caught lying that is OK? 

When the defense said that the grandfather did it with no proof that is OK to be listened to and should create doubt? However when the prosecution says the child was murdered it should be ignored because they had no forensic proof of how the child died. Well the prosecution had a body of a dead child dumped in a swamp, what more proof does one need. 

The prosecution's story about what happened is more believable than having a defense attorney explain that the grandad did it accidentally even though there were no witnesses and no physical evidence or forensic proof. Casey said he did it, yet she wouldn't testify, she let her lawyers tell the jury for her. The defense presented no evidence or facts, only what ifs. What if the grandmom left the ladder in the pool and Kaylee drowned? What if grandad molested Kaylee? No evidence, or facts. Since the defense and Casey absolutelly lied to and misled the jury, how could the jury believe anything the defense or Casey said?


----------



## laurac260 (Jul 6, 2011)

Ok, here's my question.  George Anthony sat in court and heard that he molested his daughter.  Perhaps it is true.  But what if it isn't?  Everyone in that courtroom, everyone who followed the story is left with that impression, did he?  Didn't he?  

Let's assume that he DID NOT molest his own daughter.  Does he have any recourse?  Can he file a lawsuit against anyone for that kind of slander?   

or on the flip side, if he DID, can Casey then go after him?  It's such a can of worms.  

or, what about Lee?  It was implied he may be the father of Caylee.  That's a pretty bold accusation.  DNA proved he was not.   Does he have any recourse? 

I hope for Jose Baez's sake he told the truth, or atleast the truth as he assumed it to be by his own client.  I don't feel so confident that he did just that, unfortunately.

___________
sorry, this post turned into lots of random thoughts/questions, but this stuff has been bugging me.


----------



## Luanne (Jul 6, 2011)

tombo said:


> So if the prosecution makes a statement shown to POSSIBLY be wrong they are not to be believed. When the defendant flat out lies and is caught lying that is OK?



Because, fortunately or unfortunately the burden of *proof* is on the prosecution.  According to the alternate juror, they didn't meet it.


----------



## 6scoops (Jul 6, 2011)

*Casey Anthony*

Now I'll admit this is pure speculation but, they say people who Lie like that do weave a element of truth into their tales

*Xanny the Nanny was Xanex!!!*  That would Knock out a small child.  No one could ever prove anything about what was in that poor childs system because she bought a lot of precious time with her lies!!!

This also explains the fact that she told police she thought her daughter was at Disney World!!  

Maybe, she will drown in a pool and someone can then throw her in a Swamp!!  And we can find some idiotic jury to buy that is was all an accident!!


----------



## tombo (Jul 6, 2011)

Luanne said:


> Because, fortunately or unfortunately the burden of *proof* is on the prosecution.  According to the alternate juror, they didn't meet it.



Honest question. Do you believe she killed her daughter from the preponderence of evidence? 

I do believe it beyond reasonable doubt. Not beyond all doubt mind you, but beyond REASONABLE doubt. If myself, you , and almost all rational reasonable people who read about this case feel that she killed her daughter and hid her body, then this jury was not reasonable with their doubt. If I was on the jury we would still be arguing in the jury room. She got away with murder or at least manslaughter.


----------



## Luanne (Jul 6, 2011)

tombo said:


> Honest question. Do you believe she killed her daughter from the preponderence of evidence?
> 
> I do believe it beyond reasonable doubt. Not beyond all doubt mind you, but beyond REASONABLE doubt. If myself, you , and almost all rational reasonable people who read about this case feel that she killed her daughter and hid her body, then this jury was not reasonable with their doubt. If I was on the jury we would still be arguing in the jury room. She got away with murder or at least manslaughter.



I believe that she was involved.  However, the information I was given was whatever was reported by the news.  I was not sitting on that jury and didn't have the evidence they were _*allowed to use*_ in their deliberations.  

I have only sat on one jury.  It was for a shoplifting offense.  We were given very specific instructions on the prosecution meeting the burden of prool, what reasonable doubt was, and what we could, and could not, consider.


----------



## Pat H (Jul 6, 2011)

Another point to consider - what the attorneys say in their opening/closing arguments is NOT evidence. The defense never provided any credible eveidence that either Casey or Caylee was molested so jury should not even take that into consideration. Same thing with the drowning in the pool. If she drowned, why would her mouth be taped shut?


----------



## chalee94 (Jul 6, 2011)

tombo said:


> So a preponderence of evidence doesn't count anymore?



preponderence of evidence has never counted a lick in a criminal trial.  that is only an issue for civil cases.

to take someone's freedom, you historically have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  "she looks guilty" won't cut it...


----------



## Larry6417 (Jul 6, 2011)

*Huh?*



tombo said:


> The child died. That was proven. How she died is irrelevant...



No offense, but how someone dies is awfully important for a *MURDER* trial. If the prosecution can't prove how the child died, then it can't prove murder beyond a reasonable doubt. It's that simple. And that unpalatable. 

This case reminds me a bit about the Linda Chamberlain case, the Australian mother who was convicted of murdering her own newborn. She gave what appeared to be an outlandish tale - dingoes killed her baby - that was rejected by police and the jury. She was also convicted, in part, because she didn't act like what people thought a grieving mother should be. The blood lust and desire for vengeance of the Australian public turned to soul searching when the conviction was overturned (*after* Chamberlain spent 4 years in prison and was branded an infanticide). The specifics are different, but the desire for public vengeance is equally profound in both cases. See http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4161/is_20010506/ai_n14527701/

I find Anthony's behaviour disturbing, but not enough to brand her a murderer based on supposition. I'm in the definite minority here, but I congratulate the jurors on their wisdom. It would have been easy for them to simply give the public what it wanted - a public lynching. Instead, they did their duty.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 6, 2011)

tombo said:


> So a preponderence of evidence doesn't count anymore? Reasonable doubt has been replaced by ANY doubt.


 

Preponderance of the evidence is the standard used in civil trials.  What that term means about the amount of evidence needed in a civil case may vary by jurisdiction.  It is well understood in every united states jurisdiction that "beyond a reasonable" doubt, used in criminal cases, is a tougher standard to meet.

Every judge has a standard charge to give jurors before deliberation. It involves instructions about the various crimes the defendant is charged with and instructions on how to deal with certain things that occur during the trial.  The charge always  defines what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means.  I have heard that charge given in my jurisdiction countless times and in  some other jurisdictions as well.  It is very clear that having "any doubt" does NOT constitute a "reasonable doubt" from a legal perspective.  I have heard numerous juries told that exactly.  I didn't hear or read the jury charge from this case but I am sure this jury was   told the same thing.


----------



## bogey21 (Jul 6, 2011)

tombo said:


> Casey lied about her daughter being on vacation with friends. She lied about her daughter being with her nanny. She lied and said that her nanny had kidnapped Kaylee. There never was a nanny. All these lies while her daughter was missining.
> 
> So if the prosecution makes a statement shown to POSSIBLY be wrong they are not to be believed. When the defendant flat out lies and is caught lying that is OK?



Theives lie; killers lie; defendents lie.  But the prosecution (the State) cannot ever be seen as being deceitful.  That's just the way it is.

George


----------



## Passepartout (Jul 6, 2011)

*Burden of proof*

I find it interesting how many people are looking on this much as Romans looked on the Gladiators. Ready to give the accused the 'thumbs down' when the evidence couldn't show that the mother (or anyone else who could be named) killed the child.

This case is teaching many of us the difference between 'Not Guilty' and 'Innocent'.

DW told me of a lecture from her law school days where the professor explained that in cases where the evidence is roughly equal, the side with the 'Burden Of Proof' will be the loser. In the Anthony case, the defense kept the mother off the stand to ensure that the prosecution had to produce the proof- and they didn't. 

I still believe in Karma and the mother will get hers in the end.

Jim


----------



## Wonka (Jul 6, 2011)

KarenLK said:


> She may be getting out of prison, BUT her life will be worse outside.
> 
> She will live a living hell, ala OJ, for the rest of her life, with paparazzi following her everywhere.
> 
> The poor parents will not have a life, either.



She appears to crave attention...and will be a wealthy celebrity of sorts.  It's off to California for Casey...maybe Hollywood.  What a mess this world is.


----------



## BevL (Jul 6, 2011)

Passepartout said:


> . . . DW told me of a lecture from her law school days where the professor explained that in cases where the evidence is roughly equal, the side with the 'Burden Of Proof' will be the loser. In the Anthony case, the defense kept the mother off the stand to ensure that the prosecution had to produce the proof- and they didn't . . .



Exactly.  In this case the defence obviously felt that the prosecution had not met their burden, which again, is not preponderence or balance of probability but proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  To put their client on the stand in that situation would be a very bad strategic move.

And she's not innocent, necessarily, just not guilty as far as the courts are concerned.


----------



## 6scoops (Jul 7, 2011)

*The Juror's were sobbing!!*

So they were sobbing, they felt she was guilty, and *wished* for more evidence to convict!  One juror was reported to have a vacation scheduled for the next day to England!!!!   This was a very quick decision in my opinion.

 All we needed was only one juror to stand up to the rest and say,  No, I don't feel right about this!!  (It is out now, they felt sick about the decision!) They could of had a hung jury!  That would of given the state another opportunity to try the case, tweak whatever they needed to and put her away!!     

Now they have nothing, she walks and will never serve any time for murdering her child.  Plus to here, they were putting so much weight on the defenses opening statement really makes me angry!!  The opening statement was not evidence, so on one hand they are following the instructions by the judge to a T, (way beyond a reasonable doubt) but on the other hand they are taking into evidence statements by the defense they are supposed to ignore.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 8, 2011)

*Blame the Prosecutors - Not the Jury*



6scoops said:


> So they were sobbing, they felt she was guilty, and *wished* for more evidence to convict!  One juror was reported to have a vacation scheduled for the next day to England!!!!   This was a very quick decision in my opinion.
> 
> All we needed was only one juror to stand up to the rest and say,  No, I don't feel right about this!!  (It is out now, they felt sick about the decision!) They could of had a hung jury!  That would of given the state another opportunity to try the case, tweak whatever they needed to and put her away!!
> 
> Now they have nothing, she walks and will never serve any time for murdering her child.  Plus to here, they were putting so much weight on the defenses opening statement really makes me angry!!  The opening statement was not evidence, so on one hand they are following the instructions by the judge to a T, (way beyond a reasonable doubt) but on the other hand they are taking into evidence statements by the defense they are supposed to ignore.



This kind of thing happens every day, ten times a day, in every trial court in the United States.  Anytime you take a case to trial it is a "crap shoot".  You just can't predict what will happen. Much depends on the ability of the attorneys.  A good defense attorney will beat a bad prosecutor almost every time.  The prosecution took a chance.  They may have gotten a plea deal for a lessor charge if they offered it early on.  Instead the prosecution decided to go for it all and take their chances with a jury.  The prosecution KNEW and always KNOWS that it takes a chance with a jury.  The prosecution KNEW the weaknesses in their case.  So, I can't just blame the jury. They did what they thought they had to do.  If she is truly guilty the prosecution bears a huge responsibility for this result.

 .


----------



## glypnirsgirl (Jul 8, 2011)

When I was younger, both as a prosecutor and as a defense attorney, my mentor told me to not get stressed about a jury's decision. He said it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, the jury is always right. 

It is the foundation of our justice system. 

As Winston Churchill says about democracy - which I believe also applies to our jury system - "“It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”

elaine


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 8, 2011)

glypnirsgirl said:


> When I was younger, both as a prosecutor and as a defense attorney, my mentor told me to not get stressed about a jury's decision. He said it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks, the jury is always right.
> 
> It is the foundation of our justice system.
> 
> ...



With all due respect to your mentor, my experience is quite different.  In my experience, the jury is the group that has the least amount of facts.  The judge, prosecution, and defense know the most about the case.  The jury knows the least.  Criminal trials create special problems. Career criminals invariably plead out to a good deal.   Others eventually plead out because of overwhelming evidence against them.  The cases that go to trial generally fall into two categories - prosecution cases that are extremely weak (on evidentiary or purely legal grounds), defendants that have nothing to lose by going to trial such as being subject to a three strikes law or other cases where the prosecution will not bargain.

I never met a prosecutor or defense attorney that didn't care about the verdict.  Once a case goes to trial, your skills as a trial attorney are on exhibition for all to see.  You and your skills are also on trial.  The verdict reflects on you.   

I dealt with numerous prosecutors and defense attorneys.  Nobody thought the jury was right if they lost a case in front of a jury.

I am not saying your mentor was wrong.  I am just saying my experience is different and may have to do with the place and level of intensity of practitioners.


----------



## tombo (Jul 8, 2011)

The defense made up a story with zero evidence that this was a drowning accident. No witnesses, no proof, yet the jury believed this was "likelly"?. They accused the father of hiding the body from the accidental drwoning with ZERO PROOF, yet the jurors give this credibility. How about if the defense had instead said she was kidnapped by aliens and Casey's memory was wiped out. Both are stories made up to create doubt with no evidence to support the fictional tales.

The only place the defense atty could have gotten the accidental drowning information was to make it up or get it from Casey. He wasn't there. Why should the jury believe anything he said since it had to come from Casey a proven liar they actually convicted of lying?

 However the jury had no problem ignoring the biggest fact of this case that  for 31 days Casey was telling family and friends not to worry about Kaylee because she was at Disney World (not she was dead). She was with her nanny (that didn't exist), she was kidnapped by her nanny (didn't happen). Casey for 31 days did not call police or worry about where Kaylee was. Beyond any reasonable doubt a parent who didn't know where their 2 year old was would be in a panick, not making up stories. They would report her missing the fist minute she realized she was missing. So beyond a reasonable doubt Kaylee was not looking for her daughter for over a month because she knew where she was and that she was dead. 

Now which is more "likelly" to be true. The child died accidentally and the daughter hid the body and lied rather than call paramedics or that she killed her child, hid the body, and lied to cover her tracks and stop people from searching for a body? Who would hide a body from an accident? Why would they? Why lie about where she is if she died from an accident. The only reason to lie is because you caused her death and want to cover your own butt. How could the jury ignore this? How can they rehash 31 days of testimony in a few hours. This jury ignored the facts and listened to the defense attorney's what if story. They dropped the ball.

Scott Peterson was convicted with no proof of how his wife died. That jury didn't say well they couldn't show us how she died. Many people have been convicted with no body.

This trial is a great example of why I could never be a lawyer. At some point Casey's lawyer said to properly defend you I need to know what happened. You can tell me the truth as we have client attorney priviledge. She said I killed her, accidentally killed her etc and I panicked and hid the body. I lied to the police, my parents, everyone to cover my tracks. I would have said we need to ttry and get a plea bargain to keep you from getting the death penalty. You are after all guilty.

Not how lawyers work. Instead her lawyer said we need to find a way to get you off even though you killed your child. What lies can we tell? There are of course no consequences when the defense presents lie after lie, but if the prosecution tells a lie or mistates a fact the defense can ask for a mistrial. The defense says what can we do to make law enforcement, forensic experts, witnesses etc look like liars and idiots? We won't let Casey get on the stand because her lies are terrible, she is guilty, and they would kill her in cross examination. What we will do is blame everyone but you even though you told me YOU DID IT Blame your mom, the guy who found the body, your dad. We will create doubt even though any rational person has to feel beyond any reasonable doubt you killed her and lied for months to cover your tracks. We will portray your young life as sheer hell to make you seem to be a victim to explain why you lied for over a month abot where your child was. We will tell the jury how your brother and father sexually molested you. We will kill your Dad's credibility and put a woman on the stand that is his mistress finishing your parent's marriage and his reputation for life. We will destroy everyone to try and get you off scott free even though you just told me you are guilty. How can he sleep at night? I couldn't.


----------



## 6scoops (Jul 8, 2011)

pgnewarkboy said:


> This kind of thing happens every day, ten times a day, in every trial court in the United States.  Anytime you take a case to trial it is a "crap shoot".  You just can't predict what will happen. Much depends on the ability of the attorneys.  A good defense attorney will beat a bad prosecutor almost every time.  The prosecution took a chance.  They may have gotten a plea deal for a lessor charge if they offered it early on.  Instead the prosecution decided to go for it all and take their chances with a jury.  The prosecution KNEW and always KNOWS that it takes a chance with a jury.  The prosecution KNEW the weaknesses in their case.  So, I can't just blame the jury. They did what they thought they had to do.  If she is truly guilty the prosecution bears a huge responsibility for this result.
> 
> .



*400 PIECES OF EVIDENCE, 33 day of testimony, ONLY 11 HOURS OF DELIBERATION! *   ( I am not shouting, I swear!)  The jury did not do their job in this case!  Some Juror's did not even take any notes.  They had a vacation to catch!  Normally, I would agree, but not in this case.  I believe there was plenty of evidence to convict her on any of the charges.  They are now saying the state didn't prove or address things that, the state did actually prove, they were not taking any notes!!


----------



## Phydeaux (Jul 8, 2011)

tombo said:


> The defense made up a story with zero evidence that this was a drowning accident. No witnesses, no proof, yet the jury believed this was "likelly"?. They accused the father of hiding the body from the accidental drwoning with ZERO PROOF, yet the jurors give this credibility. How about if the defense had instead said she was kidnapped by aliens and Casey's memory was wiped out. Both are stories made up to create doubt with no evidence to support the fictional tales.
> 
> However the jury had no problem ignoring the biggest fact of this case that  for 31 days Casey was telling family and friends not to worry about Kaylee because she was at Disney World (not she was dead). She was with her nanny (that didn't exist), she was kidnapped by her nanny (didn't happen). Casey for 31 days did not call police or worry about where Kaylee was. Beyond any reasonable doubt a parent who didn't know where their 2 year old was would be in a panick, not making up stories. They would report her missing the fist minute she realized she was missing. So beyond a reasonable doubt Kaylee was not looking for her daughter for over a month because she knew where she was and that she was dead.
> 
> ...



Very well stated. Eloquent, realistic, and I am In agreement 100%. Our system is broke when this is the outcome. Yes, that is a criticism of our judicial system. The members of the jury should be ashamed and  I hope they cannot sleep.


----------



## Pat H (Jul 8, 2011)

As much as most of us may hate it, the defendant is entitled to a lawyer. The lawyer must defend her to the best of his ability even if he may believe she's guilty, otherwise she has grounds for an appeal.


----------



## lvhmbh (Jul 8, 2011)

Accidental drowning just doesn't make sense.  We, unfortunately, see this in the news here in Florida almost daily.  No one is charged unless the babysitter/parent is asleep, etc. and then it is negligence which doesn't really carry a sentence.  I remember when I babysat for my niece and, even though the baby didn't walk, I purchased an alarm for the pool and checked on him often.  The Father is a former policeman and, if the baby had drowned, would have called 911 and everyone would have felt sorry for them.


----------



## bogey21 (Jul 8, 2011)

The prosecution was clearly the culpret here.  Looking for a home run they charged Casey with Premeditated Murder.  Had they charged her with a lesser charge there would have been a conviction, the penalty for which would more than likely been life.  But no.  They wanted to be heros and went for the death penalty.  Don't blame the Defense.  Blame the Prosecution.  They sold us down the river trying to build their personal resumes!!

George


----------



## Luanne (Jul 8, 2011)

bogey21 said:


> The prosecution was clearly the culpret here.  Looking for a home run they charged Casey with Premeditated Murder.  Had they charged her with a lesser charge there would have been a conviction, the penalty for which would more than likely been life.  But no.  They wanted to be heros and went for the death penalty.  Don't blame the Defense.  Blame the Prosecution.  They sold us down the river trying to build their personal resumes!!
> 
> George



There was also a manslaughter charge on the table.  She was found not guilty on that charge as well.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 8, 2011)

*Be angry at the prosecutor's*



tombo said:


> This trial is a great example of why I could never be a lawyer. At some point Casey's lawyer said to properly defend you I need to know what happened. You can tell me the truth as we have client attorney priviledge. She said I killed her, accidentally killed her etc and I panicked and hid the body. I lied to the police, my parents, everyone to cover my tracks. I would have said we need to ttry and get a plea bargain to keep you from getting the death penalty. You are after all guilty.
> 
> Not how lawyers work. Instead her lawyer said we need to find a way to get you off even though you killed your child. What lies can we tell? There are of course no consequences when the defense presents lie after lie, but if the prosecution tells a lie or mistates a fact the defense can ask for a mistrial. The defense says what can we do to make law enforcement, forensic experts, witnesses etc look like liars and idiots?



Nobody , including you or me, knows what happened between Casey and her lawyer.  You are making many assumptions without anything to back it up besides anger at the defense and the verdict.

I am sure I have more experience than you when it comes to criminal trials.  Prosecutors don't "tell lies" at a trial and neither do defense counsel.  Attorney's don't testify and if ANY attorney , prosecution or defense, is caught telling a witness to commit perjury they would go to jail and be disbarred.  It is extremely unlikely that her lawyer helped her make up a story if for no other reason than the risk of exposure is extremely high -particularly in a high profile case like this. 

As I stated in an earlier post, the correct object of people's anger should be the prosecution.  Not the jurors and not the defense attorney.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 8, 2011)

Luanne said:


> There was also a manslaughter charge on the table.  She was found not guilty on that charge as well.



I don't know if there were  plea bargain negotiations but manslaughter should have been offered in a plea deal.  There would have been no trial and she would have gone to jail.  This was a big mistake by the prosecution if they did not offer it in a plea deal.


----------



## 6scoops (Jul 8, 2011)

pgnewarkboy said:


> As I stated in an earlier post, the correct object of people's anger should be the prosecution.  Not the jurors and not the defense attorney.



No way, The jury ignored evidence, said there was none when there was plenty.  The jury did, however believe what the defense said in the opening argument, which is not evidence.  Then proceeded to come up with a guilty verdict in 11 hours.  The prosecution did make a mistake in having faith the jury would actually deliberate the evidence put before them.   That jury better hope the names do not get released especially the one who had a cruise to catch!!  Guilty would of kept them there at least 3 more days, and juror Number whatever would of missed their cruise!


----------



## Luanne (Jul 8, 2011)

6scoops said:


> No way, The jury ignored evidence, said there was none when there was plenty.



Don't get me wrong, I was very upset that Casey Anthony was not found guilty of something.  But, from what I've read (I don't have everything the jury did) the biggest reason they felt they could not render a guilty verdict was that no one could state for sure how Caylee died.  And without that, there could be no crime. So, I'm not sure what evidence you are referring to.


----------



## glypnirsgirl (Jul 8, 2011)

pgnewarkboy said:


> With all due respect to your mentor, my experience is quite different.  In my experience, the jury is the group that has the least amount of facts.  The judge, prosecution, and defense know the most about the case.  The jury knows the least.  Criminal trials create special problems. Career criminals invariably plead out to a good deal.   Others eventually plead out because of overwhelming evidence against them.  The cases that go to trial generally fall into two categories - prosecution cases that are extremely weak (on evidentiary or purely legal grounds), defendants that have nothing to lose by going to trial such as being subject to a three strikes law or other cases where the prosecution will not bargain.
> 
> I never met a prosecutor or defense attorney that didn't care about the verdict.  Once a case goes to trial, your skills as a trial attorney are on exhibition for all to see.  You and your skills are also on trial.  The verdict reflects on you.
> 
> ...



My mentor was a highly seasoned criminal defense attorney - well known for his intensity - he first uttered those words in defending a young man who was accused of killing his own daughter. Locally, the case was called "the pink casket case." The child had been injured and had small round bruises over most of her normally unexposed parts of her body. No one could figure out what had caused the peculiar bruises. 

The father was young, working as an apartment repairman, not making much money. His wife had gone to Colorado to try to get a better job. Father was living with another couple from his hometown. The couple took care of the child during the day. Father took the injured child to the hospital when she wouldn't wake up. He was arrested at the hospital, taken into custody where he was questioned over a 2 day period. After 2 days, he wrote a confession that said "I don't know how I did it, but I must have killed my daughter." He had no history of drinking or drugs. He had no criminal history. Everyone that was close to him and his daughter believed him to be a great dad. 

When the police went to the apartment to investigate, the man of the couple that had been taking care of the child, jumped out the back window and ran. He was later arrested in his hometown on unrelated charges. 

Charlie went to talk to people in their hometown. One of the people that he talked to was the sheriff. Charlie showed the sheriff the pictures of the child's body. The sheriff said, I know what caused those bruises, they were caused by pointed cowboy boots. Bennie only wears sneakers, but his friend wears cowboy boots. 

Sheriff, who knew both men, was immediately convinced that the other man had killed the child. He monitored mail and intercepted a letter to his wife that said, "Bennie better be found guilty or we are going to be in trouble." 

Even with that information, the prosecutors continued to prosecute the father. After all, they had a confession.

When the jury came back with a not guilty verdict, the prosecutors were furious at how stupid the jury was. One of the prosecutors was a friend of mine and started yelling at me for helping the father to go free (I was sitting second). The jury was mad at the prosecutors for prosecuting the case against the father when it was so clear to them that the friend had killed the child.  And the jury was even madder when the prosecutors told them that they would not prosecute the friend. That was the first time that Charlie told me not to stress about it, the jury was always right. 

He went on to say it when clients were found guilty as well. 

He figured that he always did the best that he could with the evidence that he had. The prosecutors would do the best with the evidence that they had. And that the jury would have the intelligence of 12 disinterested people to sift through the chaff and get to the wheat. 

The statement is not one from someone that was lackadaisical in their practice, quite the reverse. He was terribly intense. He tried an average of 10-14 jury cases a year, all felonies, for the 25 years that I knew him. Every case he worked with the same diligence as he did the case I just outlined. 

And Tombo, in my experience, pgnewark is correct, almost the only cases that go to a jury trial are those with weak evidence or those that the defendant has nothing to lose by going to trial. 

elaine


----------



## tombo (Jul 8, 2011)

Luanne said:


> Don't get me wrong, I was very upset that Casey Anthony was not found guilty of something.  But, from what I've read (I don't have everything the jury did) the biggest reason they felt they could not render a guilty verdict was that no one could state for sure how Caylee died.  And without that, there could be no crime. So, I'm not sure what evidence you are referring to.



Scott peterson was found guilty of murdering his pregnant wife and unborn child. The body was badly decomposed and how she died could not be proven yet he was found guilty of first degree murder of his wife and second degree murder of his unborn son. As I said before many people are found guilty of murder when they never even find a body. To say that you can't prove murder if you don't know how they died is wrong. See Scott Peterson;

" The problem the prosecution had was there was no direct evidence proving that Peterson murdered his wife, much less disposed of her body. Their case was constructed totally on circumstantial evidence."
http://crime.about.com/od/news/a/scott_peterson.htm


----------



## bogey21 (Jul 8, 2011)

Luanne said:


> There was also a manslaughter charge on the table.  She was found not guilty on that charge as well.



If that was the only charge she was being tried for, she would have been convicted.  By trying to prove an unprovable cause of death they lost the jury.

George


----------



## Luanne (Jul 8, 2011)

Whatever tombo.  I was only stating what the jurors in *this* case said as to why they couldn't render a guilty verdict, not the Scott Peterson case (which I am very familiar with).  Or are you saying the jurors (and prosecution) in California are smarter than those in Florida?

And George, I won't comment any longer as it is very evident I have no idea what I'm talking about.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 8, 2011)

glypnirsgirl said:


> My mentor was a highly seasoned criminal defense attorney - well known for his intensity - he first uttered those words in defending a young man who was accused of killing his own daughter. Locally, the case was called "the pink casket case." The child had been injured and had small round bruises over most of her normally unexposed parts of her body. No one could figure out what had caused the peculiar bruises.
> 
> The father was young, working as an apartment repairman, not making much money. His wife had gone to Colorado to try to get a better job. Father was living with another couple from his hometown. The couple took care of the child during the day. Father took the injured child to the hospital when she wouldn't wake up. He was arrested at the hospital, taken into custody where he was questioned over a 2 day period. After 2 days, he wrote a confession that said "I don't know how I did it, but I must have killed my daughter." He had no history of drinking or drugs. He had no criminal history. Everyone that was close to him and his daughter believed him to be a great dad.
> 
> ...



I tried to make it very clear that my comments had nothing to do with your mentor personally. I don't even know the man.  As I stated, my comments dealt with my experience in my area.   I think it is great that someone in that business can maintain that level of equanimity for such a long time.  In my experience such an attitude is the exception.


----------



## Wonka (Jul 8, 2011)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Prosecutors don't "tell lies" at a trial and neither do defense counsel.  Attorney's don't testify and if ANY attorney , prosecution or defense, is caught telling a witness to commit perjury they would go to jail and be disbarred.  It is extremely unlikely that her lawyer helped her make up a story if for no other reason than the risk of exposure is extremely high -particularly in a high profile case like this.



I guess that depends on how you define a "lie".  If a defense attorney accepts a clients story without verifying it's factual, it may not be a "lie", but presenting it as the "truth" in a trial without proving it's factual sure seems like a "lie" to me.  But, since the defense "doesn't have to prove anything" and it's solely up to the prosecution to both prove and disprove both stories, the scales of justice seem to be a little out of balance...especially in the case where there were so darn many lies told with no real punishment.  Yes, Casey got time served for lying...big deal.  It'd be nice to see Casey Anthony pay for all the investigation time and trial time and expense since it was the result of her lying.  And, why on earth isn't her Mother being charged with perjury?  I'm afraid this trial showed just how little enforcement and punishment there is for lying under oath.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 8, 2011)

Wonka said:


> ... the scales of justice seem to be a little out of balance ...



Not picking on you but this just stuck out like a sore thumb to me.  The scales of justice AREN'T balanced in our system - the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution.  That's the foundation of our system and it's about as unbalanced as the two sides can be, right from the get-go.


----------



## glypnirsgirl (Jul 8, 2011)

pgnewarkboy said:


> I tried to make it very clear that my comments had nothing to do with your mentor personally. I don't even know the man.  As I stated, my comments dealt with my experience in my area.   I think it is great that someone in that business can maintain that level of equanimity for such a long time.  In my experience such an attitude is the exception.



I didn't take it as a personal remark. I was simply trying to put it into context.

And I agree that maintaining that level of equanimity for such a long time is remarkable. Six years in the criminal justice system and I was burnt to a crisp. 

elaine


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 8, 2011)

*It ain't like TV in the real world of criminal justice*



Wonka said:


> I guess that depends on how you define a "lie".  If a defense attorney accepts a clients story without verifying it's factual, it may not be a "lie", but presenting it as the "truth" in a trial without proving it's factual sure seems like a "lie" to me.  But, since the defense "doesn't have to prove anything" and it's solely up to the prosecution to both prove and disprove both stories, the scales of justice seem to be a little out of balance...especially in the case where there were so darn many lies told with no real punishment.  Yes, Casey got time served for lying...big deal.  It'd be nice to see Casey Anthony pay for all the investigation time and trial time and expense since it was the result of her lying.  And, why on earth isn't her Mother being charged with perjury?  I'm afraid this trial showed just how little enforcement and punishment there is for lying under oath.



Most people who are charged with a crime are poor. They use the services a of a public defender.  They usually don't have a "story".  If they have a "story" it is usually an alibi and in most jurisdictions the defense must give notice to the prosecution that it will use an alibi defense.  At that point the prosecution will investigate the alibi, assuming that is the first time they heard about it.   Let's get back to the poor part of this equation.  When you are poor and use a public defender you don't have the resources to hire an investigator to "verify" your facts.  Investigation is expensive.  Basically, most criminal defendants don't have the resources to hire an investigator.  The attorney's that represent them are court appointed and have neither the time or expertise to do an investigation.  If a criminal defendant claims to his or her attorney that there are witnesses in his behalf, the attorney will try to interview those witnesses if they can be found.  People who are poor usually have poor friends that are "transient".  If the witnesses are found, and they are willing to be interviewed the attorney will interview them.  That is as far as it will go with a client who can't afford an investigator.  The attorney will have to take their word and the word of their witnesses as to what they are saying.  These are the facts of life in the real world.   The world where poor people can't afford a good defense and where unlike TV prosecutors and TV police nobody is going to look for things to exonerate the person they just charged with a crime.

Now, if the defense attorney believes for some reason that the client is lying, or his witnesses will lie, the defense attorney should not and usually does not "put them on the stand" to testify. The attorney should and usually does insist that the client agree to some kind of plea bargain.  If the client insists on trial and  taking the stand the attorney should and usually does approach the judge during the trial and advise the judge that his client has been advised NOT to take the stand and testify because in the attorney's view the client may be committing perjury.   That is what really happens.


----------



## tombo (Jul 8, 2011)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Now, if the defense attorney believes for some reason that the client is lying, or his witnesses will lie, the defense attorney should not and usually does not "put them on the stand" to testify. The attorney should and usually does insist that the client agree to some kind of plea bargain.  If the client insists on trial and  taking the stand the attorney should and usually does approach the judge during the trial and advise the judge that his client has been advised NOT to take the stand and testify because in the attorney's view the client may be committing perjury.   That is what really happens.




The defendant rarelly takes the stand. The defendant is not on the stand so they don't lie under oath. The attorney does the lying for his client in the courtroom. The attorney tells any lie he feels like telling to the jury. The attorney is not under oath so he is not comitting perjury. He can always say his client told him this, but he can't confirm it because of client attorney priviledge. He can say anything about anybody and grill them on the stand with no evidence. He can spin any lie that he can make sound plausible to help his client get free. 

If as I believe 'beyond reasonable doubt' that Casey Anthony admitted she killed or accidentally killed her daughter to her lawyer knowing she was safe thanks to client attorney priviledge, everything her lawyer said was a lie. He said it was an accident which he knew was not true if Casey told him she did it and hid the body. He said the father hid the body. Her father denied it and NO EVIDENCE of any kind showed her father had anything to do with hiding the body. Casey's car trunk stunk like a body not her father's car. Casey never looked for her child leaving any rational person to know that she didn't look because she knew where the child was. Casey's father and mother were looking for a dead child while Casey partied. Her lawyer said the grandmother left the slide out allowing the child to fall in and drown. The grandmother said it never happened. There was no proof or witnesses to the slide being out. He said Casey lied because her father taught her to lie after years of sexual abuse. The father said that never happened. There was no proof that he abused her. The lawyer can make up any lie and present it as what happened, which is what he did. That is lying.

I feel sure that Casey told her lawyer she killed her daughter (accidentally or on purpose) before the trial so he could decide how to prepare his case, so everything her lawyer said to get her off was a lie. He knew who killed Kaylee yet he blamed everyone else but the person who admitted to him that they did it. 

Casey's lawyer said this case was never about murder, it was about a tragic accident. Well there was ZERO evidence presented showing it was an accident. The fact that the body was thrown in a swamp and the fact that the mother lied about where her daughter was for over a month gives plenty of credence to this being murder. When kids accidentally drown parents don't throw the bodies in the swamp and say they are in Disney world. The lawyer lied and said it was an accident. The lie worked, but I hope he will burn in hell for telling it.

Great lawyers have no conscience. Their goal is to win at any cost. The facts and truth are irrelevent, only winning the case matters. Lie, cheat , malign, destroy, discredit, do anything it takes to get your client off. I have morals and could not make a living that way no matter how much the job pays. If my client told me in confidence they killed their child a plea bargain is the best I could do for them. I would not sell my soul to win the case.


----------



## Patri (Jul 8, 2011)

At least Casey will have to testify in the lawsuit from that woman on defamation of character. Is it random that she has the same name as the fake nanny, or did Casey know this woman? Her employer should be forced to make reparations for firing her without cause. The drama goes on.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 9, 2011)

tombo said:


> The defendant rarelly takes the stand. The defendant is not on the stand so they don't lie under oath. The attorney does the lying for his client in the courtroom. The attorney tells any lie he feels like telling to the jury. The attorney is not under oath so he is not comitting perjury. He can always say his client told him this, but he can't confirm it because of client attorney priviledge. He can say anything about anybody and grill them on the stand with no evidence. He can spin any lie that he can make sound plausible to help his client get free.
> 
> him that they did it.
> 
> ...



You don't know what you are talking about. Seriously.  If you had experience as an attorney in the criminal system, I am sure you would have a different viewpoint.  I understand that you are angry.  What you believe about lawyers is just not factual.  Of course there are bad lawyers just like there are bad doctors, accountants, teachers, etc etc.  You are making broad generalizations.  You are not alone in your misconceptions.  The public does not understand what a lawyer does because of the nature of the rules surrounding the practice of law.  A jury can't hear the conversations between the attorney's and the judge at a "bench conference".   The jury does not hear all the legal motions.  That helps to create suspeicions but is necessary to keep the jury a "blank tablet" that only hears the evidence it is supposed to hear to provide a fair trial.  Furthermore, TV and movies badly represent the job lawyers do because it makes a good story and they are in the story telling business.


----------



## bryanphunter (Jul 9, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> Not picking on you but this just stuck out like a sore thumb to me.  The scales of justice AREN'T balanced in our system - the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution.  That's the foundation of our system and it's about as unbalanced as the two sides can be, right from the get-go.



Well...... Look how this country was formed.  Our founding fathers wanted to make sure we didn't have a judicial system that mirrored the British back in the 1700's.   Thumbs up or thumbs down from the King.... And off with your head and all that.  I think that is why the accused has so many " rights " at trial.


----------



## Wonka (Jul 9, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> Not picking on you but this just stuck out like a sore thumb to me.  The scales of justice AREN'T balanced in our system - the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution.  That's the foundation of our system and it's about as unbalanced as the two sides can be, right from the get-go.



Yes, you're correct.  Perhaps, that was poor choice of words.  But, it seems that presumption has gotten a bit out of hand over the years.  I also always thought people were to be treated "equally" under the law.  I live in FL. One example, is a young man locked up here for I believe 20 years for stealing a six pack of beer.  Why?  Because he entered an open door of a residence while someone was sleeping and stole the beer from a refrigerator and it became breaking & entering.  Plea deals, frivolous lawsuits, etc. are all other issues.

IMHO, our legal system is "out of whack".  As I watch the minimum punishments generally given to white collar criminals, the old phrase "crime doesn't pay", just isn't true any longer.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 9, 2011)

*Our system of justice favors the prosecution and the wealthy*



Wonka said:


> Yes, you're correct.  Perhaps, that was poor choice of words.  But, it seems that presumption has gotten a bit out of hand over the years.  I also always thought people were to be treated "equally" under the law.  I live in FL. One example, is a young man locked up here for I believe 20 years for stealing a six pack of beer.  Why?  Because he entered an open door of a residence while someone was sleeping and stole the beer from a refrigerator and it became breaking & entering.  Plea deals, frivolous lawsuits, etc. are all other issues.
> 
> IMHO, our legal system is "out of whack".  As I watch the minimum punishments generally given to white collar criminals, the old phrase "crime doesn't pay", just isn't true any longer.



There are many problems with our legal system.  It could be viewed as antiquated because it was established before the development of the many scientific tools that "could" be used to determine guilt or innocence but are not used in most jurisdictions because of cost.

But make no mistake about this, the system is heavily tilted in favor of the prosecution and the police - not the defendants.  The state has the resources (money and people) to make their case while most defendants have no resources at all.  Most defendants have court appointed attorney's with heavy case loads.  There is no money for investigations, expert witnesses, or independent laboratory testing of the evidence.  It is only the wealthy that can match and beat the resources of the prosecution.  They hire law firms that will put dozens of attorneys on the case who spend all their time on that one case.  They will spend a fortune for expert witnesses and independent lab testing of evidence. That is why they are acquitted so frequently.  The vast majority of defendants are poor and have no resources.  The vast majority of defendants are convicted.  It is only a very small percentage of cases where defendants go free "on a technicality".  The media distorts everything about the criminal system to sell whatever it is they are selling.


----------



## Tia (Jul 9, 2011)

What? They just said when she is released they will have to pay to protect her?! Unbelievable


----------



## tombo (Jul 9, 2011)

pgnewarkboy said:


> You don't know what you are talking about. Seriously.  If you had experience as an attorney in the criminal system, I am sure you would have a different viewpoint.  I understand that you are angry.  What you believe about lawyers is just not factual.  Of course there are bad lawyers just like there are bad doctors, accountants, teachers, etc etc.  You are making broad generalizations.  You are not alone in your misconceptions.  The public does not understand what a lawyer does because of the nature of the rules surrounding the practice of law.  A jury can't hear the conversations between the attorney's and the judge at a "bench conference".   The jury does not hear all the legal motions.  That helps to create suspeicions but is necessary to keep the jury a "blank tablet" that only hears the evidence it is supposed to hear to provide a fair trial.  Furthermore, TV and movies badly represent the job lawyers do because it makes a good story and they are in the story telling business.



I have no experience as an attorney. So what. I know plenty of attorneys. Some are good guys, but the one's with the most money and best reputations for winning HAVE ZERO SCRUPLES OR MORALS. The rich ones arenot public defenders. The wealthy successful lawyers will represent a mass murderer, a mafia hit man, a company manufacturing a product that injured hundreds of people, or a person who faked a car wreck injury. They do not care about right or worng, just how much money they can make. If someone wants them to sue someone that does't have deep pockets they have to pay the attorney a lot of cash up front or they won't take the case. If the person/company they are suing has a lot of money they take the case on a contingency basis. It is all about the money, not justice.

I don't care what town you are in look on the back of the phone book and see who has the ad. It is in almost every case a lawyer trying to sue insurance companies. "Had a wreck? Get a check!". The back of the phone book costs $10,000 to $100,000 or more per month depending on the market size. I know because I asked the yellow page salesperson when they were selling me my ad. They said they had a waiting list of LAWYERS waiting if the current lawyer ever let his ads go. How much are insurance companies paying these lawyers if they can afford ads that are this expensive? However much the insurance companies are paying those lawyers, it is actually being paid by all of us when we write our check for our auto insurance. 

Who cares? We all do because the lawyers have turned having an accident into a winning lottery ticket. TV has tons of ads with a person saying I had a wreck and attorney John Doe got me a checlk for $250,000, etc, etc, etc. All of us pay more for our car insurance because of these lawsuits. We all pay more for Dr visits thanks to law suits. We pay more for everything because of greedy lawyers.

I used to own a restaurant and my cook told me that she had won 3 different settlements from car wrecks. She told me this after I had been rear ended by a company van when I was talking about how sore I was the next day. She said she had used 2 different lawyers but that she like one better. She said they will tell you which chiropracter to see, what to tell the chiropracter, and not to talk to the insurance people no matter what. I said I am not permanently hurt she said it doesn't matter they will get you a settlement without going to court. She said she was not seriously hurt any of the 3 times and got paid on all 3. She said if it ever happens again say your back and neck hurt and call an ambulance because it makes your lawyers job easier. Needless to say I was sore for about a week and never sued. Their insurance fixed my vehicle. 

When someone spills coffee in their lap it becomes a multi million dollar law suit because of lawyers. When one person has a bad reaction to a drug it is time to advertise on national TV saying if you have ever used this drug we can get you money. If a patient dies whether the Dr was negligent or not they sue raising his malpractice insurance and raising the cost of my Dr visits. It affects every aspect of our life negativelly.

Trust me in Mississippi we have idiot juries that typically give higher than average awards, so many national cases are tried here. I read that there were 1000's of members of a class action suit against a drug manufacturer recently tried in Mississippi, but out of the 1000's only 3 were residents of Mississippi, yet the attorneys chose our state for the potentially higher dollar awards they could win here over some states with tort reform laws. They didn't come to Mississippi for justice, they came here to make a bigger pay check.

Lawyers create nothing.They redistribute wealth taking a huge cut in the process. If you are in the legal field you don't understand why most of us dislike lawyers because you are a lawyer or else you make your living off of lawyers and lawyer related activities. Those of us who pay higher insurance costs, more money for products, who have the temp of our coffee lowered, etc as a result of lawyers frivolous greedy activities feel different.

Fact: Predator-Plaintiffs filed 30 Million new lawsuits last year! That's over 82,000 PER DAY and the number keeps growing. Opportunists make careers out of filing lawsuits, knowing that the expense of defending against these attacks is so high, a settlement will likely be offered. Who pays for the cost of these settlements? We all do. 

In 2009 "Civil lawsuits cost the US economy over 200 billion dollars per year! According to the US Federal News, every taxpayer in the US is now paying a “lawsuit tax” of around $700 – $800 per year. It is no surprise that personal injury lawyers are thriving in the States and that the law schools are packed to overflowing with potential new lawyers. This list takes a look at some of the bizarre lawsuits that these lawyers have had to handle – some dealing with personal injury lawsuits, and others with cases so weird that they lack a category entirely. This list deals with recent lawsuits only."
http://listverse.com/2009/01/28/top-10-bizarre-or-frivolous-lawsuits/


What they need to do is make the lawyer/client pay the court costs and ALL  legal expenses incurred by the defendant if they lose the law suit along with damages. If it cost them money when they lost they wouldn't be so quick to sue.


Here are some more great law suits provided to us by those wonderful, caring, moral, benevolent lawyers. Why do we hate them. Read below and explain why we should't.

http://www.stellaawards.com/2007.html

http://www.stellaawards.com/2006.html

http://www.stellaawards.com/2005.html

http://www.stellaawards.com/2004.html

http://www.stellaawards.com/2003.html

http://www.stellaawards.com/2002.html

http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

http://www.the-injury-lawyer-directory.com/ridiculous_lawsuits.html

http://www.newser.com/tag/13082/1/frivolous-lawsuits.html


----------



## bogey21 (Jul 9, 2011)

tombo said:


> Casey's lawyer said this case was never about murder, it was about a tragic accident. Well there was ZERO evidence presented showing it was an accident.



Agree that there is no evidence that it was an accident.  The jury determined that there was no evidence that there was a murder.  So what do we do?  Flip a coin?

Like I said before the problem lies with the State of Florida who charged her with a murder they couldn't prove.  The right non-murder charge would have put her away for life.  100% of the blame lies with the State of Florida prosecution!!

George



George


----------



## tombo (Jul 9, 2011)

bogey21 said:


> Agree that there is no evidence that it was an accident.  The jury determined that there was no evidence that there was a murder.  So what do we do?  Flip a coin?
> 
> Like I said before the problem lies with the State of Florida who charged her with a murder they couldn't prove.  The right non-murder charge would have put her away for life.  100% of the blame lies with the State of Florida prosecution!!
> 
> Georg



The problem lies with her lawyer. The ONLY person to ever state that the child accidentally drowned was her attorney. Not Casey, not the grandparents, not a single witness. Her lawyer however addresses the jury and says it was an accident gone wrong. He says that the grandmother left the ladder in. He says the grandad hid the body. Not one single person but him said this happened, yet by spinning these lies into "facts" he convince the jury that it might have been an accident. He knows Casey did it, yet he lied and got her off scott free. The problem iwas not with the state, it was with her lawyer who wanted to get his murdering client set free using any lie he could come up with. He started the trial off by stating that his client was a liar. Well the biggest liar in that courtroom was the defense attorney, not his client. 

There was plenty of evidence of a murder for any rational person. The child was dead, placed in garbage bags,and her body was dumped in the woods. The child didn't put herself into garbage bags and throw herself in the swamp. For 31 days the mother said the child was fine, no reason to look for her. She didn't look for or ask  for others to look for her missing 2 year old. She knew she was dead by her actions. Innocent people do not hide bodies after an accident or invent alibies, they simply call 911. Any rational person would conclude the body was hidden and lied about to cover up a crime, not an accident. If I was on the jury she would be found guilty with this evidence and nothing else or we would still be in there arguing. It might have ended a hung jury, but it would not have ended with her pronounced not guilty so I could go on vacation the next day.

By the way this pifull excuse for a jury had the chance to find her guilty on lesser charges yet they found her not guilty of first-degree murder, not guilty of aggravated child abuse and not guilty of aggravated manslaughter. What non murder charge would have been better than aggravated child abuse and/or manslaughter?


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 9, 2011)

Tombo.   You hate lawyers.  You admit it.   Your so called "facts" are based on that hatred.   Doctors, IBM, Google, Toyota and millions of small businesses advertise.  Does that make them liars?    You think everyone that files a lawsuit is a liar stealing money from you. Your hatred has ruined your thinking.


----------



## glypnirsgirl (Jul 9, 2011)

I live in a state where tort reform was instituted upon the promise that it was necessary in order to lower insurance premiums. The laws have been on the books now for many years. Have insurance premiums gone down? Nope.

Further, the juries here are so pro-insurance that at least one judge who has served 12 years on the bench has NEVER seen a verdict for the plaintiff. NEVER. Not one time. In 12 years!

I know this from being a witness in a case involving one of my legal assistants who was rear ended by a man who turned right as he came out of a private parking lot so fast that his wheels squealed because he was looking to his left to beat the car that was approaching. In accelerating, he rear ended my employee who was stopped at a traffic light. And one of the contributing factors to the accident was the fact that he was talking on his cell phone. My employee's back was severely injured. She had had a perfect attendance record in the 7 years she had worked for me prior to the accident. She missed weeks from work after the accident and then missed many hours because of doctor's appointments and therapy appointments. There were 3 disinterested witnesses to the accident. There was NO controverting evidence. 

The insurance company offered NOTHING for settlement. Not even to pay for her car repairs - on her 3 day old brand new Mustang. She was hit so hard that her trunk crumpled almost to the back seat. (The witnesses said that he was still accelerating when he hit her).

And this is the norm. But no one reports these trials. 

elaine


----------



## tombo (Jul 9, 2011)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Tombo.   You hate lawyers.  You admit it.   Your so called "facts" are based on that hatred.   Doctors, IBM, Google, Toyota and millions of small businesses advertise.  Does that make them liars?    You think everyone that files a lawsuit is a liar stealing money from you. Your hatred has ruined your thinking.



I guess from your response a lawyer is on the back of you phone book too. If you find a single phone book anywhere in the US with a Dr's ad, IBM's, or Toyota's please post which phone book it is on. Now when I said post it I do mean post factual listings, not legal talk where you suggest there might be other ads, just like there might be other killers, other body hiders, other ladder leavers, real verifiable facts. You can not create doubt with me using these tactics.


My facts are facts with references. Lawyers hate facts unless they work for them. That is why Casey's lawyer fabricated a scenario where the child died accidentally and said that Casey lied about where Kaylee was for 31 days because she had been abused as a child. The real facts didn't work for him so he changed them. You too in a lawyer like manner deflect in your post and say other people advertise too in response to my pointing out that the back of almost every phone book in the US has a lawyer's ad on it. I never said only lawyers advertise. Why do lawyers always want to twist things. Oh yeah winning is all that matters, not facts.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 9, 2011)

I have four phone books.  The LocalTel.com book for my town has three ads for local businesses on the back - a landscape design company, a funeral home and a Karate school.  The Verizon white/yellow pages combining four local towns has an ad for a Personal & Business Bankruptcy firm.  The Verizon Boston Area yellow pages book has an ad for beaumontsigns.com and beaumontsolarco.com, looks like one company that makes signs and delivers solar power?  The Yellowbook Boston Metro South book has an ad for vrglawyers.com.  Two out of four books, then, have ads for those skeavy lawyers who only chose their profession just so they could lie and cheat the rest of us.   

Back in another life I worked as an assistant in a small office with 5 lawyers.  Two specialized in personal injury, two in family law, one in financial/estate matters.  They all did real estate work, and they all took on court-appointed criminal defense cases in the Boston court system.  It may have been all about winning for them, like Tombo asserts, but they followed the rules while doing their jobs.  Repeating what pgnewarkboy has said, most of their criminal clients were poor and could not afford all of the bells and whistles available, and because of that they were more often victimized by the prosecution than exonerated by the defense.  For every OJ or Casey who appears to outrageously beat the system because the prosecution fails in its efforts to make a circumstantial evidence case, there are hundreds every day who suffer undue punishment because they don't have resources.

As distasteful as a criminal defense attorney's job may be to some of us, without them our system would fail.  Anybody who wants to rant and rave against the attorneys who don't do the job correctly, have at it.  But the folks who want to put them all in the same boat and say they're all evil are only proving one thing - that they don't understand our system.


----------



## tombo (Jul 9, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> I have four phone books.   Two out of four books, then, have ads for those skeavy lawyers who only chose their profession just so they could lie and cheat the rest of us.



In Mississippi 100% of the phone books I have seen have lawyer's on the back. Yours is 50%. How about I change my statement to Lawyer's buy up most of the ads on the back of Phone books, and to the best of my knowledge ZERO Dr's, accountants, engineers, or any other professionals (other than lawyers) I know of have purchased any back of phone book ads.




SueDonJ said:


> As distasteful as a criminal defense attorney's job may be to some of us, without them our system would fail.  Anybody who wants to rant and rave against the attorneys who don't do the job correctly, have at it.  But the folks who want to put them all in the same boat and say they're all evil are only proving one thing - that they don't understand our system.



Twisting my words again.I said QUOTE "I know plenty of attorneys. Some are good guys......."

I did not put them all in one boat, just the top, richest, most successful lawyers who are mainly concerned about money and winning at any cost. 

The problem is we do understand the system. Lawyers self regulate. Almost all politicians are lawyers. When they vote on laws they typically vote in a manner benefitting lawyers and the legal industry as a whole because they know they are only one election from practicing law again. They protect their future income and that of their colleagues. They make it where many simple things that could be handled by an individual requires a lawyer's services. Lawyers can file suit against anyone for any or no reason and you have to pay to defend yourself. For getting guilty criminals off in court and for many more reasons  lawyers are always voted one of the most disliked professions. Unfortunatelly most of us do know how the system works, and we don't like it.


----------



## bogey21 (Jul 9, 2011)

tombo said:


> The problem lies with her lawyer. The ONLY person to ever state that the child accidentally drowned was her attorney. Not Casey, not the grandparents, not a single witness.



I remember George Anthony's  mistress testifying that George said that it was an accident that snowballed out of control.  Do we just ignore her testimony?

George


----------



## tombo (Jul 9, 2011)

bogey21 said:


> I remember George Anthony's  mistress testifying that George said that it was an accident that snowballed out of control.  Do we just ignore her testimony?
> 
> George



Yes a legal person should know that the jury should ignore her statement. Her statement is hearsay which is generally not admissable in court.

Definition from Wikipedia:
"Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of what is asserted. Such use of "hearsay evidence" in court is generally not allowed. This prohibition is called the hearsay rule."

The mistress was never there when anything regarding Kaylee occurred so her testimony was heresay, and not only was it hearsay it was refuted by George when he was asked if he ever said it.

If the prosecution had wanted to present her testimony it would not have been aloowed because it was hearsay. However to support his lie the defense attorney somehow convinced the court that her "hearsay"  statement was somehow admissable supposedly to impeach george's testimony that he never knew about the lawyers story that she drowned.  His Mistress never said George told her that Kaylee drowned in the pool, or that George's wife left the ladder in the pool,or that george pulled her from the pool, or that George hid the body, or that George told Casey to lie, or that George molested casey, or anything the Lawyer stated routinelly as though it was fact. In fact his mistress said she did not believe any of those things to be true:
"Holloway said she does not believe Baez’s accusation that George Anthony pulled Caylee’s body from the family pool on June 16, 2008, 31 days before Caylee was reported missing and the search for the 2-year-old began."
She also said:
"Holloway said she also does not believe the defense’s claim that George Anthony sexually abused his daughter, Casey Anthony, for years when she was a child."
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/28302102/detail.html

As I said before the ONLY person who said Kaylee drowned in the pool and that George pulled the body out and that George hid the body was the defense attorney. Big stretch to get from it was an accident to how the accident happened and what happened afterwards. He created the scenario and kept stating it happened that way as though he had proved it. He invented the story, he did not provide any corraborating evidence, witnesses, or proof of any kind that what he said ever happened. He lied. He should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice. Instead he will get more clients than he can accept and he will probably get wealthy. That is a shame.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 9, 2011)

tombo said:


> In Mississippi 100% of the phone books I have seen have lawyer's on the back. Yours is 50%. How about I change my statement to Lawyer's buy up most of the ads on the back of Phone books, and to the best of my knowledge ZERO Dr's, accountants, engineers, or any other professionals (other than lawyers) I know of have purchased any back of phone book ads.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tombo. The problem I have with your statements about lawyers and lawsuits are that they are extremely generalized.  Earlier in this thread I stated there are some bad lawyers.    All rich, succesful, lawyers, however,  are not liars and cheats who will do anything to win.  Some surely are. I probably know that better than you because I have actually dealt with them professionally.   
 I certainly don't want to twist your words and you are, of course, entitled to your opinion.  I don't want to change your mind.  I will, however, point out for the group of people following this thread  an attorney who is succesful and rich and definitely NOT a liar or a cheat or out to file a frivolous lawsuit.  This attorney is representative of MOST attorneys and how they behave in my experience.  I am sure you will diagree and that is fine.

The lawyer I am thinking of is Dan Petrocelli (not googling so may be mispelled).  He represented the Goldman's in their civil lawsuit against OJ and was able to prove the case that the Prosecutors botched that OJ murdered Godman and Nicole.  Yes, the lawsuit was for money and he did not do it for free.  Yet, he helped sink OJ for once an for all. He performed a real service for the Goldmans and the public.  There are many lawyers like him.  They file lawsuits to protect the freedom of speech.  To protect corporations from patent infringement and the illegal practices of other businesses. Their lawsuits help their clients and the public agenda by enforcing the rule of law which enables people to conduct their businesses and their lives.    Many of these lawyers are rich and succesful and file their lawsuits for money.  Many of these lawyers advertise or hire public relations firms to promote their practices.  They are not liars and cheats.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 9, 2011)

tombo said:


> ...  As I said before the ONLY person who said Kaylee drowned in the pool and that George hid the body was the defense attorney. He created the scenario and kept stating it happened that way as though he had proved it. He invented the story, he did not provide any corraborating evidence, witnesses, or proof of any kind that what he said ever happened. He lied. He should be prosecuted for obstruction of justice. Instead he will get more clients than he can accept and he will probably get wealthy. That is a shame.



None of us knows if he lied because the burden of proof didn't rest with him to prove that he told the truth.  That's what you seem to be glossing over, that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution.  At least one juror said that the prosecutor did not prove that Kaylee's death fit the legal definitions of the murder/manslaughter charges which were considered.  The defense attorney could introduce any other scenario for the death and as long as there's no objection to it, the jury can consider it as a basis for "reasonable doubt."  Heck, the defense attorney could do nothing but stand on his head and sing la-dee-la, and still the prosecutor would have to prove his case in order for the jury to come back with a "guilty" verdict.

It's understandable that this case tugs at the heartstrings and certainly folks have their own strong opinions about whether Casey got away with murder, but the only thing that matters is that the prosecution failed in their task.  Everything else is just noise.


----------



## tombo (Jul 9, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> None of us knows if he lied because the burden of proof didn't rest with him to prove that he told the truth.  That's what you seem to be glossing over, that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution.  At least one juror said that the prosecutor did not prove that Kaylee's death fit the legal definitions of the murder/manslaughter charges which were considered.  The defense attorney could introduce any other scenario for the death and as long as there's no objection to it, the jury can consider it as a basis for "reasonable doubt."  Heck, the defense attorney could do nothing but stand on his head and sing la-dee-la, and still the prosecutor would have to prove his case in order for the jury to come back with a "guilty" verdict.
> 
> It's understandable that this case tugs at the heartstrings and certainly folks have their own strong opinions about whether Casey got away with murder, but the only thing that matters is that the prosecution failed in their task.  Everything else is just noise.



My point is the lack of morals it takes to be a good lawyer. When a client admits to their attorney that they stold something, raped someone, murdered someone, the lawyer doesn't say well you are guilty and going to jail, they instead say OK let's see what we can figure out to get you off, or off with a reduced charge/sentence. They will attack the rape victim's reputation, accuse others of the murder, lie about where their client was at the time the crime was commited, etc, etc, etc, even though they know their client did it. Most lawyers will say or do anything to make their client appear innocent and to set them free EVEN THOUGH THEY ADMITTED TO THE ATTORNEY THAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY GUILTY. When your client tells you they comitted the crime and you repeatedlly tell the jury that your client is innocent, you are a liar. 


Assuming Casey told her lawyer during their meetings that she killed her daughter or even if she stated that it was an accident and she panicked and hid the body, everything the lawyer said about George hiding the body he knew for a fact was a lie. He told those lies to beat the legal system and set a guilty person free.There was no reasonable  doubt in his mind if she told him she did it. When he talked about the grandfather he was lying and he didn't care. When he talked about the grandmother he was lying and didn't care. When he said this was never about murder, it was an accidental drowning he was probably lying through his teeth. 


Attorneys call presenting false scenarios they know have no factual basis part of their job they do to create reasonable doubt.  Most people with morals simply call it lying.


----------



## Wonka (Jul 9, 2011)

bogey21 said:


> I remember George Anthony's  mistress testifying that George said that it was an accident that snowballed out of control.  Do we just ignore her testimony?
> 
> George



Why would you believe her?  If we're going to keep citing the lack of "proof", where is the "proof" she was George's mistress?  She appeared to me to be just another "liar" finding a way to make money.  Of course, her sister contacted the National Enquirer without her knowledge I suppose...right.

I don't doubt that George Anthony had an affair with her, but found her testimony very doubtful given the time lag and National Enquirer payment.

Although the defense didn't have the burden of proof, once they presented their "story" in the opening, the jury should have disregarded the story since there was no proof whatsoever to support it.

It's over...there's nothing anyone can do about it, so I suppose all of us need to just "let it go".  It'd be a lot easier if Casey Anthony just disappeared from the newspapers and future movies.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 9, 2011)

tombo said:


> My point is the lack of morals it takes to be a good lawyer. When a client admits to their attorney that they stold something, raped someone, murdered someone, the lawyer doesn't say well you are guilty and going to jail, they instead say OK let's see what we can figure out to get you off, or off with a reduced charge/sentence. They will attack the rape victim's reputation, accuse others of the murder, lie about where their client was at the time the crime was commited, etc, etc, etc, even though they know their client did it. Most lawyers will say or do anything to make their client appear innocent and to set them free EVEN THOUGH THEY ADMITTED TO THE ATTORNEY THAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY GUILTY. When your client tells you they comitted the crime and you repeatedlly tell the jury that your client is innocent, you are a liar.
> 
> 
> Assuming Casey told her lawyer during their meetings that she killed her daughter or even if she stated that it was an accident and she panicked and hid the body, everything the lawyer said about George hiding the body he knew for a fact was a lie. He told those lies to beat the legal system and set a guilty person free.There was no reasonable  doubt in his mind if she told him she did it. When he talked about the grandfather he was lying and he didn't care. When he talked about the grandmother he was lying and didn't care. When he said this was never about murder, it was an accidental drowning he was probably lying through his teeth.
> ...



How do you know what transpired during the meetings between Casey and her lawyer?   At the very least he knew from the police reports that she was prone to lying, he had no reason to believe that she wouldn't lie to him, too.  So why would he ask her any questions at all, knowing that 1) he probably wouldn't get a straight answer, and 2) if she did kill Kaylee and admitted it to him, his defense strategy could be impacted by the legal restraints he'd face in defending his client.  His job was to try to thwart whatever evidence the prosecution introduced so that their burden couldn't be met.  He could do that without asking his client to confess to him.  He did his job.  If he'd done it in such a way that rules of law were broken then he'd be risking a mistrial and/or censuring by his peers; neither of those happened.  I don't see a problem with the defense attorney here; I see that the prosecution didn't satisfy the burden of proof.


----------



## scrapngen (Jul 9, 2011)

Obviously, when a child's murder, bad parenting etc. are involved, emotions get heated and we all have opinions. 

One thing I'd have to say regarding those like Tombo and others who feel they would have caused a hung jury if nothing else in this case.  Most of you would have never made it onto the jury in the first place, as it seems that they often challenge and then release anyone they think might vote against their client.... (and often it seems those lawyers do not want anyone intelligent on their jury...)  :ignore:


----------



## vacationhopeful (Jul 9, 2011)

My brother (the criminal defense lawyer at both the state and federal court level) and I watched the reading of the verdict together. I told him the state's case was not ready for trial and they should NEVER have charged her or arrested her for something they could NOT prove. He agreed.

The guy in Aruba (Natilie Holloway's suspected killer) can/could not keep his mouth shut. They went after him with snitches, wiretaps, and reviews of his past vacations. He was/is a smartass who marked the 5th anniversity of Natilie's death, by killing another young lady - only this time, his father was deceased, he was filmed going up to the hotel room with her, and he was in a foreign country.

Casey, before this trial, was a spoiled kid, well practiced in not telling the truth. After 3 years sitting in jail with several lawyers schooling her in the law, she most likely could past the criminal law section of the bar. 

The prosecutors were idiots. They had no case for the charges they filed. And they knew that. Waiting should have been their best option, until they had more facts or evidence.


----------



## tombo (Jul 9, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> How do you know what transpired during the meetings between Casey and her lawyer?   At the very least he knew from the police reports that she was prone to lying, he had no reason to believe that she wouldn't lie to him, too.  So why would he ask her any questions at all, knowing that 1) he probably wouldn't get a straight answer, and 2) if she did kill Kaylee and admitted it to him, his defense strategy could be impacted by the legal restraints he'd face in defending his client.  His job was to try to thwart whatever evidence the prosecution introduced so that their burden couldn't be met.  He could do that without asking his client to confess to him.  He did his job.  If he'd done it in such a way that rules of law were broken then he'd be risking a mistrial and/or censuring by his peers; neither of those happened.  I don't see a problem with the defense attorney here; I see that the prosecution didn't satisfy the burden of proof.



You gloss over the what if she told him while applauding the fact that her attorney's defense destroyed the prosecutions case and burden of proof based entirelly on what ifs.  

What if she told him and he still presented this defense? What legal restraints would he have faced? He can say or do anything to get her off even IF he knows she did it. How do you feel about this case and this lawyer IF she did tell him she killed her daughter and he presented the fake scenario (lies) to get her ruled not guilty? Was he a masterfull lawyer running circles around the prosecution or a liar who will do or say anything to win?

You "gloss over" the fact that many attorneys know their clients did it but still shout to the rooftops that their client is innocent. Do you see a problem with any attorney lying or is that just his job? Many times they know their client is guilty but they still tell the jury that it was consensual sex not rape, that they were in Disney World when the crime happened, that there was an ex boyfriend that wanted to kill her more than their client did, that the police planted evidence, etc, etc, etc when everything they say and present is a lie. If they win that is ok? If they lie and make the jury think it was the victim's fault is that OK because the prosecution couldn't prove he raped her? If it was your daughter raped or murdered would you say well it doesn't matter that the defense attorney lied, it is the prosecution's fault for not satisfying the burden of proof?

In the Casey Anthony case you want to say what if he didn't know for sure she did it. Neither of us will ever know for sure if she told him she did it or not because to divulge that information would cause him to lose his license. I assume she told him what happened because the attorney usually asks their client for the truth because they hate to get blind sided by facts the defendant refused to tell them, but we will never know for sure.

Back to my original point. How do you feel about lawyers who tell the jury that their client is innocent even though their client admitted they did it using attorney client priviledge? I feel they are paid liars and I can't imagine making a living that way. I have no admiration for them, only disgust. How about you?  Do you admire them or despise them?


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 9, 2011)

tombo said:


> ... Back to my original point. How do you feel about lawyers who tell the jury that their client is innocent even though their client admitted they did it using attorney client priviledge? I feel they are paid liars and I can't imagine making a living that way. I have no admiration for them, only disgust. How about you? You admire them or despise them?



In my little experience with the attorneys I worked for who did criminal defense work, yes I admired them.  They provide a service that's necessary in our justice system, most times to folks in desperate situations who would otherwise be left to rot by the society at large.  From what I saw they were able to use their knowledge of the law to insist that the basic tenet of our system - innocent until proven guilty - was upheld.  The five I knew managed to do that without compromising their integrity, and the fact that they could go to work in that environment repeatedly without becoming jaded is something to be commended.  The only thing they could do to lose my admiration, is to take it upon themselves to be judge, jury and executioner of the clients they are supposed to be serving.

But I do understand your position, Tombo, and I understand that we're looking at this from two different perspectives.  It appears to me that you think the defense should have to prove its position at the same time the prosecution does, and defense attorneys can't do their job without sacrificing their morality.  I'm comfortable with the entire burden of proof resting with the prosecution, and think that there really isn't a much higher moral calling than helping the most desperate among us.  As long as either side doesn't break any of our laws in their zealotry to protect them, I'm satisfied.


----------



## tombo (Jul 9, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> But I do understand your position, Tombo, and I understand that we're looking at this from two different perspectives.  It appears to me that you think the defense should have to prove its position at the same time the prosecution does, and defense attorneys can't do their job without sacrificing their morality.  I'm comfortable with the entire burden of proof resting with the prosecution, and think that there really isn't a much higher moral calling than helping the most desperate among us. .



I don't have any problem with the prosecution having to bear the burden of proof. I do have a problem with the prosecution being held to a higher standard. I have a problem with the prosecution having to tell the truth or else a conviction can be overturned on appeal but when the defense lies it's butt off and gets a not guilty verdict, their clients are forever not  guilty and can never be tried for the crime again even though the defense lied. Helping the most desperate among us is not a moral calling if you defend them by telling lies to prove they are innocent when you know they are guilty.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 9, 2011)

tombo said:


> ... If it was your daughter raped or murdered would you say well it doesn't matter that the defense attorney lied, it is the prosecution's fault for not satisfying the burden of proof? ...



I had to separate this because it's impossible to know in advance how I would react to such a horrible experience, and it's much too personal in the overall abstract discussion.  But I hope that I would be strong enough to put the courage of my convictions ahead of my heartache.  Of course I can't know for sure (and knock on wood I never have to find out,) but I hope that in such terrible circumstances I would still be able to recognize that the prosecutor failed to do his job.

Hmmmm.  I hate this question.  It's a little unfair that you posed it because there isn't any way I can answer it without sounding holier-than-thou.  That's not how I want to come across but it can't be helped.  Either I throw my convictions out the window the minute the victim becomes my flesh and blood, or, I stick with my convictions and become a cold-hearted mother who doesn't have enough concern for my murdered daughter's eternal rest.  No way to win here.

By the way, the closest we've ever come to criminal court was when Eileen was in 2nd grade and a pervert flashed her and a friend while they walked up the hill towards school one morning.  Her friend's mom and I were watching from the bottom of the hill and saw nothing - the man was standing behind some bushes out of our sight.  When the girls told us at lunchtime what had happened we were shocked because we hadn't seen anything in their steps to alert us, and they were so shocked that they continued on to school and didn't tell anyone until we were there to do lunch duty.  Eileen got a look at his face, her friend did not.  Eileen was able to pick him out of a photo line-up the next afternoon after he'd been arrested that morning outside another school, sitting in his car and flashing all the kids who walked by.  We were there for the trial and Eileen gave a very short victim impact statement, which the DA read while Eileen sat beside the judge.  The guy got the minimum sentence even though I thought he should have been a death penalty candidate.  But the guys I worked for helped me to understand the process so that I didn't rant and rave.  Two years later they also let me know when they saw him again in court for a similar arrest, and with their help the DA was convinced to not settle for anything less than the max sentence.  He still wasn't beheaded in the center of town   but the system worked as best it could.  It's not anywhere near the situation you've posed, though.


----------



## tombo (Jul 9, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> I had to separate this because it's impossible to know in advance how I would react to such a horrible experience, and it's much too personal in the overall abstract discussion.  But I hope that I would be strong enough to put the courage of my convictions ahead of my heartache.  Of course I can't know for sure (and knock on wood I never have to find out,) but I hope that in such terrible circumstances I would still be able to recognize that the prosecutor failed to do his job.



This is where we will forever have to disagree. If the defense attorney LIES and his LIES get his client found not guilty, I will not blame the prosecutor, I blame the lying defense attorney. You look at the trial as the defense can do or say anything false or true to defend their client and the prosecution has to overcome any lies the defense told. Why is it OK for the defense to lie? I feel that both sides should present the truth and let the jury decide based on facts, not based on lies.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 9, 2011)

tombo said:


> I don't have any problem with the prosecution having to bear the burden of proof. I do have a problem with the prosecution being held to a higher standard. I have a problem with the prosecution having to tell the truth or else a conviction can be overturned on appeal but when the defense lies it's butt off and gets a not guilty verdict, their clients are forever not  guilty and can never be tried for the crime again even though the defense lied. Helping the most desperate among us is not a moral calling if you defend them by telling lies to prove they are innocent when you know they are guilty.



Have you considered at all that the scenarios introduced by Casey's defense attorney could have been introduced by all of the players he had interviewed?  That quite possibly he wasn't lying or fabricating stories that had absolutely no basis to be introduced?  And have you considered that the prosecution's burden includes a directive to disprove every scenario introduced by every player, if they don't mesh with the charges they've brought?  I won't agree with you that Casey's attorney blatantly lied about anything because I don't know what was confided to him.  I actually do agree with the mob who think Casey got away with murder.  But again, it was the prosecution who effectively secured the "not guilty" verdict and her release, not her attorney.


----------



## tombo (Jul 9, 2011)

SueDonJ said:


> Have you considered at all that the scenarios introduced by Casey's defense attorney could have been introduced by all of the players he had interviewed? That quite possibly he wasn't lying or fabricating stories that had absolutely no basis to be introduced? .


 

If the defense attorney had interviewed one single person who said that they knew that Kaylee drowned, that George got her body out of the pool, that George hid the bdy, etc, etc, etc, he would have had them on the stand to bolster his case. The closest he could find was an alleged mistress who said that George told her that it was an accident. He made the whole story up beyond any reasonable doubt. That is why he did not have one single person testify and that is why he had zero proof of any kind. He lied. Casey is free because of his lies. The prosecution didn't fail. The defense cheated, lied, and won.That is nothing to be proud of.


----------



## 6scoops (Jul 9, 2011)

When Jose Baez decided to use his imaginative theories, in his opening statement with no intention to ever put Casey Anthony on the stand to corroborate his story, He was *CHEATING TO WIN!!!*

Even other defense attorneys agree this was a low ball, scummy move.  He has only been a attorney for 3 years.  He finished law school in 97. 

"An order from the Supreme Court of Florida states that he was denied admission (for eight years)  because of his failure to pay child support to his ex-wife and secure life and health insurance for his teenage daughter. It states that he had previously declared bankruptcy, written bad checks and defaulted on student loans, the court said."

He is obviously not at all a moral character, just a character!


----------



## glypnirsgirl (Jul 9, 2011)

I have spent about 8 hours watching the videos of the police and FBI witness interviews available on YouTube. I believe that this is the start of those "scenarios."

The odds are stacked so far in favor of the prosecutors, they get to open first and close last. They have the opportunity to respond to any and every argument/scenario/what if/lie that the defense comes up with. 

The prosecutors (in Fort Worth - I don't know about other jurisdictions) usually have an investigator that can immediately go to investigate those scenarios.

If a defense attorney told lies to get an acquittal for someone that was accused of murdering one of my loved ones, I would be furious. I would even be more furious if the prosecutors failed to rebut those lies. 

elaine


----------



## tombo (Jul 9, 2011)

6scoops said:


> When Jose Baez decided to use his imaginative theories, in his opening statement with no intention to ever put Casey Anthony on the stand to corroborate his story, He was *CHEATING TO WIN!!!*
> 
> Even other defense attorneys agree this was a low ball, scummy move.  He has only been a attorney for 3 years.  He finished law school in 97.
> 
> ...



Thanks for confirming what I assumed. He cheats his kid out of insurance, he wrote checks assumed to be good which were not, he filed bankruptcy leaving people who he owed money to out of luck, and he refused to pay for his student loans. Not a big shock that he cheated and lied in court.


----------



## tombo (Jul 10, 2011)

glypnirsgirl said:


> I have spent about 8 hours watching the videos of the police and FBI witness interviews available on YouTube. I believe that this is the start of those "scenarios."
> 
> The odds are stacked so far in favor of the prosecutors, they get to open first and close last. They have the opportunity to respond to any and every argument/scenario/what if/lie that the defense comes up with.
> 
> ...



The prosecution did rebutt the lies. However the lies told by the defense  created enough doubt that the jurors felt they could not feel sure Casey did it beyond reasonable doubt. If you listen to the juror response she said that she didn't like what George Anthony said on the stand and didn't feel like he was telling the truth. George had nothing to do with this case other than in the false scenario created by the lying defense attorney. 

So if the defense lies and the prosecution rebutts to no avail, who are you mad at?


----------



## tombo (Jul 10, 2011)

glypnirsgirl said:


> I have spent about 8 hours watching the videos of the police and FBI witness interviews available on YouTube. I believe that this is the start of those "scenarios."
> 
> The odds are stacked so far in favor of the prosecutors, they get to open first and close last. They have the opportunity to respond to any and every argument/scenario/what if/lie that the defense comes up with.
> 
> ...



The advantage is for the defense. If I am not mistaken the prosecution has to turn over every single piece of evidence it uncovers to the defense before the trial. The defense does not have to give any of it's evidence to the prosecution. The prosecution can not bring up any surprise witnesses but the defense can have hidden facts and witnesses. The prosecution can win the case but have it overturned on appeal. The defense wins once and that win is forever. If the prosecution is caught in a lie a mistrial can be declared. if the defense is caught in a lie, no problem. How can you possibly feel the prosecution has the advantage?


----------



## 6scoops (Jul 10, 2011)

*Jose Beaz is a good salesman!!*



tombo said:


> Thanks for confirming what I assumed. He cheats his kid out of insurance, he wrote checks assumed to be good which were not, he filed bankruptcy leaving people who he owed money to out of luck, and he refused to pay for his student loans. Not a big shock that he cheated and lied in court.



Ohhh wait there's more:

The Florida Supreme Court said his financial mishaps coupled with failure to pay child support "show a lack of respect for the rights of others and a total lack of respect for the legal system, which is absolutely inconsistent with the character and fitness qualities required of those seeking to be afforded the highest position of trust and confidence recognized by our system of law."


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jul 10, 2011)

Watching Fox News last night, Casey's boyfriend's roommate said Zanny is a common nickname for Zanex.  Why did that not come out in court?


----------



## myoakley (Jul 10, 2011)

The 8th commandment says , "Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor."  It does not make an exception for lawyers.  If the legal system allows defense lawyers to lie in order to exonerate their clients, the moral law does not.  And, on judgment day, it is the moral law which will prevail.


----------



## 6scoops (Jul 10, 2011)

rickandcindy23 said:


> Watching Fox News last night, Casey's boyfriend's roommate said Zanny is a common nickname for Zanex.  Why did that not come out in court?



I didn't watch every bit, but I don't think Xanax came up at trial.  
Also it was reported by one of her friends growing up that when she was younger, they would put their deceased pets in garbage bags and put *stickers* all over the *trash bag* and through them in that same area on the same street that Caylee was found!!

I don't think either of these were brought up at trial.


----------



## rickandcindy23 (Jul 10, 2011)

Casey is a liar and may have lied to her lawyers.  You cannot blame the lawyers, if she lied to them.  What do you do with lies, as a defense lawyer who needs to do his/ her best to make sure you get a fair trial.  

I was hoping for at least a lesser conviction.  But life goes on, and Casey's life will be "beautiful," as her tatoo states.  She is going to be a millionaire over her dead child.  One day the regret will be too much, if she actually did kill her daughter with Zanex (however it's spelled), or with Chloroform, or whatever happened.  She would have to be the devil to not feel deep loss and guilt at some point.  Counseling is not going to fix her.  

I wouldn't want to have to live with myself after hiding the fact my child was missing.  She lied and hid from her parents, the police, and her friends.  She should have no one left to comfort her.  What type of friends is she going to attract?  Leeches and evil people will be seeking out her friendship.  

Beautiful life?  I think not...


----------



## Tia (Jul 10, 2011)

myoakley said:


> ... If the legal system allows defense lawyers to lie in order to exonerate their clients, the moral law does not.  ....



Not ever served on a jury and don't even pretend to be a lawyer, but the legal system allows defense attny's to bring up backgrounds of rape victims to question character etc. but not that of the accused doesn't it?


----------



## Pat H (Jul 10, 2011)

Defense attorneys do not want to know if their clients are guilty. They don't ask and they'd rather not have the defendant tell them. Most likely, Casey had the sexual abuse and drowning accident suggested to her by another inmate in the jail. She is a pathological liar so it wouldn't take much for her to spin the suggestions into the outlandish stories she told. Her attorney can then say that is what she told him. The biggest problem for any attorney at trial is to find out something they didn't know beforehand and for which they are not prepared.


----------



## Tropical lady (Jul 10, 2011)

I have not read through the thread and I'm sure this was mentioned, but she was not cleared, she was found not guilty which does not mean she is innocent of charges. 
I, too, having watched the trial from the beginning wondered if the jury listened to the same information that I did.  Yes, the pieces were circumstantial, but put together for the big picture certainly made her guilty for me.  I would not have gone for death with this evidence, but aggravated manslaughter looked appropriate to me.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 10, 2011)

Tia said:


> Not ever served on a jury and don't even pretend to be a lawyer, but the legal system allows defense attny's to bring up backgrounds of rape victims to question character etc. but not that of the accused doesn't it?



Actually, you are wrong on this.


----------



## Tia (Jul 10, 2011)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Actually, you are wrong on this.



Explain further?


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 10, 2011)

Tia said:


> Explain further?



Most, if not every state, has passed laws making it impossible for defense attorney's to question rape or sexual assault victims about their past sexual history.  Anyone who is accused of a crime and takes the witness stand is subject to being cross examined on their credibiity. Prior convictions can be brought up or anything else that is relevant as to credibility.


----------



## Marvin (Jul 10, 2011)

tombo said:


> I guess from your response a lawyer is on the back of you phone book too. If you find a single phone book anywhere in the US with a Dr's ad, IBM's, or Toyota's please post which phone book it is on. Now when I said post it I do mean post factual listings, not legal talk where you suggest there might be other ads, just like there might be other killers, other body hiders, other ladder leavers, real verifiable facts. You can not create doubt with me using these tactics.
> 
> 
> My facts are facts with references. Lawyers hate facts unless they work for them. That is why Casey's lawyer fabricated a scenario where the child died accidentally and said that Casey lied about where Kaylee was for 31 days because she had been abused as a child. The real facts didn't work for him so he changed them. You too in a lawyer like manner deflect in your post and say other people advertise too in response to my pointing out that the back of almost every phone book in the US has a lawyer's ad on it. I never said only lawyers advertise. Why do lawyers always want to twist things. Oh yeah winning is all that matters, not facts.



Hey Tombo, if you ever are falsely accused of a crime or frivously sued civilly, what are you going to do-hire a floor sweeper to represent you?  Remember that the old saying, "one who chooses to represent himself, truly has a fool for a client."


----------



## tombo (Jul 10, 2011)

Marvin said:


> Hey Tombo, if you ever are falsely accused of a crime or frivously sued civilly, what are you going to do-hire a floor sweeper to represent you?  Remember that the old saying, "one who chooses to represent himself, truly has a fool for a client."



If in any of your scenarios happen to me I will hire a lawyer. Everyone needs a lawyer at some time or another. 

By the way I don't hate all lawyers. My next door neighbor is a lawyer and I was at a party at his weekend home not long ago. There are 3 lawyers within 4 houses of mine, and all are nice guys. NONE are criminal defense attorneys.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 19, 2011)

*Prosecution LIED*

Here is an article which states that Casey Anthony did NOT search the internet 84 time for chloroform  The software company   that designed the method of determining how many times she searched said they found an error in their software design.  She only looked once.  The prosecutors were notified promptly by the company and the PROSECUTION never changed or corrected their very ballyhooed assertion she searched 84 times to show premeditation in the killings.

As I said earlier I don't know if she did it or what she did but this should shed the blinders from many inexperienced eyes about how the justice system really works.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/us/19casey.html?_r=3&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto


----------



## laurac260 (Jul 19, 2011)

Tropical lady said:


> I have not read through the thread and I'm sure this was mentioned, but she was not cleared, she was found not guilty which does not mean she is innocent of charges.
> I, too, having watched the trial from the beginning wondered if the jury listened to the same information that I did.  Yes, the pieces were circumstantial, but put together for the big picture certainly made her guilty for me.  I would not have gone for death with this evidence, but aggravated manslaughter looked appropriate to me.




Innocent, or not guilty...she still walks.  So really, what's the diff?  But the most compelling question is...why does she seem _HAPPY_?  Please everyone, raise your hand if you would be happy if your baby died...accidentally or on purpose.


----------



## bogey21 (Jul 19, 2011)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Here is an article which states that Casey Anthony did NOT search the internet 84 time for chloroform  The software company   that designed the method of determining how many times she searched said they found an error in their software design.  She only looked once.  The prosecutors were notified promptly by the company and the PROSECUTION never changed or corrected their very ballyhooed assertion she searched 84 times to show premeditation in the killings.
> 
> As I said earlier I don't know if she did it or what she did but this should shed the blinders from many inexperienced eyes about how the justice system really works.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/us/19casey.html?_r=3&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto


I pointed out on a previous post that the Defense argued this forcefully in their rubuttal and that I though it strange that the Prosecution didn't say boo in response when they had the last word.  I also saw the Mason guy (Defense Attorney) on TV the other day stating catagorically that the duct tape was not on the face and mouth.  I wondered why the Prosecution spent so much time on attacking Casey's character and not presenting evidence.  Maybe now we know.  Note that I'm not arguing that she was innocent, but rather that the Prosecution didn't have much of a case.

George

George


----------



## pjrose (Jul 19, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> Innocent, or not guilty...she still walks.  So really, what's the diff?  But the most compelling question is...why does she seem _HAPPY_?  Please everyone, raise your hand if you would be happy if your baby died...accidentally or on purpose.



I'm with you on that one.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jul 20, 2011)

laurac260 said:


> Innocent, or not guilty...she still walks.  So really, what's the diff?  But the most compelling question is...why does she seem _HAPPY_?  Please everyone, raise your hand if you would be happy if your baby died...accidentally or on purpose.



See thats kinda why i think it was more neglect then murder....i just think she was such a selfish...@#$%^....that she didn't care where her kid was...when people asked her about the kid...she made up random stories, so she wouldn't get shit and have to look...She's smiling because she's done with the trial, she couldn't have cared either way about the kid...The prosecution should have pushed for child abuse, neglect, etc. charges...no jury would have returned a not guilty verdict for that...but murder is much much harder to prove


----------



## jerseygirl (Jul 20, 2011)

State's response to the allegations involving internet searches:

http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/CacheBack-errors-0719.pdf

It was apparent in Jose Baez's closing arguments ("THIS IS FRAUD") that he had been told about the discrepancy.


----------



## tombo (Jul 20, 2011)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Here is an article which states that Casey Anthony did NOT search the internet 84 time for chloroform  The software company   that designed the method of determining how many times she searched said they found an error in their software design.  She only looked once.  The prosecutors were notified promptly by the company and the PROSECUTION never changed or corrected their very ballyhooed assertion she searched 84 times to show premeditation in the killings.
> 
> As I said earlier I don't know if she did it or what she did but this should shed the blinders from many inexperienced eyes about how the justice system really works.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/us/19casey.html?_r=3&smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto




If she hadbeen found guilty she would automatically get a new trial if the prosecution had new information it did not give to the defense.

She was found not guilty. The defense lied A LOT. Can the prosecution call for a new trial since the defense lied, hid evidence, and made up a story about an accidental drowning with no proof? Nope. If Casey Anthony writes a book explaining how she murdered Caylee she is free forever.

If the prosecution lies, hides evidence, makes an accidental error or an accidental ommission they are held to a higher standard and the guilty verdict can be overturned even though the defendant is guilty. The prosecution must be perfect to get a guilty verdict to stand.

When the defense lies, omits, hides evidence, falselly accuses innocent people to create doubt, attacks the reputation of witnesses, law officers, family members even though the defense lawyer knows his accusations are a fabrication and lies that is OK because the defense is supposed to create doubt. If the defendant is found not guilty after the defense lies, omits, and hides evidence, the defendant can never be tried again.

That is how the system really works. 

Casey killed her daughter. She hid the body. For 31 days she told her family that her daughter was fine, on vacation, with a non existent nanny, etc. while she partied. We know that the child was dead for that 31 days. People do not hide the body of accidentally drowned children in garbage bags, they call 911. Any rational person knows she killed her child, they just don't know for sure exactly how. Even though any rational person has to believe beyond reasonable doubt that she killed her daughter from her actions over the 31 days she lied and said her dead child was fine, she was found not guilty. That is how the system worked this time and it sucks. 

Not one single witness ever said that Casey drowned accidentally, only her lawyer said it. Not one single witness said her father or brother sexually abused her, only her lawyer said it happened. Not one witness said Casey's mother left the ladder in the pool, only the defense attorney. Not one witness said her father helped hide the body, only the defense attorney. So because she only searched for Chloroform one time the prosecution is wrong but the defense can base it's entire case on a made up story with ZERO corroboration, facts, or witnesses? At least the chloroform search was a fact unlike the entire fictional accidental drowning scenario. 

Fact:The child was dead while the mother partied. Fact:The child was dead while the mother lied and told everyone that Caylee was on vacation. Fact:The child did not crawl into garbage bags and throw her own dead body inot the swamp. Fact: The mother knew her child was dead which is why she made up lies about where she was rather than looking for her. Fact: She is free forever yet guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

I hope her defense attorney burns in hell. He decided winning was more important than justice. Of course that is a defense attorney's job and why I could never make a living that way.


----------



## tombo (Jul 20, 2011)

jerseygirl said:


> State's response to the allegations involving internet searches:
> 
> http://www.cfnews13.com/static/articles/images/documents/CacheBack-errors-0719.pdf
> 
> It was apparent in Jose Baez's closing arguments ("THIS IS FRAUD") that he had been told about the discrepancy.



So the prosecution did provide the information to the defense. Once again the defense and it's proponents showed this as a reason Casey should have been set free because the prosecution held information from the defense. The facts prove to be much different. Only the defense lied, but of course ONLY the defense is allowed to lie. That is how it works.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jul 20, 2011)

tombo said:


> Fact: The mother knew her child was dead which is why she made up lies about where she was rather than looking for her. .



This isn't a fact...We know through testamony that she was a neglectful, selfish mother who didn't want a child and couldn't care less if her daughter lived or died...She didn't give a damn about her kid...The only Fact from that line is she made up lies about where her daughter was rather then looking for her....IMO, it was just because she didn't care where her daughter was...theres nothing to prove that she knew she was dead...but there is plenty of proof that she didn't care if her daughter was dead or alive

She SHOULD be in jail...for murder, i don't know...but for the neglect and abuse and child endangerment, that lead to her childs death(maybe they could have gotten her on murder by neglect?) ...there is no doubt i think in ANYONES mind that she is guilty of that


----------



## tombo (Jul 20, 2011)

It is a fact that her daughter was dead and that for 31 days Casey lied about where she was and who she was with. Beyond any reasonable doubt one has to conclude that she wasn't looking for her child because she knew she was dead. Even a neglectful mother would look for a missing 2 year old sometime in 31 days. Only a guilty person would make up lies saying the child was at Disneyworld if she in fact knew the child was dead to cover her tracks and prevent searches for the body. If it was an accident you don't invent a nanny. If you don't know your child is dead you tell people you don't know where she is so they can look even if you don't feel like looking yourself. Yes these are facts any rational person would have to agree with beyond any reasonable doubt.

 By the way before you say we don't know how Kaylee died so you can't convict her of murder, well Scott peterson was convicted of 2 murders even though they couldn't find a cause of death.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jul 20, 2011)

tombo said:


> No good parent as the defense tried to portray her would tell her mom that her missing daughter was fine and would be home soon. These are facts any rational person would have to agree with beyond any reasonable doubt.



Its very obvious...she was no good parent...i don't think any neglectful parent would look for a missing kid, i think the assumption is that any parent would be looking for their kid...But there is always the exception that proves the rule...I don't think she wanted people looking for her child, not because she murdered her...But because she wanted rid of the kid...if people are looking, they may find her and she may have to start being a mother again

Let me ask you something...A parent that is willing to murder their own child...You don't believe that parent is just as likely to neglect that child to the point where they just don't care where that kid is for months at a time?


----------



## tombo (Jul 20, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Its very obvious...she was no good parent...i don't think any neglectful parent would look for a missing kid, i think the assumption is that any parent would be looking for their kid...But there is always the exception that proves the rule...I don't think she wanted people looking for her child, not because she murdered her...But because she wanted rid of the kid...if people are looking, they may find her and she may have to start being a mother again
> 
> Let me ask you something...A parent that is willing to murder their own child...You don't believe that parent is just as likely to neglect that child to the point where they just don't care where that kid is for months at a time?



She never neglected the child for weeks at a time. She left the child with her free babysitters (grandparents) anytime she wanted to party or do anything. Neither the prosecution or defense EVER accused her of neglect. Not one witness said she was a neglectful parent. Like the defense attorney you want to make up a "what if's" with no evidence, facts, or witnesses to back up your scenario, yet you hope to convince others count your "what if's" as evidence in order to create doubt. Go to law school, you are a natural.

Hey "what if" Kaylee was abducted by aliens? You can't prove she wasn't......


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jul 20, 2011)

tombo said:


> yet you hope to convince others count your "what if's" as evidence in order to create doubt. Go to law school, you are a natural.
> 
> Hey "what if" Kaylee was abducted by aliens? You can't prove she wasn't......



Your, "she must have murdered her, because she didn't care where she was" is a 'what if'

Reasonable doubt is the standard specificly because of those what ifs...IMO all evidence points to, she just didn't care where her daughter was and didn't want her back...the implication that she must have murdered her kid because of that....thats just a guess, we shouldn't convict people of murder on guesses, your trying to predict an action beyond the facts...the facts show my version...the action, is just a guess


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jul 20, 2011)

Ok i re-read my post, both of our conclusions on why she lied for 31 days about where her daughter was are 'what ifs' 

In My Opinion, its more reasonable to believe that she just didn't care where her daughter was and didn't want her back

In Your Opinion, its more reasonable to believe she murdered her daughter and was trying to cover it up

The thing is, unless we are Casey Anthony, we just don't know which of these conclusions is accurate...Murder not something to be taken lightly, even if theres a slight chance that she's innocent, we should express that possiblity


----------



## tombo (Jul 20, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Your, "she must have murdered her, because she didn't care where she was" is a 'what if'
> 
> Reasonable doubt is the standard specificly because of those what ifs...IMO all evidence points to, she just didn't care where her daughter was and didn't want her back...the implication that she must have murdered her kid because of that....thats just a guess, we shouldn't convict people of murder on guesses, your trying to predict an action beyond the facts...the facts show my version...the action, is just a guess



My conclusion beyond any reasonable doubt of Casey's guilt is not a "what if", it is my conclusion based on the presented facts. As I said fact is the child was for a fact dead yet the mother for a fact lied and told everyone she was fine. The mother in fact invented a nanny, in fact created a Disney vacation that the mother knew never happened while the child was dead. For a fact the mother did not call 911. For a fact the mother took the police to an address where the fake nany who never existed never lived. These facts led me to the only rational conclusion, and that is that she killed her child (on purpose or by accident) and hid the body to cover the crime.

You have ZERO facts, witnesses, testimony, or evidence of any kind to say she was a neglectful mother. Now that is purelly a "what if". All evidence presented points to the contrary that the child was well cared for (mainly by grandparents) and never neglected. To assert the mother was neglectful against all evidence and testimony is a "what if".

After listening to the facts I beleive beyond any reasonable doubt that she killed her daughter and hid the body. That is how the legal system works. You assimilate the facts and come to a conclusion beyond any reasonable  doubt. Unless you have the rare instance where the crime was videotaped you always have to listen to the presented evidence to decide innocence or guilt. Other than seeing it on tape there can always be some doubt no matter how much evidence is presented. 

Coming to a decision of guilt or innocence based on presented evidence is how the jury system works. Casting doubt on presented evidence using "what if's" with no evidence to back it up is what the defense does.


----------



## tombo (Jul 20, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Ok i re-read my post, both of our conclusions on why she lied for 31 days about where her daughter was are 'what ifs'



They have her on tape lying and saying her daughter was with the nanny, her daughter was kidnaped by the nanny, etc, etc, etc. That is the facts presented to the jury on which they decide a verdict. Their verdict is not a "what if", it is what is what they feel happened beyond reasonable doubt after assimilating all of the presented evidence. If you think a conclusion of innocence or guilt based on the facts is a "what if", perhaps law school is not in your future.

Fact is that she lied. The conclusion about why she lied is up to the jurors based on the presented facts.  If you can beyond a reasonable doubt conclude Casey did nothing wrong yet made up elaborate lies about where her dead daughter was for 31 days, good for you. If I was on the jury she is guilty of at least manslaughter minimum beyond any reasonable doubt and we would still be there as a hung jury or she would be found gulty.


----------



## bogey21 (Jul 20, 2011)

jerseygirl said:


> It was apparent in Jose Baez's closing arguments ("THIS IS FRAUD") that he had been told about the discrepancy.



Someone had to tell the jury.  It would have been better if the Prosecution was the one to do it.  That way they would have retained creditibility with the jury.  Letting the Defense disclose it in rebuttal and not fessing up as to the descrepancy in their final argument was a major reason the Prosecution lost the case.  In short, the Prosecution screwed up and was punished for it.

George


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jul 20, 2011)

tombo said:


> Fact is that she lied. *The conclusion about why she lied is up to the jurors based on the presented facts. * If you can beyond a reasonable doubt conclude Casey did nothing wrong yet made up elaborate lies about where her dead daughter was for 31 days, good for you. If I was on the jury she is guilty of at least manslaughter minimum beyond any reasonable doubt and we would still be there as a hung jury or she would be found gulty.



I think Casey did alot wrong and should be behind bars...Manslaughter, through neglect is a plausable sentencing no question...The thing is, that wasn't what she was charged with....this was a 2yr old, if you are unaware of where you two year old is for over a month and that child dies...you contributed to that childs death...Now, does that mean, you murdered them...IMO, no, it just means your neglect of that child was a contributing factor in that childs death...

If you let your kids run around the front yard and are too busy hanging out in the back playing beer pong or watching college football to pay any attention to them and they end up getting hit by a car....Did you murder that child, or was it just your neglect that contributed to their death

All the prosecution was able to prove was that Casey lied about knowing where her daughter was....that in no way means she murdered her...it was just a factor in how the child died...


----------



## tombo (Jul 20, 2011)

Ridewithme38 said:


> I think Casey did alot wrong and should be behind bars...Manslaughter, through neglect is a plausable sentencing no question...The thing is, that wasn't what she was charged with....
> 
> If you let your kids run around the front yard and are too busy hanging out in the back playing beer pong or watching college football to pay any attention to them and they end up getting hit by a car....Did you murder that child, or was it just your neglect that contributed to their death



You say that manslaughter is plausible but they didn't charge her with that. You sir are wrong:

"The jury in the Casey Anthony trial found the Florida mother not guilty of first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20076927-504083.html

Definition of agravated manslaughter of a child under Florida Law:

"(3)  A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. "

http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/782.07.html

By your own theory Casey was a negligent mother. By Florida law a negligent mother who caused the death of her child is guilty of aggravated manslaughter. Negligent is guilty, not an excuse or a way to dodge murder charges.


----------



## DavidnJudy (Jul 20, 2011)

My golly - it's been 2 weeks people. Let it go. Let it go.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jul 20, 2011)

tombo said:


> You say that manslaughter is plausible but they didn't charge her with that. You sir are wrong:
> 
> "The jury in the Casey Anthony trial found the Florida mother not guilty of first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse and aggravated manslaughter. "
> 
> ...



Ok, so pretty much agree? The difference being...I don't believe any evidence came out that she stuffed her in a bag and actually murdered her...But manslaughter by way of neglect, she's guilty of, theres no reasonable doubt in my mind...Manslaughter isn't Murder, there is NO evidence that Casey Murdered her daughter


----------



## jerseygirl (Aug 12, 2011)

Very Small consolation...but she has to report for probation....

Can't copy link but easy to find the stories...


----------



## bogey21 (Aug 12, 2011)

The court system is compounding its errors.  Forcing her back to Florida will not only put her life in danger but it will also end up costing the State of Florida a bunch of money one way or another.  It would have been far better to allow her to serve her probation in a cooperating State.

George


----------



## jerseygirl (Aug 12, 2011)

I'm tired, grouchy, been traveling for 10 hours .... so I'll apologize in advance for posting my true feelings ..... but does anyone really care if her life is in danger??? :ignore: :ignore:

Probation, once started, can be transferred to another state ....


----------



## Talent312 (Aug 12, 2011)

Where is she living?
Perhaps in "Anthony, Florida"... a small town near Ocala.


----------



## cindi (Aug 13, 2011)

jerseygirl said:


> I'm tired, grouchy, been traveling for 10 hours .... so I'll apologize in advance for posting my true feelings ..... but does anyone really care if her life is in danger??? :ignore: :ignore:
> 
> ....



Ok, I gotta say I totally agree with you.  And I wasn't traveling 10 hours.


----------



## jerseygirl (Aug 13, 2011)

cindi said:


> Ok, I gotta say I totally agree with you.  And I wasn't traveling 10 hours.




LOL!  Thanks!  Just got 9 hours sleep .... and, oops, I still feel that way!


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Aug 14, 2011)

I care very much if people's ives are put in danger.  We all live in this society and we will all suffer if we tolerate vigilantisim and violence against those we don't like.   Most people can find what they think is a good reason to physically hurt someone else. Suicide bombers think they are right to do what they do.  We know they are wrong.   It is very dangerous when a society encourages violence against others.  Surely some of us will be on someone's list.


----------



## bogey21 (Aug 14, 2011)

jerseygirl said:


> ..... but does anyone really care if her life is in danger???



We are a sick society if we don't care.

George


----------

