Casey Anthony Trial

[EastCoastNiner]

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

 

 

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

 

Love it.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

Edited July 9, 2011 by DaBearsfan101

[Real Deal]

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

Just finished watching something on MSNBC.

 

http://dateline.msnbc.com

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

1) didn't know all of the evidence

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

[Friplenoy]

 

 

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

 

1) didn't know all of the evidence

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

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

Yah, you're innocent until PROVEN GUILTY.

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

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

 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2011 by EastsCoastNiner

[Real Deal]

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

[?QuestionMark?]

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

 

 

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

 

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

Edited July 12, 2011 by ?QuestionMark?

[Real Deal]

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

 

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

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

[?QuestionMark?]

So even you disagree with the DA's theory.

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Real Deal]

So even you disagree with the DA's theory.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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