PDA

View Full Version : Casey Anthony trial



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 [46] 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68

WindSpirit
07-06-2011, 11:22 AM
I know that this is beside the point but...As a person "of color" (Latina), I could not help but silently cheer Jose Baez when he pointed out "That Laughing Man" during the closing arguments. Anyone "of color" anywhere in the world who has ever been "laughed at" by someone not of color, in a public "power situation" (at a board meeting, in a classroom, etc.) knows what I mean. So if the prosecutor was of color and the defense were white, you'd be devastated by the verdict?


Also, notice the racial make-up of the defense side of attorneys versus the prosecutions' row of lawyers. Hmmm...and I wonder the racial/ethnic composition of the jury? Hmmmm? Why on Earth would that matter, especially in this case?

BTW, I'm pretty sure there were some people of color on the prosecuting team also. What to do in that case? Count the heads and which team has more wins?


Laughing Man did a disservice to the Prosecution when he snickered. I agree with you here. Totally unprofessional behavior and the judge was right to smack him for it.


The TV cameras did not capture all of the times during the past 6 weeks when the lead prosecuting attorney and/or his Team may have snickered or made other arrogant gestures while Baez spoke. (We don't know; we couldn't see.) So let's just assume that he did.


And when that row of beautiful defense attorneys of all ethnic colors stood in a line, in their press conference after the verdict, a little something in me cheered. And when Baez spoke in Spanish to his family...well, I applauded. Muy bien hecho, Senor. Again, this is totally beside the point but...Just Sayin'. Totally beside the point doesn't even begin to describe it.

I'm a white woman, I guess I should be cheering that Casey got of and be pissed that OJ did. What should I feel about Scott Peterson? Hmmmm. That depends on the race/sex of his prosecutors/defense teams. I don't remember that part, could someone help me out?

Seriously though, wow. I bow to you, Frau Muller. To bring a racial/ethnic component to it, brilliant.

allezfred
07-06-2011, 12:10 PM
I'd no idea about this case until I read this thread. It's been err interesting. :yikes:

Makes me glad we don't televise court proceedings here. It's bad enough reading about some of the stuff that goes on in print. :scream:


If you can't be skinny, pretty and white

I don't think she's pretty at all. :shuffle:

judiz
07-06-2011, 12:22 PM
I keep going back to what was said at the trial, if your child drowns in the pool, you don't cover it up, you try CPR, you call 911, you do everything possible to SAVE YOUR CHILD!! What possible reason would Casey or George have for covering up an accidental drowning?? Unfortunately it happens everyday to children older or younger than Caylee. Two days ago there was a story in the newspaper about a toddler who fell into a hotel swimming pool and drowned, the poor baby was in the pool for almost ten minutes before anyone noticed he was missing. The paper said no charges were expected to be filed against the parents of the child.

NO, I do not believe Caylee drowned in the pool, I believe Casey accidentally killed her by overdosing her with something to make her sleep so Casey could go out partying and then covering it up. As the prosecution said, there is NEVER a reason to put duct tape on the face of a child, living or dead. And for those who say the duct tape came from the Anthony house and not Casey's, Casey always had access to George and Cindy's house and could come and go as she pleased.

redonthehead
07-06-2011, 12:48 PM
So, I heard this from a local news commentator today and thought it was spot on. He said "20 yrs ago before all the DNA testing, before smell tests, and every other test science has come up with that was done in this case, if a mother was the last one to be known to have seen her child alive, she would have been found guilty. That would have been enough."

So, does anyone think that science failed Caylee in her case?

And to answer: do I still think Cindy and the family knew/know what happened to Caylee? Yes I do. I think they know. Cindy might not have known from the get go, but I think she knew soon after if not before that 911 call was made. I didn't say that she or Lee or George was involved, I just said I think they know what happened to Caylee.

zippy
07-06-2011, 01:20 PM
Yes, I'm ok with it. especially when no pathologist could say for certain if she died by accident or homicide. If they aren't willing to say, I wouldn't be either. Why would you convict on anything else? The prosecutors over-reached and didn't meet their burden of proof.


The pathologist ruled the death a homicide; she was quite willing to say so on the stand.

reese
07-06-2011, 02:00 PM
Is anyone else bothered by Nanny Grace's constant referral to Casey Anthony as "Tot Mom"? She might think she's being cute and dismissive of Casey, but it is IMO totally disrespectful to Caylee. Is it SOO bad to say "Caylee's mother"? It gives Caylee an identity. She wasn't a "Tot". Oh well, it is bothering me.

I think it's totally inappropriate as well. It's like she has it trademarked and gets royalties every time she says it; it's straight-up ridiculous. Tot mom? (Ironically, it always sounds to me like she's saying "Top Mom.") It's condescending and disrespectful, which is exactly Nancy Grace's intention.

snoopy
07-06-2011, 02:01 PM
So, I heard this from a local news commentator today and thought it was spot on. He said "20 yrs ago before all the DNA testing, before smell tests, and every other test science has come up with that was done in this case, if a mother was the last one to be known to have seen her child alive, she would have been found guilty. That would have been enough.".

I don’t think that last sentence indicates a fair standard either but I think people’s expectations to the requirements of DNA and other physical evidence are unrealistic. Windspirit is smartly pointing out DNA didn’t exist 20 years ago and people and what, we were never going to convict anyone of murder without it?

And I still think people misunderstand circumstantial – casual followers keep saying that the case was “all circumstantial”. As if circumstantial evidence is not allowed to count at all.

As I said earlier, I think the jury could come to this conclusion reasonably only if they assume Casey has some derangement which caused her to uncontrollably and outrageously lie about the most important thing ever in her life. And an alternate juror said this too, only he said the entire family was “dysfunctional” which led to their outrageous behavior (but I still think deranged is a more accurate term.) Casey essentially got off on a form of an insanity plea.

flyingsit
07-06-2011, 02:46 PM
At this point, I just want to know how the jury came to the not guilty verdicts. I would like to know what evidence they had/didn't think they had to make them find Casey not guilty. I want to know if it's lack of evidence or too much. Or was there a witness (or two or many) that they didn't believe. Or if they voted not guilty because the a suitable option didn't fit.

I refuse to believe that the jury was stupid. There has to be some underlying factor....we just have to wait to hear what it is.

Based on what I know, I believe that Casey did it. But I want to know why the jury didn't think that she did.

They may have thought that she did it. But they also may have thought that the prosecutors didn't PROVE it. Remember that every jury has to START from "not guilty" and only move to "guilty" if they think the evidence proves it. Not by thoughts, not by opinions, not by opening or closing arguments... only the evidence and testimony matters.

cruisin
07-06-2011, 02:51 PM
Putting duct tape on a dead body and putting it in a trash bad is not a crime of murder, abuse or manslaughter; maybe theft or failure to report an accident. If she did in fact die in the swimming pool because she accidentally fell in, anything done to her dead body is not a crime as bad as it sounds. But no one could say for sure what really happened. Except Casey and she had the right not to take the stand.

They didn't prove murder, abuse or manslaughter, they were over zealous in the charges. They should have used her lies against her and charged her with reckless endangerment or the like.


I think you hit the nail on the head, they over charged. I think if they had not gone for murder 1 and made such a show of wanting the death penalty, they might have gotten a conviction.

I saw an interview with Casey's ex-fiancee this morning. He, without coming out and saying it, indicated that he thought Casey, in some way, was responsible for Caylee's death. However, he also said that (until that time) Casey was a good mother, that she was not neglectful or abusive. He also said that he could not figure out why she would feel that Caylee was an obstacle in her life. That she was already going out partying and that she seemed to get some sort of validation from having Caylee in her life. So, it was interesting that he could not figure out any sort of motive, yet he believes she was involved. He also said that the dynamic in the Anthony household was hellish. That it was beyond dysfunctional and that Casey was definitely a product of that dysfunction. He said that there is no way that Casey should go back to that home, regardless of whether or not the ugly accusations had occurred in the trial, he indicated that her parents are a problem.

Also heard a phone interview with juror 14. What was said was, they did not feel that the prosecution was able to provide motive or that the child was, in fact, murdered. They also said that they felt that the father was hiding something.

Hannahclear
07-06-2011, 02:52 PM
And I still think people misunderstand circumstantial – casual followers keep saying that the case was “all circumstantial”. As if circumstantial evidence is not allowed to count at all.


I disagree with what you're saying. I know that people are convicted on circumstantial evidence. But in this case, they jury did not find the circumstantial evidence compelling enough to convict her "beyond a reasonable doubt." There's nothing wrong with that in terms of the law. That's what juries are supposed to do. Now morally, is Casey responsible? Probably. But she could not be held legally responsible.

I haven't followed this case closely, but I was reading People magazine this past week while waiting for the pediatrician. It explained why the prosecution's case was weak in a nutshell and how Casey could very well get off. I found it pretty easy to understand. Maybe if the prosecution hadn't focused on Murder I, they could have gotten manslaughter. Maybe if they had charged manslaughter, they could have gotten negligent homicide or something. I think that's a lesser charge.

Caylee deserved a better mother and she deserves to rest in peace. The whole thing just sucks in the grandest sense.

danceronice
07-06-2011, 02:56 PM
For those that say they had reasonable doubt, can you explain where the reasonable part comes in for you? I don't mean that quite the way it sounds; it's just that for any alternate scenario I come up with, I find it to be about as likely as me becoming the queen of England.

See, this is my problem. For me to believe she is not at MINIMUM guilty of voluntary manslaughter, I have to accept the stupidest 'what actually happened' theory I have ever heard in my life. It make's OJ's defense at least look plausible. I cannot in any way find it reasonable to believe the defense's story that this was a coverup of an accidental death that got out of control. There is no possible way anyone vaguely rational came up with this scenario as a response to a girl accidentaly drowning in the pool, even if they WANTED her dead and it was, from their perspective, a lucky thing. Therefore I could not vote to acquit on at least the minimum charges of manslaughter, abuse, and lying to the police. Capital murder? Probably not. Life? Could have given her that and not lost a moment's sleep. Any other theory on what happened simply isn't logical. She did it somehow, any other interpretation of the evidence requires extremely irrational events to have occurred, convict her.

But Cyn is right--you want off a jury, tell them you have a four-year degree or better and don't get your knowledge of the legal system from Law & Order and CSI. I have a background in actual forensic anthropology (a pro seminar with the best in the field on the East Coast, meant for MEs, so no saying it's just an undergrad course), a father who's a lawyer, and a graduate degree. Lawyers do not WANT me on a jury. They do not want anyone with a demonstrated ability to perform complex reasoning tasks and in a case like this they REALLY don't want anyone who actually knows anything about police forensics.

And it doesn't help that many of the more educated types who are called are in fact the ones who try to get out of jury duty on the grounds they have something more important to do.

Hannahclear
07-06-2011, 03:00 PM
I really don't see how attacking the system of trial by jury is appropriate here. Now we're trashing the jury? Gee, how constitutional. :rolleyes: Maybe we should just convict based on whether Nancy Grace or the majority of posters of FSU think you are guilty.

snoopy
07-06-2011, 03:00 PM
I disagree with what you're saying. I know that people are convicted on circumstantial evidence. But in this case, they jury did not find the circumstantial evidence compelling enough to convict her "beyond a reasonable doubt." There's nothing wrong with that in terms of the law. That's what juries are supposed to do. Now morally, is Casey responsible? Probably. But she could not be held legally responsible.


Perhaps, but you are talking about the jury but I am talking about casual followers who donít know much about the case. I keep on hearing people say (IRL) but it was all circumstantial Ė so IOW it doesnít count AT ALL. Not that it all didnít rise to beyond a reasonable doubt.

cruisin
07-06-2011, 03:03 PM
^^ I agree, the drowning in a pool story is ridiculous. But, I do think that it still could have been unintentional. I think, though, that the real story might have been one where Casey could have been held more culpable. Like maybe she didn't have anyone to watch Caylee, she put the child in the trunk and left her there while she partied and the child died from the heat or lack of oxygen. The latter would show clear manslaughter or negligence, where the accidental drowning would imply less responsibility.

PrincessLeppard
07-06-2011, 03:12 PM
But Cyn is right--you want off a jury, tell them you have a four-year degree or better and don't get your knowledge of the legal system from Law & Order and CSI. I have a background in actual forensic anthropology (a pro seminar with the best in the field on the East Coast, meant for MEs, so no saying it's just an undergrad course), a father who's a lawyer, and a graduate degree. Lawyers do not WANT me on a jury. They do not want anyone with a demonstrated ability to perform complex reasoning tasks and in a case like this they REALLY don't want anyone who actually knows anything about police forensics.

And it doesn't help that many of the more educated types who are called are in fact the ones who try to get out of jury duty on the grounds they have something more important to do.

:rolleyes: This has already been refuted. Everyone here who has served on a jury has talked about the professional make-up of the jury.

Oh, and when I was going through voir dire? The ones trying to weasel their way out of jury duty? People I wouldn't have wanted on the jury anyway.