Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok people, even if you discount the computer searches, how do you explain all the other evidence? Think about it would ya? I mean come on, lets use our brains here.
You obviously have little to no Idea what you are talking about. Their work records have EVERYTHING to do with it because they prove that the parents were NOT at home to make those computer searches.
I didn't mean their time sheets I meant whether or not George and Cindy collect diasbilty payments now!
You have to use a little common sense, you cant just go on the evidence presented. On, most cases Ive, watched, I wouldnt feel comfortable sending somone to death row, but on this case, the circumstantial evidence is so great, I could put the needle in her arm myself and never loose an ounce of sleep
I watch the actuall court footage everyday so never mind the talking heads.
Can you honestly tell me that you feel casey a. is completely innocent? Come on now!
No, I don't think she is "completely innocent." And I do NOT think she is guilty of first degree premeditated murder. There is a huge difference between "not guilty" and "innocent." Innocent is not a verdict.
I think the case is complicated and difficult to untangle. I don't think it is a straightforward murder. And so far I don't think the state has proven their case of first degree premeditated murder against Casey Anthony. I think she will be found guilty of something, maybe a lesser included but not death penalty murder.
You have to use a little common sense, you cant just go on the evidence presented. On, most cases Ive, watched, I wouldnt feel comfortable sending somone to death row, but on this case, the circumstantial evidence is so great, I could put the needle in her arm myself and never loose an ounce of sleep
Well, you wouldn't be the only person on a jury. Also the law requires that the jury determine guilty or not guilty based ONLY on the evidence which was presented from the witness stand. You would not have heard all the opinions expressed on TV. All you would have would be the evidence presented in the trial. If that was all you had heard, you may have a different opinon. The judge instructs the jury on the law before they go out to deliberate and they have to follow those instructions; certainly out of 12 people on the jury, at least a few would follow those jury instructions.
No, I don't think she is "completely innocent." And I do NOT think she is guilty of first degree premeditated murder. There is a huge difference between "not guilty" and "innocent." Innocent is not a verdict.
I think the case is complicated and difficult to untangle. I don't think it is a straightforward murder. And so far I don't think the state has proven their case of first degree premeditated murder against Casey Anthony. I think she will be found guilty of something, maybe a lesser included but not death penalty murder.
I think we can agree here. I think its perfectly possible that she used chloroform to knock the child out while she went out and partied, put the duct tape over the mouth in case she accidently woke up, and the whole murder was an accident. The only problem with that is....wouldnt be only natural to rip the tape off and try to revive her?
Anyway, what I described above would be the only alternative I would accept, anything else sounds plain ridiculous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingwithpain
Well, you wouldn't be the only person on a jury. Also the law requires that the jury determine guilty or not guilty based ONLY on the evidence which was presented from the witness stand. You would not have heard all the opinions expressed on TV. All you would have would be the evidence presented in the trial. If that was all you had heard, you may have a different opinon. The judge instructs the jury on the law before they go out to deliberate and they have to follow those instructions; certainly out of 12 people on the jury, at least a few would follow those jury instructions.
Yes and in a perfect world this is how it would be. As long as human beings are sitting on juries though, emotion, opinion, and assumption will alweays play a role in verdicts.
Thats like when a witness says something the jury isnt supposed to hear and the judge instructs them to disregard it as if they never heard it..... sorry, you cant un-ring a bell as they say.
Not to mention the fact that this is one of the most publicised cases ever! Do you really think the jury members hadnt heard anything about it6 beforehand
I think we can agree here. I think its perfectly possible that she used chloroform to knock the child out while she went out and partied, put the duct tape over the mouth in case she accidently woke up, and the whole murder was an accident. The only problem with that is....wouldnt be only natural to rip the tape off and try to revive her?
Anyway, what I described above would be the only alternative I would accept, anything else sounds plain ridiculous.
Yes and in a perfect world this is how it would be. As long as human beings are sitting on juries though, emotion, opinion, and assumption will alweays play a role in verdicts.
Thats like when a witness says something the jury isnt supposed to hear and the judge instructs them to disregard it as if they never heard it..... sorry, you cant un-ring a bell as they say.
I think the duct tape was placed on her face AFTER she was dead when she was discovered and an attempt was made to hide it all. I don't think there is any chance it was put there to keep her quiet if she woke up. The child was two years old and she could have eventually gotten the duct tape off. Even Casey would have realized that.
It's not a perfect world but juries do manage to have enough people included to follow the jury instructions somewhat. There has been a lot of expert testimony in this case and it has been complicated. I think the jury is going to be very busy evaluating all that testimony as best they can.
And the defense has not rested yet. There is still more evidence to be presented and we won't know the whole "story" until that's done. You know, if you and I are thinking in terms of the type of accident you described, then surely some people on that jury are thinking the same things.
As far as the mother making the computer searches though, if they { the deffense } can get somone from cindy's work on the stand to verify her claim that they had to put 8 hrs. on the timecard even though they may not have worked that amount, then I may consider her testimony about the searches as truth.
Not to mention the fact that this is one of the most publicised cases ever! Do you really think the jury members hadnt heard anything about it6 beforehand
No, I don't think it's possible that none of those jurors heard anything about this case beforehand.
There is an interesting juror on that panel who didn't want to be on the jury because she didn't believe it was her place to "judge." She didn't want to "judge" Casey Anthony. Could she be defense oriented? The truth is that you can never ever really predict what a jury will do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I meant whether or not George and Cindy collect diasbilty payments now
!
The truth is that you can never ever really predict what a jury will do.
