U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-21-2011, 07:57 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,943 posts, read 19,176,033 times
Reputation: 9175

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by StephM View Post
By whom, and which parts?
Just about all of it. It's all been covered in the previous 1200 odd posts.

Quote:
Disputed does not mean they are not fact. Just because the defense can dig up an expert who disputes the scientific findings does not mean they are no longer valid. The defense's expert witnesses get paid for their testimony you know.
All true, but in this case the defense's expert testimony appeared to be better than the prosecutions. I believe one of the jurors even said as much too.

OMG, so definitely don't get the point I was trying to make. Also, I think the point I was making would be obvious to someone with even the bare minimum of reading comprehension. I was attempting to point out to you that just because others viewed her as a good mother, it doesn't make her incapable of murdering her child.[/quote]

I got your point, and it still doesn't establish motive.

 
Old 07-21-2011, 09:59 PM
 
745 posts, read 1,297,983 times
Reputation: 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
Just about all of it. It's all been covered in the previous 1200 odd posts.
I'm talking about in the trial, not by some random people on this forum. Which experts refuted the state's evidence, and are they considered the leading experts in their field, or did the defense just find someone who would say what they wanted them to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post

All true, but in this case the defense's expert testimony appeared to be better than the prosecutions. I believe one of the jurors even said as much too.

I got your point, and it still doesn't establish motive.
I wasn't trying to state that that establishes motive. Just because people who saw a snippet of her interaction with her daughter though she was a great mother doesn't mean she really was one.

The jurors are a bunch of morons, and what's worse is that they didn't even follow the law during deliberations. Several have admitted to discussing the penalty for each crime during their deliberations (which is not allowed). They wanted a smoking gun, they wanted evidence that could not exist in a dry bones case, and refused to take their time to look into the facts. 10 hours of deliberations is nowhere near enough time.

Let me ask you, do you agree with their simple reasoning for their not guilty verdict, no cause of death=no murder proved? Don't you think that reasoning was entirely too simplisitic?Do you believe any murder case that has no cause of death, or only fragments of a body, should be returned with a not guilty verdict? Earlier in this thread you state that you have above average intelligence. Wouldn't you agree that the circumstances surrounding a death can point to the cause of death, even if the medical examiner can not determine it?
 
Old 07-22-2011, 02:57 AM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,943 posts, read 19,176,033 times
Reputation: 9175
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephM View Post
I'm talking about in the trial, not by some random people on this forum.
So was I.

Quote:
I wasn't trying to state that that establishes motive. Just because people who saw a snippet of her interaction with her daughter though she was a great mother doesn't mean she really was one.
And a couple pictures of her out partying doesn't mean she was a bad mom or capable of killing her child. Your logic must work both ways.

Quote:
The jurors are a bunch of morons,
That's funny. People who actually work in the legal field don't seem to think so.

GSU Law prof gives Casey Anthony jury an A

Judge H. Lee Sarokin: The Reason for the Not Guilty Verdict in the Casey Anthony Case

New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney: WHY CASEY ANTHONY WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY OF MURDERING HER DAUGHTER

Let's see your credentials.

I also especially like this blog, especially the last line.

http://madmikesamerica.com/2011/07/t...stem%E2%80%9D/

Quote:
and what's worse is that they didn't even follow the law during deliberations. Several have admitted to discussing the penalty for each crime during their deliberations (which is not allowed).
Another myth getting perpetuated by the media. This one got started by CNN airing snippets of Jennifer Ford's comments. The first problem here is that the jury's instructions do NOT prohibit this. Many states do, but the official instructions in Florida contain no such language. The second problem is that Ford's comments are almost certainly being taken out of context. She said something along the lines of not being able determine the punishment without knowing what the crime was but she did NOT specifically mention the death penalty or other sentencing and it is more likely that she was referring to the lesser available charges.

Quote:
They wanted a smoking gun, they wanted evidence that could not exist in a dry bones case, and refused to take their time to look into the facts. 10 hours of deliberations is nowhere near enough time.
Why is 10 hours not enough time?

Quote:
Let me ask you, do you agree with their simple reasoning for their not guilty verdict, no cause of death=no murder proved? Don't you think that reasoning was entirely too simplisitic?Do you believe any murder case that has no cause of death, or only fragments of a body, should be returned with a not guilty verdict? Earlier in this thread you state that you have above average intelligence. Wouldn't you agree that the circumstances surrounding a death can point to the cause of death, even if the medical examiner can not determine it?
Depends on the individual case as you can't apply such arbitrary rules. Someone earlier brought up the Scott Peterson case which is one where there was no cause of death but other evidence allowed the jury to reach a guilty verdict.

Last edited by McBain II; 07-22-2011 at 03:08 AM..
 
Old 07-22-2011, 04:56 AM
 
9,538 posts, read 4,880,249 times
Reputation: 3878
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
[snip]She said something along the lines of not being able determine the punishment without knowing what the crime was but she did NOT specifically mention the death penalty or other sentencing and it is more likely that she was referring to the lesser available charges.[snip]
Ford Did say the death penalty 'Absolutely' mattered to the jury. "If they charged her with other things, we probably could have convicted, got a guilty sentence, but not for death, not for 1st degree."

Read the instructions' Rules for Deliberation. Per #s 1 & 2, the verdict was a miscarriage of justice because the jurors Did consider the punishments, which are not evidence or elements of the crimes charged.
 
Old 07-22-2011, 05:56 AM
 
Location: Florida
21,689 posts, read 11,148,415 times
Reputation: 7908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
The problem with that is that there wasn't this massive binge of partying that the prosecution was trying to lead the jury to believe. There was a couple days in the 31 Caylee was missing where Casey was out partying. That might have been a stronger argument had their been proof that Casey was neglectful but as the jurors mentioned, all the evidence and testimony pointed to Casey being a good mom prior to the disappearance.

The good mom conclusion does not hold up , fact is Susan Smith was a good mom and she killed her kids. She confessed to it also.. so that conclusion does not hold water with me or anyone who knows the Susan Smith case... one can treat their child or children very well and still kill them such as Susan Smith. Susan said her children were kidnapped and she herself sent the car into a lake with her children strapped in their car seats drowning them and lied about what happened. She went on tv tearfully asking everyone to find her children. She didn't look like a murderer.

Casey acted as if a search was a problem with her and never asked anyone to find her daughter till her mom asked where is Caylee? I have a huge problem with that!! No good mother allows her daughter to be missing and does NOTHING!
 
Old 07-22-2011, 06:40 AM
 
3,173 posts, read 3,080,063 times
Reputation: 3699
I am sure the defense team is STILL paying bloggers, posters to come on boards like this to argue and try to convince people that she is innocent.
They want to get paid.
They want us to welcome Casey Anthony into our living rooms but before we will, we must believe that she is innocent.
Last I heard it could be up to 5 million, they really want that, watch for their people and their overbearing posts.
 
Old 07-22-2011, 06:45 AM
 
745 posts, read 1,297,983 times
Reputation: 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
So was I.

And a couple pictures of her out partying doesn't mean she was a bad mom or capable of killing her child. Your logic must work both ways.

That's funny. People who actually work in the legal field don't seem to think so.

GSU Law prof gives Casey Anthony jury an A

Judge H. Lee Sarokin: The Reason for the Not Guilty Verdict in the Casey Anthony Case

New Jersey Criminal Defense Attorney: WHY CASEY ANTHONY WAS FOUND NOT GUILTY OF MURDERING HER DAUGHTER

Let's see your credentials.

I also especially like this blog, especially the last line.

The Casey Anthony Trial and a

Another myth getting perpetuated by the media. This one got started by CNN airing snippets of Jennifer Ford's comments. The first problem here is that the jury's instructions do NOT prohibit this. Many states do, but the official instructions in Florida contain no such language. The second problem is that Ford's comments are almost certainly being taken out of context. She said something along the lines of not being able determine the punishment without knowing what the crime was but she did NOT specifically mention the death penalty or other sentencing and it is more likely that she was referring to the lesser available charges.

Why is 10 hours not enough time?

Depends on the individual case as you can't apply such arbitrary rules. Someone earlier brought up the Scott Peterson case which is one where there was no cause of death but other evidence allowed the jury to reach a guilty verdict.
Scott Peterson jurors said they found him guilty mainly because his behavior during the time his wife was "missing" pointed toward a guilty person. hello, any resemblance to Casey Anthony?

Here are some excerpts from Ford's interview. It's obvious she at least took no time to come to her conclusion.
Moran: You think that this might have been an accident, that she might have drowned in the pool. You believed the defense on that?
Ford: I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's a lot easier to get to that conclusion. I can walk from here to there and make it happen. But the chloroform? I'm all over the place. I have no idea. I'm in a maze. I know I don't know where I'm at. I don't know where the end is. I'm not even quite sure where I began with the chloroform. So I can't get from beginning to end, A To B to see what even happened. I can't make it work.

So she thinks it's easier to believe a drowning happened-with no evidence of any type of drowning.
---

Moran: Do you believe George Anthony had something to do with what happened to Caylee?
Ford: I don't know if he had something to do with it but I think he was there. Him and Casey have something and um Like, the jail videos again, she, her mom has all the questions and George sits there and, you know, pats his wife back. And then he's like, Do you have anything else you want to tell me? He's not like, "What's going on?" You know, he's always like, "Step back. Hands are clean. Not too close."

So this juror believed the defense's opening statements and took it into consideration during every aspect of this case. With no evidence. At all. Isn't that nice.
-----
Ford: Well, in our country, unfortunately we have to prove it. You can't just be like, yeah that really looks bad. Smells bad, looks bad, I get that. It does. Smells bad, looks bad. I get that. But it's someone else's life and if I'm wrong and I kill someone else, I can't live with that.

Obviously considered the penalty while deciding her guilt.
 
Old 07-22-2011, 07:51 AM
 
9,538 posts, read 4,880,249 times
Reputation: 3878
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephM View Post
Scott Peterson jurors said they found him guilty mainly because his behavior during the time his wife was "missing" pointed toward a guilty person. hello, any resemblance to Casey Anthony?

Here are some excerpts from Ford's interview. It's obvious she at least took no time to come to her conclusion.
Moran: You think that this might have been an accident, that she might have drowned in the pool. You believed the defense on that?
Ford: I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's a lot easier to get to that conclusion. I can walk from here to there and make it happen. But the chloroform? I'm all over the place. I have no idea. I'm in a maze. I know I don't know where I'm at. I don't know where the end is. I'm not even quite sure where I began with the chloroform. So I can't get from beginning to end, A To B to see what even happened. I can't make it work.

So she thinks it's easier to believe a drowning happened-with no evidence of any type of drowning.
---

Moran: Do you believe George Anthony had something to do with what happened to Caylee?
Ford: I don't know if he had something to do with it but I think he was there. Him and Casey have something and um Like, the jail videos again, she, her mom has all the questions and George sits there and, you know, pats his wife back. And then he's like, Do you have anything else you want to tell me? He's not like, "What's going on?" You know, he's always like, "Step back. Hands are clean. Not too close."

So this juror believed the defense's opening statements and took it into consideration during every aspect of this case. With no evidence. At all. Isn't that nice.
-----
Ford: Well, in our country, unfortunately we have to prove it. You can't just be like, yeah that really looks bad. Smells bad, looks bad, I get that. It does. Smells bad, looks bad. I get that. But it's someone else's life and if I'm wrong and I kill someone else, I can't live with that.

Obviously considered the penalty while deciding her guilt.
My 1st impression of Ford's interview with Stephanopolous was that she was a serious, fair juror who took innocent until proven guily to heart. After listening again, I realized she'd be almost impossible to convince of guilt.

Besides explicitly admitting that jurors discussed the death penalty, she wants to know Exactly when and where Casey used the chloroform and duct tape and why she wasn't Seen doing it. She admitted it was a strong circumstantial case, but wanted the state to have something solid to say it absolutely was not an accident. I guess Baez could have claimed that Casey saw George murder Caylee, asked some questions, and Ford would vote ng.
 
Old 07-22-2011, 08:24 AM
 
3,173 posts, read 3,080,063 times
Reputation: 3699
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama View Post
My 1st impression of Ford's interview with Stephanopolous was that she was a serious, fair juror who took innocent until proven guily to heart. After listening again, I realized she'd be almost impossible to convince of guilt.

Besides explicitly admitting that jurors discussed the death penalty, she wants to know Exactly when and where Casey used the chloroform and duct tape and why she wasn't Seen doing it. She admitted it was a strong circumstantial case, but wanted the state to have something solid to say it absolutely was not an accident. I guess Baez could have claimed that Casey saw George murder Caylee, asked some questions, and Ford would vote ng.
Yes, that is what they should have done.
The jury could have returned in 5 minutes.
The juror going on the cruise would have had more time to pack.
 
Old 07-22-2011, 10:50 AM
 
4,532 posts, read 5,116,257 times
Reputation: 3983
Quote:
Originally Posted by mag32gie View Post
Yes, that is what they should have done.
The jury could have returned in 5 minutes.
The juror going on the cruise would have had more time to pack.


watching trials on the ID channel convinces me more than ever that this jury 's verdict was extremely questionable
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > True Crime
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 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 - Top