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 07-06-2011, 09:51 AM
 
Location: Earth
1,480 posts, read 4,483,576 times
Reputation: 1430

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by highcotton View Post
I too know...and totally disagree.
You too know how small the minority is of people who side with the jurors? So I'm not "greatly in the minority" then, as you said...?

I don't get it.

 
Old 07-06-2011, 10:03 AM
 
59 posts, read 35,506 times
Reputation: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by VickiR View Post
A 2 year old little girl, Caylee, is dead.

Her mother was the last one that had her.

For over a month, no one saw Caylee and no one knew she was missing except her mother.

Her mother lied about where Caylee was.

Caylee's remains are found and we knew she was dead.

Her remains were found in plastic bags, in a swamp, with duct tape around her mouth.

So, what do we know at that point...Caylee was dead and she didn't put herself in a plastic bag and throw herself into a swamp!

Do we know 100% that her mother killed her? No. Do we have SOME doubt? No. REASONABLE doubt? No.

She is dead. Her mother doesn't care. Her mother is out partying. Her mother saw her last.

WHERE is the reasonable doubt???

Vicki
I think you're making the evidence stronger than it was.

There were 4 people that lived or had access to the Anthony home, any of which could have been the last to see her alive.

Casey had gone out to nightclubs long before her child went missing. She's also lied, esp. about her employment and the nanny, long before her child went missing.

It wasn't clear from the evidence that duct tape was found around the mouth. Investigators did find duct tape but Roy Kronk testified that the skull rolled out of a bag and was in a different position than originally found. Also the tape wasn't long enough to rap all the way around the head. If it was actually on her face there's a good chance is was put on after the girl died, it was so short it would have been an easy thing to pull off. Additionally there was no DNA on the tape, presumably there should have been decomp liquids all over it had it been on her face.
 
Old 07-06-2011, 10:06 AM
 
59 posts, read 35,506 times
Reputation: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eastern Roamer View Post
You too know how small the minority is of people who side with the jurors? So I'm not "greatly in the minority" then, as you said...?

I don't get it.
I think there's a selection bias. If you asked people who watch Nancy Grace or were involved in the search for the girl I'm sure the proportion of people that think she's guilty would be greater than a person selected at random off the street.
 
Old 07-06-2011, 10:10 AM
 
1,617 posts, read 2,467,052 times
Reputation: 1352
I am not a fan of Bill O'Reilly - I think, generally speaking, he is extremely over the top with issues / debates / etc. and thus, I rarely, if ever watch his program, even if there is nothing else on; however, last night I made sure that I would watch it because I thought clearly, it was going to be lively and thought - provoking. I also, generally speaking, never never agree with him, his philosophy or opinions or beliefs - I was totally in agreement with him last night - I was equally outraged, as certainly the majority of us are outraged - I keep thinking that all of the jurors will never have the 'chutzpah' [hopefully, spelled correctly] - to step up to the plate and be 'on the air' to discuss this case. As we all watched / learned last night when asked, unequivocably ALL the jurors said nope, we are not speaking publically.

Of course all the stones are being thrown around now - stating that the prosecution pursued, too much, the first degree murder charge which carried the death penalty as opposed to having the jury really understand that they had alternative choices; that the judge should have [I think the judge held that court room together pretty darn well], that...

All of the woulda coulda shouldas, other than opinion and discussions, are really moot because the jury made its decision.

I certainly think it would have been beneficial to have had, or perhaps, better worded, I would certainly have thought that the jury would ALSO include some common sense, that the jury members would have taken all of the dots and put them together - sure, lots of circumstantial evidence, I understand that; and sure lots of lying, lots of it, and somehow or other in the balance of thinking and deliberating about all of the facts, all of the elements, AND asking the right questions amongst themselves, such as...'why would someone lie about a missing child, why would someone not contact the police about a missing child, there were many why's...and those whys are those dots....

Because of some pretty horrible personal experiences I have experienced, I have become a very active victim advocate - and as such, my position is in support of victims of crime, whether violent or non-violent crime - to me, this verdict is not merely an amazing miscarriage of justice [in some form or another] but a horrible attack [for lack of a better word right now] on the victim of this case, and this is about the horrible death and loss of a little child, of a beautiful little child.....

I know it is 'wrong' to wish anything bad on someone, I 'get that'; perhaps, however, down the road, this horrible horrible death and loss will haunt this family to such a degree that something will come out, something will be said that will clearly substantiate her participation and knowledge....I understand, at least, I think so, that she can never be retried because she was acquitted of that charge, but, if it turns out that there was additional lying, and/or some other situation that could prove her participation and that had all of the facts been known, can the prosecution appeal to the court for a new trial? I have no idea.....anyone know that?

Lastly, let's not forget this famous quote:

The Mills of God grind exceedingly slow, but exceedingly fine.

Hopefully, at some point, this little child will have some peace.
 
Old 07-06-2011, 10:18 AM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,943 posts, read 19,169,679 times
Reputation: 9175
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarmaple View Post
unequivocably ALL the jurors said nope, we are not speaking publically.
As they should. They did their job and they do not owe anyone, especially the public, an explanation.

Quote:
can the prosecution appeal to the court for a new trial? I have no idea.....anyone know that?
No, they can't. She could call a press conference tomorrow, tell everyone that she murdered Caylee and how, and no one could legally do anything about it.
 
Old 07-06-2011, 10:24 AM
 
1,422 posts, read 4,639,781 times
Reputation: 1922
Quote:
can the prosecution appeal to the court for a new trial?
No. It's over. Period.

The only other possible remedy is for a private party to bring a civil wrongful death suit, and the penalties for conviction are financial - i.e., no jail time. What private party would do this? I doubt there is anyone. But I wish they would. The standard of proof is a preponderance of evidence rather than 'beyond a reasonable doubt.' OJ was convicted of wrongful death, as was Jason Young. It's not justice IMO, but at least it might cramp her style a little by attaching all the proceeds she ends up making from selling stories to the media.
 
Old 07-06-2011, 10:30 AM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,943 posts, read 19,169,679 times
Reputation: 9175
Quote:
Originally Posted by didee View Post
I doubt there is anyone. But I wish they would
To my understanding, that is near legally impossible as Casey was Caylee's legal guardian so anyone else would lack standing to bring the civil suit. Casey's parents might but after everything that has happened I doubt they would win.
 
Old 07-06-2011, 10:38 AM
 
59 posts, read 35,506 times
Reputation: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
To my understanding, that is near legally impossible as Casey was Caylee's legal guardian so anyone else would lack standing to bring the civil suit. Casey's parents might but after everything that has happened I doubt they would win.
Florida's Wrong Death Act allows only a personal representative to pursue such a case. A personal representative acts on behalf of the estate and that individual's dependents. Casey Anthony is Caylee's sole heir, so the grandparents don't have standing to file a suit.
 
Old 07-06-2011, 10:41 AM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,943 posts, read 19,169,679 times
Reputation: 9175
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt30 View Post
Florida's Wrong Death Act allows only a personal representative to pursue such a case. A personal representative acts on behalf of the estate and that individual's dependents. Casey Anthony is Caylee's sole heir, so the grandparents don't have standing to file a suit.
Thanks for confirming that. I thought that was the case but wasn't sure.
 
Old 07-06-2011, 10:42 AM
 
59 posts, read 35,506 times
Reputation: 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarmaple View Post
I certainly think it would have been beneficial to have had, or perhaps, better worded, I would certainly have thought that the jury would ALSO include some common sense, that the jury members would have taken all of the dots and put them together - sure, lots of circumstantial evidence, I understand that; and sure lots of lying, lots of it, and somehow or other in the balance of thinking and deliberating about all of the facts, all of the elements, AND asking the right questions amongst themselves, such as...'why would someone lie about a missing child, why would someone not contact the police about a missing child, there were many why's...and those whys are those dots....

I know it is 'wrong' to wish anything bad on someone, I 'get that'; perhaps, however, down the road, this horrible horrible death and loss will haunt this family to such a degree that something will come out, something will be said that will clearly substantiate her participation and knowledge....I understand, at least, I think so, that she can never be retried because she was acquitted of that charge, but, if it turns out that there was additional lying, and/or some other situation that could prove her participation and that had all of the facts been known, can the prosecution appeal to the court for a new trial? I have no idea.....anyone know that?
Casey could be charged for related crimes (within the statute of limitations) or federally if she meets certain requirements. But you only get one bite at the apple with the homicide charges.

I don't think that common-sense would be all that common in this case. Those questions certainly should be considered, but so should questions about George and Cindy Anthony's credibility and the strength of the scientific evidence.
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