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 07-07-2011, 12:33 PM
 
5,346 posts, read 3,371,785 times
Reputation: 545

Advertisements

The prosecutors in the Caylee Anthony case were never able to PROVE that Casey killed her daughter... They only proved that she lied to the cops...
Unfortunately... it's not what you know... it's what you can prove...

 
Old 07-07-2011, 12:36 PM
 
Location: Home!
8,710 posts, read 10,405,704 times
Reputation: 8511
Quote:
Originally Posted by HC475 View Post
The prosecutors in the Caylee Anthony case were never able to PROVE that Casey killed her daughter... They only proved that she lied to the cops...
Unfortunately... it's not what you know... it's what you can prove...
Whew...glad you cleared that up!
 
Old 07-07-2011, 12:49 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,930 posts, read 19,160,240 times
Reputation: 9170
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Love_LI_but View Post
From what they said, it appears they bought the story of George's involvement hook, line and sinker when it was something that they weren't supposed to consider at all when reaching their verdict.
Why wouldn't they consider it? Standard Operating Procedure for any defense attorney in this situation is to show someone else had the motive and/or means to commit the crime and create doubt in the jury's mind.

Quote:
I am not one of those people.
Good. You are consistent in your views. Not many people are these days.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kimba01 View Post
Some, maybe. Some maybe not. It's tough when some of them felt that she was guilty but could not pin it on her due to lack of evidence, in their eyes. If the public has a hard time getting out of their minds, don't you think that someone who had to sit there every day and listen to this, just might also? While you may be able to look past the emotional end of this, not everyone can. The one juror said there was A LOT of emotion in that deliberation room. I don't think that goes away as soon as the door shuts behind them.
I live in the same county where the jurors came from, so admittedly this might hit a little closer to home for me. I've watched, first hand, some of the backlash directed at these people. I've seen businesses post signs saying that members of the jury are not welcome in their establishments. I've seen veiled and outright threats against their well being and lives made by handfuls of emotionally charged people and rumor has it one of them is even afraid to return to his home because of the backlash.

While people are free to disagree and be unhappy with the verdict, they need to respect it. Failing that, they need to at least quit acting like the jurors have done something wrong and stop trying to punish them for simply performing their civic duty.
 
Old 07-07-2011, 01:10 PM
 
Location: High Cotton
6,131 posts, read 6,445,243 times
Reputation: 3657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
Why wouldn't they consider it? Standard Operating Procedure for any defense attorney in this situation is to show someone else had the motive and/or means to commit the crime and create doubt in the jury's mind.

Good. You are consistent in your views. Not many people are these days.



I live in the same county where the jurors came from, so admittedly this might hit a little closer to home for me. I've watched, first hand, some of the backlash directed at these people. I've seen businesses post signs saying that members of the jury are not welcome in their establishments. I've seen veiled and outright threats against their well being and lives made by handfuls of emotionally charged people and rumor has it one of them is even afraid to return to his home because of the backlash.

While people are free to disagree and be unhappy with the verdict, they need to respect it. Failing that, they need to at least quit acting like the jurors have done something wrong and stop trying to punish them for simply performing their civic duty.
The jury ("so say we all") did do something wrong - they all (collectively) miserably failed to perform their duties. They all are ignorant and stupid. They all should hang their head in shame.

Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 07-07-2011 at 02:35 PM.. Reason: Copyright violation -- if it's not YOUR picture, please don't post it.
 
Old 07-07-2011, 01:12 PM
 
Location: South Carolina
2,800 posts, read 1,770,331 times
Reputation: 1732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
Why wouldn't they consider it? Standard Operating Procedure for any defense attorney in this situation is to show someone else had the motive and/or means to commit the crime and create doubt in the jury's mind.

Good. You are consistent in your views. Not many people are these days.



I live in the same county where the jurors came from, so admittedly this might hit a little closer to home for me. I've watched, first hand, some of the backlash directed at these people. I've seen businesses post signs saying that members of the jury are not welcome in their establishments. I've seen veiled and outright threats against their well being and lives made by handfuls of emotionally charged people and rumor has it one of them is even afraid to return to his home because of the backlash.

While people are free to disagree and be unhappy with the verdict, they need to respect it. Failing that, they need to at least quit acting like the jurors have done something wrong and stop trying to punish them for simply performing their civic duty.
If they let a person go free who was guilty and there was evidence that she did then they did something wrong and people have the right to express anger over jurors who did not do their job well.I am not saying people should do what some of these businesses are doing that is taking it to far.
 
Old 07-07-2011, 01:14 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,930 posts, read 19,160,240 times
Reputation: 9170
Quote:
Originally Posted by highcotton View Post
The jury ("so say we all") did do something wrong - they failed to perform their duties miserably. They all are ignorant and stupid. They all should hang their head in shame.
And much like the rest of the mob, you have deluded yourself into believing that the jury was there to deliver your misguided sense of justice. They were not. They were there to decide whether or not Casey was guilty of the charges against her.

They made those decisions. They performed their duties.
 
Old 07-07-2011, 01:15 PM
pll
 
1,052 posts, read 2,156,809 times
Reputation: 1070
Thankfully, I have followed this trial like I did OJ's. One has to remember that karma sucks and it will be interesting to watch the train wreck (Casey's future) that awaits her. Imo, I wish her mom would have had better sense and encouaged her daughter to put Caylee up for adoption. This beautiful child would have a chance at life.
 
Old 07-07-2011, 01:22 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,930 posts, read 19,160,240 times
Reputation: 9170
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt1984 View Post
If they let a person go free who was guilty and there was evidence that she did then they did something wrong
The jury's job is to decide if the evidence presented proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Casey killed Caylee. Those 12 jurors came to a unanimous decision that it did not.

They did the job assigned to them.

People can disagree with and be unhappy with the verdict all they like. The second that retaliation is directed at the jury itself, they have crossed the line.
 
Old 07-07-2011, 01:22 PM
 
Location: South Carolina
2,800 posts, read 1,770,331 times
Reputation: 1732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
And much like the rest of the mob, you have deluded yourself into believing that the jury was there to deliver your misguided sense of justice. They were not. They were there to decide whether or not Casey was guilty of the charges against her.

They made those decisions. They performed their duties.
So if a jury had complete evidence that person was guilty and they found that the person was not guilty they did their duty because they were there and made a decision. We need to hold our jury to a higher level then that.
 
Old 07-07-2011, 01:24 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,930 posts, read 19,160,240 times
Reputation: 9170
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt1984 View Post
So if a jury had complete evidence that person was guilty and they found that the person was not guilty they did their duty because they were there and made a decision. We need to hold our jury to a higher level then that.
It's the jury's job to decide if the evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
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