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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-02-2011, 10:42 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,943 posts, read 19,169,679 times
Reputation: 9175

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
Your kidding right? The motive was as clear as night and day. Cindy George were growing more and more frustrated with Casey's antics and wanted her to take responsibility and stopped babysitting Caylee as often. Of course this inpeded on her late nights at the local bar out drinking and having the life of a women without child. It limited her freedom to be with her lovers and freinds. It limited her ability to have her beautiful life. Why then, didn't she just give her child away? Maybe to Cindy the loving grandmother? Because CASEY didn't want her but be damned if Cindy would get her either!!! There was always tension between the two from the time Caylee was born and the nurse handed her over to Cindy instead of Casey.

This "motive" was summed up very nicely in the states closing arguments when they played the jailhouse recording of Casey on the phone with a family member who was trying to get info about Caylee but the ONLY thing Casey was concerned about was getting her boyfreinds phone # and when she didn't get it, she told them off. THAT was a defining moment. { and watching their reactions as they left the court room, even the defense knew it was a defining moment }
None of which was backed up by anything substantial, or even that relevant. There are thousands of young moms who have tension with their own overbearing mothers or struggle with balancing kids and social lives. Some of them kill their kids, most of them don't. This was sheer speculation on the defense's part and that was all. I could have bought this motive if they had presented some evidence of prior abuse or neglect. That didn't happen, as by all accounts Casey was actually a pretty decent and loving mother before the disappearance.

And that video? Again, I was unmoved. If she was on trial for caring about men more then Caylee, that would establish motive. For murder? Not so much.

Quote:
I am of the exact opposit opinion. I thought Jeff Ashton really tore many of the defenses forensic witnesses apart on the stand.
Both sides presented some pretty crappy witnesses, but since the prosecution is the one that actually has to prove their case, their failure there is glaring.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-03-2011, 06:06 AM
 
403 posts, read 517,819 times
Reputation: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
Unlike many who have opinions on this I actualy sat through and watched the trial and saw what was being presented. Too many people base their opinions on the snippets they saw on their late local news. { just want to be clear, I'm speaking in general terms, not referring to you personaly } Did you watch the trial?

Yes...... I sat through nearly every grueling and boring hour of testimony and presentation of evidence and if you ask me, that's where the prosecution lost the trial. FAR too many hours of complicated forensic evidence presented that the lay person would have a hard time understanding let alone keeping track of, FAR too many bench sessions, and FAR too often did they switch back and forth between witnesses. If there is one thing I can't blame the jurors for, it would be being frustrated at the presentation of the case.

Okay you need to just stop right there. That's how a TRIAL works. Just because you couldn't keep up with what was going on doesn't mean there was anything wrong with the process. and to say there were too many bench sessions? GOHWTBS

I watched parts of the trial on television and read some documents online, including the jury instructions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2011, 09:47 AM
 
9,222 posts, read 9,289,216 times
Reputation: 28908
Quote:
Both sides presented some pretty crappy witnesses, but since the prosecution is the one that actually has to prove their case, their failure there is glaring.
I think what occurred was a miscarriage of justice. The evidence was there to make out a case of first degree murder against her. The jury simply wasn't willing to accept the evidence. Its rare, but sometimes that happens.

I don't think the state of Florida did a bad job. I think there were limitations that they had to work within and it lead to a number of difficulties. The major difficulty was that the body of Caylee Anthony was not found until it was very decomposed. This lead to a number of evidentiary problems. The second problem is a common one. There were no eyewitnesses to the crime. Much of the evidence revolved around expert testimony. I think America has been "dumbed-down" over the years by inadequate public education. Also, there is a large amount of suspicion and paranoia present in our country that I don't see as much of in other countries. Its the kind of thing that leads jurors to assume irrationally that "evidence is planted" or that the police routinely "frame people" charged with crimes. However, many jurors are suspicious of "expert testimony" and don't accept it at face value. This same paranoia lead some jurors to believe George Anthony must have had something to do with the crime--despite any proof that he did.

I think it was a cardinal mistake to seek the death penalty in this case. Too much about how Caylee Anthony actually died is unknown. I accept she was killed by her mother, but much of how it happened is speculation. Under these circumstances, the death penalty should have been taken completely off the table.

Its one thing to critique a lawyer's performance after a trial has ended and find fault with it. Its another thing completely to have to sit in court, day after day, and do your best work every minute and every hour. When you have to always stay within the rules its stressful, hectic, and wears you down. The pros know how to do it best. I don't find much to fault with the state here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2011, 10:59 AM
 
Location: 39 20' 59"N / 75 30' 53"W
16,085 posts, read 23,917,203 times
Reputation: 17987
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I think what occurred was a miscarriage of justice. The evidence was there to make out a case of first degree murder against her. The jury simply wasn't willing to accept the evidence. Its rare, but sometimes that happens.

I don't think the state of Florida did a bad job. I think there were limitations that they had to work within and it lead to a number of difficulties. The major difficulty was that the body of Caylee Anthony was not found until it was very decomposed. This lead to a number of evidentiary problems. The second problem is a common one. There were no eyewitnesses to the crime. Much of the evidence revolved around expert testimony. I think America has been "dumbed-down" over the years by inadequate public education. Also, there is a large amount of suspicion and paranoia present in our country that I don't see as much of in other countries. Its the kind of thing that leads jurors to assume irrationally that "evidence is planted" or that the police routinely "frame people" charged with crimes. However, many jurors are suspicious of "expert testimony" and don't accept it at face value. This same paranoia lead some jurors to believe George Anthony must have had something to do with the crime--despite any proof that he did.

I think it was a cardinal mistake to seek the death penalty in this case. Too much about how Caylee Anthony actually died is unknown. I accept she was killed by her mother, but much of how it happened is speculation. Under these circumstances, the death penalty should have been taken completely off the table.

Its one thing to critique a lawyer's performance after a trial has ended and find fault with it. Its another thing completely to have to sit in court, day after day, and do your best work every minute and every hour. When you have to always stay within the rules its stressful, hectic, and wears you down. The pros know how to do it best. I don't find much to fault with the state here.
Agreed, how the death occured was speculation, but the body was completely decomposed and the evidence weak.

How do you impose a first degree murder charge, let alone death penalty?

Jeff Ashton performance would have been acceptable had he left out the childish sneers and laughter...totally not professional, but I think by that point he knew he'd lost his case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2011, 12:52 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,900 posts, read 10,796,204 times
Reputation: 7242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
None of which was backed up by anything substantial, or even that relevant. There are thousands of young moms who have tension with their own overbearing mothers or struggle with balancing kids and social lives. Some of them kill their kids, most of them don't. This was sheer speculation on the defense's part and that was all. I could have bought this motive if they had presented some evidence of prior abuse or neglect. That didn't happen, as by all accounts Casey was actually a pretty decent and loving mother before the disappearance.

And that video? Again, I was unmoved. If she was on trial for caring about men more then Caylee, that would establish motive. For murder? Not so much.
.
But it was motive never the less. I bought it, because it made sense.


Quote:
Originally Posted by deepimpact2 View Post
Okay you need to just stop right there. That's how a TRIAL works. Just because you couldn't keep up with what was going on doesn't mean there was anything wrong with the process. and to say there were too many bench sessions?
I know how a TRIAL works, and as I said, I didn't have a hard time keeping up and understanding nthe evidence but it would be perfectly within reason to assume many if not all of the jurors did have a hard time with it.

This "boringness" I can only imagine would have been compounded ten times over by the fact that the jury was sequestered for what?...... Six weeks?

And, there were an exorbitant amount of bench sessions compared to other trials I've seen..... { real trials of course }

Quote:
GOHWTBS
Sorry, I don't speak much internet lingo. It took me months too figure out what "IMO" an "IMHO" or "SO" meant, I don't think there is a chance in **** I'll ever figure out what this means.......

Quote:
I watched parts of the trial on television and read some documents online, including the jury instructions.
Well unless you know every piece of evidence presented, then you can't really give as educated an opinion as someone who does. Reading the jury instructions will do you no good unless you know everything they had to go on.

[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Also, there is a large amount of suspicion and paranoia present in our country that I don't see as much of in other countries. Its the kind of thing that leads jurors to assume irrationally that "evidence is planted" or that the police routinely "frame people" charged with crimes.
With all the TV shows that Americans are exposed to such as Law and Order or NBC's newest Prime suspect, all depicting shady officers and detectives that routinely play fast and loose with the rules even if it's for the greater good, is it any wonder Americans think this way?

Quote:
However, many jurors are suspicious of "expert testimony" and don't accept it at face value.
I think this is likely do to the fact that many jury members today or most people for that matter, don't have the knowlege and education to understand what is being presented.

Quote:
I think it was a cardinal mistake to seek the death penalty in this case.
You can't really make that argument though, because as I'm sure you know, a conviction wouldn't have resulted in the death penalty necessarily. They could have convicted and then givin a reduced punishment in the penalty phase.

Quote:
Originally Posted by virgode View Post
Jeff Ashton performance would have been acceptable had he left out the childish sneers and laughter...totally not professional, but I think by that point he knew he'd lost his case.
perhaps the snickers and laughs were because the theory of defense was so out there and desperate, that it was just funny. Atleast that was what I thought.

Baez played on emotions as well by having a flare for the dramatic in closing arguments, much the way a preacher would deliver his sermon in church.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2011, 01:06 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,943 posts, read 19,169,679 times
Reputation: 9175
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
I think what occurred was a miscarriage of justice. The evidence was there to make out a case of first degree murder against her. The jury simply wasn't willing to accept the evidence. Its rare, but sometimes that happens.

I don't think the state of Florida did a bad job. I think there were limitations that they had to work within and it lead to a number of difficulties. The major difficulty was that the body of Caylee Anthony was not found until it was very decomposed. This lead to a number of evidentiary problems. The second problem is a common one. There were no eyewitnesses to the crime. Much of the evidence revolved around expert testimony. I think America has been "dumbed-down" over the years by inadequate public education. Also, there is a large amount of suspicion and paranoia present in our country that I don't see as much of in other countries. Its the kind of thing that leads jurors to assume irrationally that "evidence is planted" or that the police routinely "frame people" charged with crimes. However, many jurors are suspicious of "expert testimony" and don't accept it at face value. This same paranoia lead some jurors to believe George Anthony must have had something to do with the crime--despite any proof that he did.

I think it was a cardinal mistake to seek the death penalty in this case. Too much about how Caylee Anthony actually died is unknown. I accept she was killed by her mother, but much of how it happened is speculation. Under these circumstances, the death penalty should have been taken completely off the table.

Its one thing to critique a lawyer's performance after a trial has ended and find fault with it. Its another thing completely to have to sit in court, day after day, and do your best work every minute and every hour. When you have to always stay within the rules its stressful, hectic, and wears you down. The pros know how to do it best. I don't find much to fault with the state here.
Good post Mark. I disagree with some of it, but I certainly appreciate and respect your perspective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
But it was motive never the less. I bought it, because it made sense.
It was the prosecution's speculation as to the motive. Completely plausible, but without any solid foundation it's just not going to work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2011, 04:49 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,900 posts, read 10,796,204 times
Reputation: 7242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David View Post
Good post Mark. I disagree with some of it, but I certainly appreciate and respect your perspective.

It was the prosecution's speculation as to the motive. Completely plausible, but without any solid foundation it's just not going to work.
Your right, it was specualation but what do we have other than speculation when it comes to going inside the mind of why someone may have done something?

Without a criminal coming out and saying "this is why i did this" there is no clear way to prove motive proof positive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2011, 08:23 PM
 
Location: Tampa (by way of Omaha)
13,943 posts, read 19,169,679 times
Reputation: 9175
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88 View Post
Your right, it was specualation but what do we have other than speculation when it comes to going inside the mind of why someone may have done something?

Without a criminal coming out and saying "this is why i did this" there is no clear way to prove motive proof positive.
Not necessarily. As I mentioned previously, the presence of abuse or neglect of Caylee would have substantiated their speculation. Maybe some reliable testimony from her friends that established ill will towards Caylee. There are ways that their speculation could have been backed up but it just wasn't there and most of the agreed on facts pointed in the opposite direction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2011, 08:37 PM
 
403 posts, read 517,819 times
Reputation: 265
[quote=WhipperSnapper 88;21561246]
I know how a TRIAL works, and as I said, I didn't have a hard time keeping up and understanding nthe evidence but it would be perfectly within reason to assume many if not all of the jurors did have a hard time with it.

Well unless you know every piece of evidence presented, then you can't really give as educated an opinion as someone who does. Reading the jury instructions will do you no good unless you know everything they had to go on.

Quote:

I think this is likely do to the fact that many jury members today or most people for that matter, don't have the knowlege and education to understand what is being presented.

perhaps the snickers and laughs were because the theory of defense was so out there and desperate, that it was just funny. Atleast that was what I thought.

Baez played on emotions as well by having a flare for the dramatic in closing arguments, much the way a preacher would deliver his sermon in church.
You sound presumptuous when you talk about jurors likely not being able to understand. You probably didn't have the understanding you thought you did either.

As for laughing and snickering, it doesn't matter what opposing counsel is doing or saying. You should maintain professionalism. Juries pay attention to that stuff as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-03-2011, 09:49 PM
 
Location: Ohio
13,900 posts, read 10,796,204 times
Reputation: 7242
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by deepimpact2 View Post
You sound presumptuous when you talk about jurors likely not being able to understand.
I don't think it's presumptuous at all. If the average person could understand and comprehend all of those forensics, then what would we need colleges for? And, also if everyone understood all those things, we wouldn't exactly call them "expert witnesses" would we? It would just be common knowlege.

Quote:
You probably didn't have the understanding you thought you did either.
I would be lying if I said I completely understood everything they said.

Quote:
As for laughing and snickering, it doesn't matter what opposing counsel is doing or saying. You should maintain . Juries pay attention to that stuff as well.
How unfortunant that a verdict might be handed down based not on the evidence presented, but on the professionalism of each lawyer and who they liked best......

Actually I think that did play a role in their verdict, however small a part that may have been. Baez took the time to build a repore with the jurors, it was always....."good morning ladies and gents of the jury"......."good afternoon ladies and gents of the jury,did you have a good lunch?"

I suppose he knew he needed to score all the subliminal and unconcious brownie points he could get.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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
Similar Threads
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