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.
The jury was a bunch of morons...I remember one post-trial interview where the juror said they believed her guilty but the prosecution didn't prove it...umm if you thought her guilty yes the did you dope...
Not true. You can believe someone was guilty but still not convict because the prosecutor did not, in your view, prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There was at least one juror in the O.J. Simpson case that believed he was guilty but that the prosecution did a poor job.
Not true. You can believe someone was guilty but still not convict because the prosecutor did not, in your view, prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There was at least one juror in the O.J. Simpson case that believed he was guilty but that the prosecution did a poor job.
Reasonable doubt is not doubt without reason...the defense, in this case, was laughable...he(baez) hurled accusations in his opening statement and did nothing to prove half of them... and the one that George molested Casey was ludicrous...so apparent the defense was making George the sacrificial lamb! ...all common sense was disregarded by this jury...if you believe a person guilty you don't vote to acquit!!! Don't reach any conclusion then because clearly, you haven't !!! I don't want to get into OJ here that was a clear case of jury nullification...
Didn't she also try to imply that some stranger (an Hispanic woman I think) might've had something to do with it? I seem to remember that the lady was questioned by police.
Didn't she also try to imply that some stranger (an Hispanic woman I think) might've had something to do with it? I seem to remember that the lady was questioned by police.
Zanny the nanny...never existed but some poor Hispanic woman got pulled into it and had to hire an attorney to prove she never met Casey...others claimed that Zanny the nanny was what Casey called it when she gave the little girl Xanax to knock her out when Casey wanted to party...a real mother of the year contender...
The jury was a bunch of morons...I remember one post-trial interview where the juror said they believed her guilty but the prosecution didn't prove it...umm if you thought her guilty yes the did you dope...
No. The prosecutors have to show reasonable proof, and I imagine the judge’s instructions to the jury reflected that.
No. The prosecutors have to show reasonable proof, and I imagine the judge’s instructions to the jury reflected that.
I remember the judge looked shocked when he looked at the verdict prior to the reading...the prosecutors showed more than reasonable proof...this was a terrible miscarriage of justice...life is not a CSI tv show where everything is tied up nicely...you have to employ common sense...who was Caylee last with...who lied for weeks about her whereabouts...whose car trunk smelled "like a dead body"...and so on and so on...please just stop defending this jury...
I remember the judge looked shocked when he looked at the verdict prior to the reading...the prosecutors showed more than reasonable proof...this was a terrible miscarriage of justice...life is not a CSI tv show where everything is tied up nicely...you have to employ common sense...who was Caylee last with...who lied for weeks about her whereabouts...whose car trunk smelled "like a dead body"...and so on and so on...please just stop defending this jury...
I saw an interview with the judge in the case and he said they didn't pursue the chloriform? in the trunk. He thought she was guilty. Jose Baez her lawyer thru out the sex abuse accusations and it totally distracted the jury.
Not true. You can believe someone was guilty but still not convict because the prosecutor did not, in your view, prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There was at least one juror in the O.J. Simpson case that believed he was guilty but that the prosecution did a poor job.
Jurors are not the brightest bulbs in the box.
Did the Defense prove OJ was innocent?
There certainly was ample evidence to PROVE he was at the very least INVOLVED in that Murder.
I think several jurors had second thoughts years later when they got all the facts of that case...
Blacks are the most prejudicial jury group you can get...they let him off because of the color of his skin.
.
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.
