Casey Anthony judge: There was enough to convict

reply to post by sonnny1


The prosecution is nothing. They are people paid by the state to spin a story that will get people to convict. They have spun their story, but with little to no actual evidence. They have taken a bunch of things and said this is what could happen, but there is no way to prove that is what actually happened. If they could prove something I might change my mind. There is no proof that it was Casey searching how to kill her daughter or Casey or her Dad searching how to kill themselves, or anyone just searching about suffocation randomly.

As for the judge.. so what? A judge was just locked up for taking money in exchange for giving kids long sentences and sending them to a certain prison that was a for profit private prison. Judges aren't the smartest or most just people in the world. That just tells me the jury was smarter than the judge. The judge is probably just upset he didn't get to hand down a judgement on a huge case. There really wasn't enough to convict.. there was NO evidence. I actually lose a little respect for the judge for even commenting after the fact. A mistake wasn't made I am tired of people trying to justify the justice system actually working to a bunch of HLN watching soccer moms with their panties in a bunch.

Judges as jurors? No way? I have to ask if you believe that because you think this jury did poorly. Let me say this jury is a perfect example of our system ACTUALLY WORKING. If you had ignorant people in the jury they would have killed her. They would have been swayed by emotions. This jury was intelligent and made an intelligent judgement based on the evidence and that alone. Without a doubt they did their jobs perfectly because if they judged based on anything else besides the real evidence Casey would have been guilty. Everyone should be so lucky as to get such a great jury instead of rednecks out for blood.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by sonnny1
Daughter is missing, and dead, and she out renting movies and partying.

That is not normal in anyway.

Some Devil's advocacy here....what is normal? Normal for you? For me? For society? For the media? I mean, I have laughed hysterically at a funeral....maybe I killed the person because it wasn't "normal"......

edit on 8-5-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)

Hmmm.........

Way out Hypothetical......

When a man decides to kill and eat his roommate, it is not normal. But........ In some places in the Amazon, its perfectly acceptable to do this.

Knowing that, is it normal in ANY society?

I know, its way out there but I cant find it acceptable, regardless if another society thinks it right.

reply to post by sonnny1


That doesn't really work. Are you saying I am abnormal for wanting to go out to bars, sporting events, etc when I am sad/depressed? I don't see anything wrong with her behavior afterwards considering what she had went through. Also we don't know the extent of what she really did. We saw party pictures but I don't know if those were taken after the death of Caylee. Renting movies? When is that ever abnormal.

reply to post by sonnny1


And that is the point. Is it normal or not normal, given the vast amount of information at your fingertips to say search for "how to make a bomb"? With no intentions of making one, curiosity of course, will kill the cat if you get swept up in a 'terrorism' case. The point G is making is that the media took that mentality (especially HLN; I completely agree...Grace dumped so much emotional investment in this it was sick) and tried to make it evidence. Luckily the jurors had the evidence and the arguments unfiltered to make their choice.

To the point of paid/professional jurors....crazy I say. I want the average Joe or Jane in the box, not some paid persons dictating my freedom.

reply to post by sonnny1


If I were a juror..

Casey Anthony - not guilty
George Zimmerman - not guilty
Jodi Arias - guilty of murder in the second degree (without premeditation) I might have even gone for manslaughter if the defense did a better job.

I could call those and not ever have a doubt in my heart that I made the right decisions.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
but I don't know if those were taken after the death of Caylee. Renting movies? When is that ever abnormal.

a few Days after......

and, Doesn't call the Police to say her child is missing ?


I am a Parent. I know where my children are at ALL times. If I cant get a hold of my kids or I find that they are missing, what is the natural response? Call the Police.

Now what was Casey's?

Even her attorney stated the behavior was bizarre and inappropriate. I say its reprehensible, and I say she flaunted her new freedom.

I see it a different way then you, Vic.

Sorry.

reply to post by sonnny1


She didn't call the police because she disposed of her child's body out of fear of the police. Out of fear of spending her life locked up for negligent homicide or manslaughter. Casey Anthony isn't a saint and she did hide Caylees body, but I think she loved her kid (videos, the heart sticker, etc). I don't buy the retarded proposed motive (practically no motive) that after two years of taking care of her daughter she killed her to party more? Casey's parents probably would have taken full custody of Caylee if they were asked. Motive is very important and there isn't one here. I do notice that when the media covers a case people can't except any concept of the person but one of a full blown sociopath (like how they treated Zimmerman).

She didn't report the girl missing because she knew where she was. Doesn't mean she murdered her. I sincerely think the girl died of a heat stroke in the car or something similar. I am not basing my opinion of the juries decision on that, I know the evidence, but if I had to guess and come up with a story that would be it.

Of course the behavior is odd.. she had a secret, she was afraid of losing her freedom or life, but that doesn't make her a murderer. It may make her guilty of dozens of things and it may make her a bad person, but it doesn't make her a murderer.

And you are entitled to your opinion, it would take more than that to make me lose respect for you Sonnny. No offenses intended.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by sonnny1

 

She didn't call the police because she disposed of her child's body out of fear of the police. Out of fear of spending her life locked up for negligent homicide or manslaughter. Casey Anthony isn't a saint and she did hide Caylees body, but I think she loved her kid (videos, the heart sticker, etc).

Personal story.


My ex loves her kids too, but had no problem almost killing them in a car accident, because of drugs.

Want to know something? She fought me tooth and nail, for custody. Even on the influence.

Fear of losing child support, fear of losing custody. Never realizing to do the right thing.

I understand fear. What I don't understand is the fear of doing the right thing.........

Edit to add:

Your a great poster, and I take no offense at your sound logic, even though I dont buy into it.......

reply to post by Blaine91555


Actually, the solution to the problem you keenly identify might be quite simple and adapted from a nation we share a border. Let me explain:

As an American I find myself increasingly envious of the Canadian system of justice whose unwavering commitment to individual/civil rights includes a publication ban that protects the rights of the accused and, in turn, allows for protection of the fundamental right of presumption of innocence as noted in section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Canada's commitment to all of the prescribed rights and freedoms of it's citizens should be universally applauded and something everyone here in the United States should be jealous of and admire.

While it's taken me a few years to reach this conclusion, in the last two years it had been solidified. For years Americans have seen a very disturbing trend which in the last two years become significantly more disturbing: the American media's decision to convict the accused in three court of public opinion long before all of the facts of an investigation/preliminary hearing are determined. The American media has no problem reporting rumor, gossip and outright lies as fact; and when that information reported is found to be inaccurate or completely fabricated the correction fails to attain the front page/top story attention, often it is buried amidst the coverage.

The American media holds the trial, plays judge and jury using not facts, but pure emotion to rally their viewers into a lynch mob. They fail to educate their audience on facts because, frankly, since they are not actual members of the prosecution team of whatever case they happen to be covering. It is far too often that when watching "coverage" of a case I've followed here at ATS that I'm astounded at the plethora of inaccuracies being shared with the audience whereas those of us here do a spot on job of sharing and discussing actual facts and debunking misinformation but since we're not paid talking heads our reach only goes so far.

I'd ask everyone reading this: If you were charged with a crime you did not commit but since you met the demographic requirements to receive national media attention and there were a few photos of you that while seemingly innocent, could be interpreted by others who don't know you to be titillating and scandalous. Then people from your past who barely knew you or just didn't like you use the national exposure to further demonize you or fabricate things for their own personal gain. By the start of opening statements in your trial for a crime you didn't commit, you've already been given the death penalty by the national lynch mob. Because even if you are acquitted, your life is over.

As an American, after reading the above, wouldn't you agree that Canada's unwavering commitment to the presumption of innocence, which includes a publication ban is something that should be admired?
I wish my government valued the rights of its citizens in an unwavering manner like Canada.

(Note: In the above text I am not referring to any specific case or the guilt or innocence of a specific defendant. The above uses a mosaic of elements to illustrate why as an American I feel the Canadian justice system's publication ban is an important component that is missing from the American justice system.)

Originally posted by NickDC202


As an American, after reading the above, wouldn't you agree that Canada's unwavering commitment to the presumption of innocence, which includes a publication ban is something that should be admired?
I wish my government valued the rights of its citizens in an unwavering manner like Canada.

I agree with that.

The media plays its role, for ratings....................

reply to post by NickDC202


Yeah, I agree. I think it would be hard to do in cases like the Boston bombing or the Aurora shooting and maybe in those cases there needs to be a little transparency, but when it comes it a crime like this that really doesn't have much potential for affecting citizens it should be a media ban. I mean everyone can get the story, they should just have to wait until the trial is over. I think Anthony was in grave danger from the MSM, I was shocked the jury made a smart call. I watched Nancy Grace continually lie about Casey Anthony and call her a killer like it was a done deal on a national "news" network potentially infecting the jury pool.

When you consider the west memphis three and the fact that one man called a lawyer not involved with the case and asked how he could get on the jury because he wanted to make sure the boys charged got the death penalty, and then the lawyer told him he probably shouldn't be only to find out later the man lied his way on and then made jury foreman, you can see the potential harm.

I respect Canada if it's like that up there. I have visited once, but don't know much about the law.

Originally posted by NickDC202

As an American, after reading the above, wouldn't you agree that Canada's unwavering commitment to the presumption of innocence, which includes a publication ban is something that should be admired?
I wish my government valued the rights of its citizens in an unwavering manner like Canada.

(Note: In the above text I am not referring to any specific case or the guilt or innocence of a specific defendant. The above uses a mosaic of elements to illustrate why as an American I feel the Canadian justice system's publication ban is an important component that is missing from the American justice system.)

No and it is disparaging one Right for another. I agree there is a problem with the media, press and journalism when they report on these cases as you and others have pointed out, but our cases are held in public, where we can freely discuss them.

There is an underlying problem and that is a large portion of people who continue to support irresponsible journalism in this regard. I don't have the answer but denying the First Amendment won't solve the problem as it now plays into the State and takes away power from the People.

reply to post by sonnny1

I know where my children are at ALL times.

Certainly! This is how most parents are or should be.

One of the questions I don't ever recall being asked or addressed is where was Caylee when Casey was out partying or "working" at Universal Studios, which we know was a lie and she never worked there.
Since the babysitter never existed and her mom wasn't watching Caylee, where was she?
I can't think of any other answer than in the trunk of the car.
Evidence I would've liked to have seen were any surveillance video from parking garages and lots of the places she would party. I have to wonder if any cameras would've captured her opening the trunk and moving her daughter to the back seat of the car.
After all, it's not circumstantial evidence that chloroform was scientifically proven to have been in the trunk of the car. This isn't natural or usual and I can't think of any reasons why you would be able to detect chloroform in a trunk otherwise. Why would it have been detected unless Casey had used it at some point in association with the trunk?

Having paid some attention to this trial and reading the postings the following can be stated:

While we all may or may not agree with the verdict, the points are as follows:

In the USA, a person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That means that a suspect, no matter how vial the crime or what we think about that person, is innocent, until the verdict is rendered.
And each person involved in the trial has their own part to play.
The judge has to run it, keeping the trial moving forward, ensuring that all others do their job. It is the job of the police to collect the evidence, it is the job of the forensic anaylist to put together the pieces of the puzzle on the evidence, and to report to the prosecuting attorney, who has to prove to the Jury and the Judge that their version of what happened is correct.

All the defense team has to do is create that shadow of a doubt, to keep the person innocent.

While it may be convient to convict based on circumstantal evidence, it would be a poorer country and judicial system that does such. History is loaded with court cases where innocent people were convicted all on the basis of circumstanal evidence. We do not want that, nor should that be the basis for any conviction, as then it leaves room for doubt and questions about the motivations of those who are prosecuting and hearing the trial.

This trial, if the reports about the evidence mishandling are true, should serve, like other court cases, as an example of what not to do on the part of those who handled the evidence. Cause once this has come to light, then the question would be brought up, what good is it now, and have the police and others mishandled evidence before, where it caused a wrongful conviction of an innocent person.

Casey Anthony went to court, and got off on the charge of murder. Ultimately, maybe they should ask those who served on the Jury why they voted the way that they did, it may give them insite into the minds of the jurors and what convienced them one way or the other.

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by Hopechest


Well why do we even need jury's and lawyers than?

Just send every case to you for you decision. You apparently are all knowing.

The lady murdered her kid.

I know plenty of people that think the same way too.....

Good thing that when they made the judicial system in this country they understood that mob rule is not justice. In fact, it is usually the opposite.

If you aren't smart enough to figure that out then I doubt you are smart enough to figure out if the woman was guilty or not because you were watching a trial on the tube.

Good lord. "I know plenty of people that think the same way too..." Ooohhhh. Then she MUST be guilty! My gawd I can't believe someone actually wrote that. Group-think is a bugger, especially when it is motivated by misplaced, and malicious self-righteousness.

reply to post by NickDC202


Every system has its problems. If you're envious of the Canadian justice system, watching the documentary "Dear Zachery: A Letter to a Son About His Father" will probably change your mind.
www.imdb.com...

reply to post by Afterthought


While I acknowledge that the Canadian system has it's own unique flaws, the United States justice system has become plagued by a combination of a toxic media system masking itself as journalism and a endless series of information leaks that are reported as fact in the absence of real facts from official sources. This faux "journalism" is successfully utilized to create adamant, widespread public sentiment about guilt or innocence without substantial proof. In doing so the media and the public become judge, jury and executioner with an angry mob mentality based solely on rumor, speculation and leaked, unverified information; all before any evidence is presented in a court of law where, according to Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895), which was an appellate case before the United States Supreme Court in 1895 that established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes.

reply to post by NickDC202

I'm not arguing that the US system is better than the Canadian system. I was simply trying illustrate that the Canadian system is also corrupted in its own way.
In the documentary, no lawyer would represent the accused murderer. In the US, that wouldn't happen.
Also, in the documentary, the judge overlooked serious evidence and coached the accused on how to represent herself so she could get bail. This also wouldn't happen in the US, or at least I doubt it would. There's always that possibility though.
Then, if you want to see true corruption, look at Belgium's judicial system and how it worked for the Dutroux Affair. The UK is also suffering the same corruption.
It's everywhere, so you can't say the one is better than the other. Each system has its own unique stench.

Originally posted by NickDC202
...Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895), which was an appellate case before the United States Supreme Court in 1895 that established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes.

Coffin confirms, but in no way established that presumption; that is a basic tenant Liberty, common law and even English law.

The presumption is based on the fact that the State has all the power to detain, to try and to execute a private citizen. It is because of those we hold dear the presumption of innocence and levy the burden of proof upon the State to prove otherwise.