Official Discussion Thread: the Casey Anthony verdict (case, murder, criminal)

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by CarolinaWoman

Do you belong to American Mensa or Mensa International?

I probably should.

I have my doubts that all of the Pinellas 12 understood the 26 pages of Jury Instructions. A few of the jurors didn't even graduate from high school.

I don't have much doubt. They were very simple instructions meant to cater to the lowest common denominator and any confusion could have been cleared up during deliberation.

They wanted to go home ... probably had their bags packed ready to boogie. If they returned a not guilty it was over they could hit the road. If they convicted her it was more time in the hotel awaiting the sentencing phase.

That's cool speculation, but still just speculation.

[jazzarama]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

And still, none of that meets the burden of proof required for a criminal conviction.



Exactly. In the absence of evidence refuting their claims, the jury has little choice but to believe the defense's story. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the prosecution.

That said, Jose Baez and the rest of the defense team deserves substantial praise here. While many lesser attorney's might have come out and admitted to the drowning to get the charges dropped or reduced, Baez was patient and let the prosecution really commit to their gameplan before he ambushed them. His fired his salvo when the prosecution would not be able to retreat and regroup.

Understandable. The fact that George could've suffered significant consequences had he admitted to the defense's claims must be taken into consideration by the jury and George's behavior on the stand did not cast him in a favorable light.

Did you not read the quotes from the jury instructions that I just posted? Taratova has consistently avoided the question, so maybe you can explain to me how the prosecution would prove things like "The death was caused by the criminal act of Casey Marie Anthony" or "The death of Caylee Marie Anthony was caused by the culpable negligence of Casey Marie Anthony" without being able to explain HOW she died.



All true, but the defense had answers for that behavior. Even if they did not have answers, those facts should have supplemented stronger evidence as it alone would not be grounds for a conviction.

They're told to use their common sense in weighing evidence, NOT in coming to a verdict.

First, I agree that Baez was brilliant. To get an acquittal in this case was an outstanding bit of lawyering.

True, the state must prove its case, but is not bound to disprove bard any and all theories offered by the defense. Which juror stated s/he 'believed the defense story ?

You would apparently disagree with the convictions where cause of death could not be determined or the victim's body never found. David Westerfield, Scott Peterson, Mario Garcia, Thomas Capano, among many others.

A defense Always has answers for everything. So what. Clearly, the jurors in this case accepted defense answers [Casey's behavior is a grief/molestation reaction]. This is where, in my opinion, they left common sense at home, as they may.

[Taratova]

90% of the population are not in the genius category. 90% of the population say Casey is guilty.. doesn't take a mensa member to figure out this one.

Ok, Baez did a brilliant "con" job manipulating with what the bar was on a conviction. He had three years to practice lying manipulating and deceiving these jurors.. Raised to standards the jury themselves got caught up to convict ,by Baez's standards they needed more.. Baez told them so.. they needed a video of Casey killing Caylee to know the where and when..to know how she died.. ,,. so sad too.. the why and how was ignored..

the jurors even went on tv to clear up what they thought was a good reason for their verdict.. made them look like a puppet of what Baez told them and it was total infantile babble as far as clear reasoning goes... Listen to Baez closing arguments on youtube. Baez told them how to think and what to think to come to a verdict. Superficial shallow rambling ran amuck as these jurors spoke on the verdict. It was eye opening .

Instead of going over the evidence they threw it out and took on what Baez told them as if it was gospel..

Word for word the recited WHY the verdict was not guilty.. gullible thinking -- that Baez was telling them the truth... yet Baez manipulated the real standard of proof to convict. The jury did use speculation , --the pool drowning and emotion against their dislike and distrust of George and putting him , not Casey on trial . They never mentioned Casey in there reasons of not guilty. It was all about George.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by jazzarama

First, I agree that Baez was brilliant. To get an acquittal in this case was an outstanding bit of lawyering.

Agreed.

True, the state must prove its case, but is not bound to disprove bard any and all theories offered by the defense. Which juror stated s/he 'believed the defense story ?

Sure, they're not bound to directly refute the defense's claims, but if they choose to not go down that road then they better off up a very solid explanation of the events to oppose it.

The prosecution could do neither in this case.

You would apparently disagree with the convictions where cause of death could not be determined or the victim's body never found. David Westerfield, Scott Peterson, Mario Garcia, Thomas Capano, among many others.

The Scott Peterson trial is the only one I have much knowledge of, and Matt30 gave a solid comment on that one much earlier in the thread.

Originally Posted by matt30

Also I think persuasive in the (Scott Peterson) case was that the evidence couldn't be viewed as an accident. In addition to the boat evidence there were body pieces (including the broken ribs caused by human force) and SP had exclusive use of the boat. The evidence is, I think, too different than the evidence in this case to compare accurately. I think the Scott Petterson jury came to the right decision.

One thing he didn't mention too is that when Scott was arrested, he had significantly changed his appearance and had a large amount of cash and other items in his possession that made it clear he was preparing to flee the area. That's a rather incriminating piece of evidence with nothing similar being present in the Casey Anthony case.

A defense Always has answers for everything. So what. Clearly, the jurors in this case accepted defense answers [Casey's behavior is a grief/molestation reaction]. This is where, in my opinion, they left common sense at home, as they may.

The defense's answer for her behavior was only one small piece of the whole picture. There was also lack of motive, lack of evidence to explain the cause of death and the inability of the prosecution to provide a more reasonable explanation for the events than the defense.

Originally Posted by Taratova

90% of the population are not in the genius category. 90% of the population say Casey is guilty.. doesn't take a mensa member to figure out this one.

And that 90% are largely overly emotional people with very little understanding of the criminal justice system. Case in point I've seen a more than a couple people demanding the release of the juror's notes despite Florida law stating that jury notes are collected and destroyed as soon as the jury is discharged.

Ok, Baez did a brilliant "con" job manipulating with what the bar was on a conviction. He had three years to practice lying manipulating and deceiving these jurors.. Raised to standards the jury themselves got caught up to convict ,by Baez's standards they needed more.. Baez told them so.. they needed a video of Casey killing Caylee to know the where and when..to know how she died.. ,,. so sad too.. the why and how was ignored.

At this point, your rant has lost what little basis in fact and logic it had. When you can explain to me why a judge would allow a defense attorney to blatantly contradict the official jury instructions, then maybe we'll give some credence to you.

the jurors even went on tv to clear up what they thought was a good reason for their verdict.. made them look like a puppet of what Baez told them and it was total infantile babble as far as clear reasoning goes... Listen to Baez closing arguments on youtube. Baez told them how to think and what to think to come to a verdict. Superficial shallow rambling ran amuck as these jurors spoke on the verdict. It was eye opening .

I've watched all the major interviews that the jurors have given and suffice it to say, you're seeing what you want to see, not what is really there.

Instead of going over the evidence they threw it out and took on what Baez told them as if it was gospel..

I've asked this multiple times and been ignored. Let's try it again.

What evidence do you feel they should have reviewed and why? What questions do you think they should have asked and why.

Be specific too.

Word for word the recited WHY the verdict was not guilty.

And they all essentially said the same thing. No evidence. Lack of motive. Reasonable doubt.

The jury did use speculation , --the pool drowning and emotion against their dislike and distrust of George and putting him , not Casey on trial . They never mentioned Casey in there reasons of not guilty. It was all about George.

1) For the hundredth time, the pool scenario is NOT speculation.

2) The jurors are well within their right to consider the behavior of witnesses when rendering their verdict.

Originally Posted by Official Jury Instructions

You should consider how the witnesses acted, as well as what they said. Some things you should consider are:

1. Did the witness seem to have an opportunity to see and know the things about which the witness testified?
2. Did the witness seem to have an accurate memory?
3. Was the witness honest and straightforward in answering the attorneys' questions?
4. Did the witness have some interest in how the case should be decided?
5. Does the witness' testimony agree with the other testimony and other evidence in the case?
6. Has the witness been offered or received any money, preferred treatment or other benefit in order to get the witness to testify?
7. Had any pressure or threat been used against the witness that affected the truth of the witness' testimony?
8. Did the witness at some other time make a statement that is inconsistent with the testimony he or she gave in court?

You may rely upon your own conclusion about the witness. A juror may believe or disbelieve all or any part of the evidence or the testimony of any witness.

[Taratova]

David ,you believe what you believe, you have a right to do just that. I know what speculation is . Speculation is stating a theory without any evidence. Plain and simple.. there was NO EVIDENCE that Caylee drown and if she did, there would have been a 911 call.

I know of a family who had a baby sitter watching their little girl.She was drowning in the pool lifeless. The little girl survived and was severely brain damaged. It was tragic.. and the girl lived into her teens.. when she died her only brother committed suicide . Now that mother and father did everything to keep their little girl alive and the brother could not handle her dying. Double tragic.

If that child was found in the pool , Casey Anthony , if she had any love for her child ,would have called 911 and not be dumping the body down the street.. if you think differently, you have blocked out all the evidence and any reasoning with thinking Casey is not guilty.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by Taratova

David ,you believe what you believe, you have a right to do just that. I know what speculation is . Speculation is stating a theory without any evidence.

The key problem there is the word "theory". Since Casey had first hand knowledge of the drowning, there is no "theory" (nor was it presented that way) and hence no speculation.

[CarolinaWoman]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

1) For the hundredth time, the pool scenario is NOT speculation.

Did Casey Anthony take the stand and testify Caylee drowned in the pool? Did George or Cindy testify Caylee drowned in the pool? The only time drowning in the pool was mentioned was by Jose Baez in his opening statements and the jury could not or was not suppose to consider opening statements during their deliberations.

Tell me ... when, what day during that trial was drowning declared the official cause of death? The pictures of Cindy and Casey getting in the pool is speculation. I watched every single day of the jury selection and every day of the trial. WFTV has raw video of every day of the trial. What day did the drowining change from speculation to cause of death?

VIDEO ARCHIVE: Casey Anthony Murder Trial (http://www.wftv.com/caseyanthony/28083402/detail.html - broken link)

[I_Love_LI_but]

Originally Posted by Bosco55David

The key problem there is the word "theory". Since Casey had first hand knowledge of the drowning, there is no "theory" (nor was it presented that way) and hence no speculation.

What drowning?

There was no drowning.

I thought you previously said the drowning was actually a story of what might have or could have happened made up by the defense with the sole purpose to cause "reasonable doubt" among the jury which also didn't need any proof or evidence because it was just a story in the opening statement.

Now you are saying you believe Caylee drowned and they were telling the truth?

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by CarolinaWoman

Did Casey Anthony take the stand and testify Caylee drowned in the pool?

No, and she doesn't have to.

Did George or Cindy testify Caylee drowned in the pool?

George denied it, although his behavior on the stand was very questionable, even according to the jury.

The only time drowning in the pool was mentioned was by Jose Baez in his opening statements and the jury could not or was not suppose to consider opening statements during their deliberations.

Point me to the part of the jury instructions that state this.

Tell me ... when, what day during that trial was drowning declared the official cause of death?

You and me both know the cause of death was impossible to determine, a major roadblock to getting a conviction.

The pictures of Cindy and Casey getting in the pool is speculation.

LOL! Photos are speculation? No, not quite. They can be taken out of context though. Oh, and I also believe that Cindy testified that Caylee could in fact climb the ladder.

What day did the drowining change from speculation to cause of death?

It was never speculation to begin with.

[McBain II]

Originally Posted by I_Love_LI_but

What drowning?

There was no drowning.

Really? You know that? Well why weren't you offering your services to the prosecution? I'm sure they would have LOVED to be able to discredit that.

I thought you previously said the drowning was actually a story of what might have or could have happened made up by the defense with the sole purpose to cause "reasonable doubt" among the jury which also didn't need any proof or evidence because it was just a story in the opening statement.

No, I said that it was introduced to create reasonable doubt, but that is all you got right.

Now you are saying you believe Caylee drowned and they were telling the truth?

Where did I say that?