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.
IMO the state wasted way to much time focusing on the partying and even the chloroform searching. If it was the defense's contention that this was an accident and Caylee drowned then it's the State's job to prove this is not possible. It was Cindy herself who testified Caylee was never in that pool without a life preserver vest on. The State should've hired experts and done tests and used the identical life vest to establish it would've been highly unlikely for Caylee to drown had she been wearing one. It should have been hammered home that for almost 3 years the Anthony family took every precaution to ensure Caylee was safe around that pool but yet on June 15th it was decided that pool safety was no longer important and this was simply an "accident".
This is Casey Anthony's Defense teams' initial expenses that the Florida taxpayers will be paying.
Graphic: Casey Anthony's defense team files initial expenses from the case - OrlandoSentinel.com (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/caylee-anthony/os-gfx-casey-anthony-expenses-20110720,0,4447233.graphic - broken link)
The State is asking that Anthony be billed for their expenses.
This is Casey Anthony's Defense teams' initial expenses that the Florida taxpayers will be paying.
Graphic: Casey Anthony's defense team files initial expenses from the case - OrlandoSentinel.com (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/caylee-anthony/os-gfx-casey-anthony-expenses-20110720,0,4447233.graphic - broken link)
The State is asking that Anthony be billed for their expenses.
I hope so...
At least FL doesn't have to pay the defense lawyer's fees and expenses.
IMO the state wasted way to much time focusing on the partying and even the chloroform searching. If it was the defense's contention that this was an accident and Caylee drowned then it's the State's job to prove this is not possible. It was Cindy herself who testified Caylee was never in that pool without a life preserver vest on. The State should've hired experts and done tests and used the identical life vest to establish it would've been highly unlikely for Caylee to drown had she been wearing one. It should have been hammered home that for almost 3 years the Anthony family took every precaution to ensure Caylee was safe around that pool but yet on June 15th it was decided that pool safety was no longer important and this was simply an "accident".
They posted the picture of Caylee by the sliding glass door making it seem that Caylee could open that door BUT Tracy stayed there and said the door was always open so the dogs could go in and out. Tracy would go out that door to smoke and said it was VERY hard to open.
Not a word about that from anybody.
Ford Did say the death penalty 'Absolutely' mattered to the jury. "If they charged her with other things, we probably could have convicted, got a guilty sentence, but not for death, not for 1st degree."
Read the instructions' Rules for Deliberation. Per #s 1 & 2, the verdict was a miscarriage of justice because the jurors Did consider the punishments, which are not evidence or elements of the crimes charged.
You're still arguing a pointless position.
- The prosecution insured that the death penalty would be considered when they announced their intention to seek it before the trial began.
- There was no language in the instructions preventing the jury from discussing the punishment.
- The only charge that would have allowed the death penalty is also the hardest to prove, which Ford has commented on several times. The charge and the death penalty are essentially linked together.
You might as well get over it. The jury broke no rules and there will be no re-trial because of it. This matter is unimportant. Even if you assume that what they did was against the rules, the interviews could not be used to show that. Only sworn statements made by jurors may be used to grant a new trial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephM
Scott Peterson jurors said they found him guilty mainly because his behavior during the time his wife was "missing" pointed toward a guilty person. hello, any resemblance to Casey Anthony?
Sure, and there was actually some legitimate evidence to back those claims up as well. Things like his wife's broken ribs, no one else having access to the boat, his changed appearance and getting arrested with large amounts of cash and credit cards belonging to several people.
Quote:
Here are some excerpts from Ford's interview. It's obvious she at least took no time to come to her conclusion.
Moran: You think that this might have been an accident, that she might have drowned in the pool. You believed the defense on that?
Ford: I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's a lot easier to get to that conclusion. I can walk from here to there and make it happen. But the chloroform? I'm all over the place. I have no idea. I'm in a maze. I know I don't know where I'm at. I don't know where the end is. I'm not even quite sure where I began with the chloroform. So I can't get from beginning to end, A To B to see what even happened. I can't make it work.
So she thinks it's easier to believe a drowning happened-with no evidence of any type of drowning.
---
Moran: Do you believe George Anthony had something to do with what happened to Caylee?
Ford: I don't know if he had something to do with it but I think he was there. Him and Casey have something and um Like, the jail videos again, she, her mom has all the questions and George sits there and, you know, pats his wife back. And then he's like, Do you have anything else you want to tell me? He's not like, "What's going on?" You know, he's always like, "Step back. Hands are clean. Not too close."
So this juror believed the defense's opening statements and took it into consideration during every aspect of this case. With no evidence. At all. Isn't that nice.
-----
Ford: Well, in our country, unfortunately we have to prove it. You can't just be like, yeah that really looks bad. Smells bad, looks bad, I get that. It does. Smells bad, looks bad. I get that. But it's someone else's life and if I'm wrong and I kill someone else, I can't live with that.
Obviously considered the penalty while deciding her guilt.
There is nothing improper about those statements at all. She states that the drowning scenario was plausible and that George Anthony's behavior on the stand raised questions.
It really amazes me when I see or hear someone taking Casey Anthony's side in this because 'the proof wasn't there'. Do these same people also think OJ Simpson was innocent too?
- The prosecution insured that the death penalty would be considered when they announced their intention to seek it before the trial began.
- There was no language in the instructions preventing the jury from discussing the punishment.
- The only charge that would have allowed the death penalty is also the hardest to prove, which Ford has commented on several times. The charge and the death penalty are essentially linked together.
You might as well get over it. The jury broke no rules and there will be no re-trial because of it. This matter is unimportant. Even if you assume that what they did was against the rules, the interviews could not be used to show that. Only sworn statements made by jurors may be used to grant a new trial. [snip]
I don't expect a retrial. I discuss trials and law, the same as politics, sports, religion, real estate, and other things.
Though you claim to understand the jury instructions, I'll quote a few sections, with added emphasis to make it easier for you---
RULES FOR DELIBERATION
These are some general rules that apply to your discussion. You must follow these rules in order to return a lawful verdict:
1. You must follow the law as it is set out in these instructions. If you fail to follow the law, your verdict will be a miscarriage of justice. There is no reason for failing to follow the law in this case. All of us are depending upon you to make a wise and legal decision in this matter
2. This case must be decided ONLY upon the evidence that you have heard from the testimony of the witnesses and have seen in the form of the exhibits in evidence and these instructions.
Your verdict must be based on the evidence, and on the law contained in these instructions.
SUBMITTING CASE TO JURY
In closing, let me remind you that it is important that you follow the law spelled out in these instructions in deciding your verdict. There are no other laws that apply to this case. Even if you do not like the laws that must be applied, you must use them.
----------------
Ford's interviews make absolutely clear to any Fair and Reasonable observor that jurors considered the potential punishment in reaching the verdict, in violation of the instructions quoted above.
It really amazes me when I see or hear someone taking Casey Anthony's side in this because 'the proof wasn't there'. Do these same people also think OJ Simpson was innocent too?
I think that is why OJ is in prison in Nevada now. He got away with the murders but his days were numbered. They were bound and determine to get him.
Casey Anthony's day will come. She is a sick person. Joran van der Sloot got away with murder in Aruba and a young girl in Peru is dead today because he walked. We just have to wait and see who Casey's next victim will be.
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.
