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.
I think the problem is that without a cause of death, it's impossible to decide if it was first degree murder, manslaughter or she's covering up for someone else or hiding an accidental death. You can't convict her unless you are sure, beyond reasonable doubt, what you are convicting her for. While I think it's certain, beyond reasonable doubt, she's guilty of something, just what is that something? Unfortunately, guilty of something wasn't one of their choices.
I am surprised the child abuse charge came back not guilty. Not bothering to report your "missing" child for 31 days ought to be considered child abuse.
Not KNOWING where your 2 year old daughter is for 31 days is child neglect! Or it should be! I agree with you!
Juror 3 says "I did not say she was innocent, I said there was not enough evidence to convict her of the crime. You cannot determine the punishment if you cannot prove what the crime was." Something like that, not an exact quote but very close.
So these facts were not good evidence
Casey was the last person seen with Calyee
When Cindy asked Casey where Calyee was she said she was with a nanny that never existed.
Casey's car had the smell of dead body in it.
If these jurors expected Caseys DNA on the body to prove she did it then they had unrealistic explantations.
Last edited by Storm Eagle; 07-07-2011 at 12:20 PM..
Just stating facts, and giving an example of those facts
Aside from the fact that jurors sometimes convict despite question proof, which was never in dispute, you have no facts.
Quote:
that you said were not possible under law.
Wrong. I did not say it was not possible. I said your interpretation of the burden of proof was wrong, and it is.
Quote:
It's extremely clear that you are in the minority with your beliefs. This certainly makes people like you fit into a very small percentage that are viewed as being unreasonable - not 'reasonable ones'.
And your problem is that you're part of a very angry group of people who are offended that these jurors did not break from their legal duties to satisfy your need for vengeance. Worse, you think that because you're part of a large mob that you automatically become the reasonable one. Well I hate to break it to you, but the mob mentality is almost never reasonable.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 07-07-2011 at 02:32 PM..
Reason: Deleted personal comment
Aside from the fact that jurors sometimes convict despite question proof, which was never in dispute, you have no facts.
Wrong. I did not say it was not possible. I said your interpretation of the burden of proof was wrong, and it is.
And your problem is that you're part of a very angry group of people who are offended that these jurors did not break from their legal duties to satisfy your need for vengeance. Worse, you think that because you're part of a large mob that you automatically become the reasonable one. Well I hate to break it to you, but the mob mentality is almost never reasonable.
Really? Last I saw you were getting your ass kicked pretty good when it came to "proof".
If this is what they are telling interviewers about how they came to their verdict, do you think they actually followed their "legal duties?"
As per UNLV09:
Quote:
I think one of the main weaknesses of the jury was buying into Jose's claim that George Anthony was involved. And the worst part is, Juror 3 and the alternate juror even stated that they believed this because of the way George was acting, not because of any evidence that was presented.
I didn't see the interview personally but if this is what they are saying, why were they using things the defense couldn't and didn't prove to come to their verdict?
If this is what they are telling interviewers about how they came to their verdict, do you think they actually followed their "legal duties?"
As per UNLV09:
I didn't see the interview personally but if this is what they are saying, why were they using things the defense couldn't and didn't prove to come to their verdict?
The emotions of defendants, witness and the lawyers can and have impacted court cases. It's understood and accepted by defense attorneys, prosecutors and judges alike so yes, they were still within the scope of their legal duties provided they simply took into consideration and did not base their whole verdict off it.
And I'll go a step further in pointing out that had Casey been convicted and it come out that her demeanor helped the jury reach that verdict, very few if any of the people here throwing a fit over the acquittal would care. Ends justifying the means and all that.
The emotions of defendants, witness and the lawyers can and have impacted court cases. It's understood and accepted by defense attorneys, prosecutors and judges alike so yes, they were still within the scope of their legal duties provided they simply took into consideration and did not base their whole verdict off it.
From what they said, it appears they bought the story of George's involvement hook, line and sinker when it was something that they weren't supposed to consider at all when reaching their verdict.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
And I'll go a step further in pointing out that had Casey been convicted and it come out that her demeanor helped the jury reach that verdict, very few if any of the people here throwing a fit over the acquittal would care. Ends justifying the means and all that.
I am not one of those people. I am not happy with the verdict and I don't agree with it, but it was up to the jury, not me, so that is the way things went.
I realize that. My point was that they throw this whole stupid molestation thing in to divert the jury. (I mean, whether he molested her or not has nothing to do with whether Casey murdered her daughter or not, really.) Being the father, who does not want to see his daughter go to death row, all he had to do was "vigorously deny" the accusation. Nothing came of those accusations. Except, possibly, it diverted the jury's attention off of what the prosecution was stating. AND his daughter did not go to death row. It worked. I don't think there are many people who believe GA did molest her. But, who cares now? Let's face it, Casey was already a well documented habitual liar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bosco55David
I don't think any of the jurors are going to be here to read your attempted guilt trip. They're back to living their lives after performing their civic duty.
Some, maybe. Some maybe not. It's tough when some of them felt that she was guilty but could not pin it on her due to lack of evidence, in their eyes. If the public has a hard time getting out of their minds, don't you think that someone who had to sit there every day and listen to this, just might also? While you may be able to look past the emotional end of this, not everyone can. The one juror said there was A LOT of emotion in that deliberation room. I don't think that goes away as soon as the door shuts behind them.
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.
