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.
It makes me laugh to remember how Nancy Grace and her cohorts assumed she would be convicted of the killing and claimed, "Casey Anthony will get an appeal based on incompetent counsel!" Yeah, right.
Now we know there was an incompetent jury . They did not even look at the evidence and go over it.. the ones from the jury that did speak are making themselves out as incompetetent by the reasons they could not give a guilty verdict.
All that Biaz did is what every defense attorney does, creating doubt in any way possible by ripping down , adding ,muddying the evidence .
But the intelligent deep thinking ones on a jury can make sense of the details and if they can't , they will ask to go over the evidence to look at what the details are and come to a complete conclusion .
In this case the circumstances of Casey's actions speaks volumes to people who have the common sense gene. It is the foundation of her guilt and the physical evidence backs up the circumstances of what Casey did.
This jury did not weigh the evidence in any manner . They did not do their job and their answers shows the lack of detail to weigh the evidence and did a shallow job of coming to their conclusion.
a jury that deliberates this terrible case after such a short time without further questions and no notes present,and ignores the obvious coverup by the family of this child's death should imo be deemed extremely questionable if not incompetent
People keep talking about the "jury" almost as if they picture it as a single "person" or "single entity" in which there was no possibility or opportunity for disagreement or discussion.
12- count them- 12 separate individuals saw the trial in person and agreed quickly- not even a hung jury- not a single "hold out". Even the alternate who has spoken agreed he would have come to the same verdict- so make that 13 unrelated INDIVIDUALS who EACH reached the same conclusion after attending the same event.
It would appear that the actual evidence, as opposed to Nancy Grace style rantings, did not meet the burden of proof.
a jury that deliberates this terrible case after such a short time without further questions and no notes present,and ignores the obvious coverup by the family of this child's death should imo be deemed extremely questionable if not incompetent
You know, the jury doesn't need to take notes. There is a court reporter present who is recording every word that's being said. If the jury had any questions about testimony, all they had to do was ask the court to have that VERBATIM testimony read back to them. (Much better than sloppy notes take by a person trying to listen and write at the same time) Court reporters sometimes spend hours reading back testimony to juries when requested to do so. The whole "note taking" issue is really crap, IMO. It is far more important that the jury LISTEN to the testimony as it is given, observe the demeanor of the witnesses, the body language, etc., than it is to take notes. People make mistakes when they're trying to listen and take notes, or they miss part of the testimony when they're busy taking notes. As I said, there is a court reporter present at EVERY felony trial and that person is trained to report EVERY WORD SAID in the proceeding, and they can read back to the jury any and all testimony that the jury is unsure about.
Are you suggesting that we REQUIRE juries to deliberate for a minimum period of time on all cases?
Who said they "ignored the obvious coverup by the family"? A coverup by the family does not PROVE that one of the members murdered the child.
I've come to the conclusion that the criminal justice system is rather complex and that most people really don't understand how it works and the principles which underlie it. Guess they just don't teach these things very well in high schools or colleges unless you major in criminology or go to law school.
Well, the trial may be over and the verdict in, but fortunatly for Nancy Grace there will be ample opportunity for her to declare tot mom tot mon tot mom tot mom tot mom.
The "Nancy Grace Tot Mom" show?
Personally I think Nancy Grace does an excellent job of keeping people who are missing or found dead in the news and she had devoted her life to the cause of justice. If so many people in the world didn't feel "entitled" to do crimes which result in the death of innocents - there would be no place for the Nancy Grace's of the world. One thing to keep in mind about her - she married late in life and had a set of twins that she absolutely adores. I think it is only natural for her to be so focused and vigilant not only because of the type of human being she is, but because she is a caring and responsible parent. Personally, I hope she stays on the radar - like John Walsh has - and continues to keep the stories alive, personal, and in the forefront of our attention. She provides a valuable contribution to families going through the worst times of their lives. You don't have to like her to believe that she has justice and a sense of "doing the right thing." I believe it is personal to her. Just my opinion.......
In January 2010, Casey Anthony was in court in front of Judge Strickland. The charge was check fraud (felony charges) the checks she stole from Amy Huizenga. Judge Strickland said "the court is going to withhold adjudication with time served and one year of supervised probation,” “I've done what I think is fair based on what I know.”
Casey has been in jail. Does this mean she has served her probation in jail or will she have to serve the probation for the stolen check charges when she is released?
People keep talking about the "jury" almost as if they picture it as a single "person" or "single entity" in which there was no possibility or opportunity for disagreement or discussion.
12- count them- 12 separate individuals saw the trial in person and agreed quickly- not even a hung jury- not a single "hold out". Even the alternate who has spoken agreed he would have come to the same verdict- so make that 13 unrelated INDIVIDUALS who EACH reached the same conclusion after attending the same event.
It would appear that the actual evidence, as opposed to Nancy Grace style rantings, did not meet the burden of proof.
Their were a few who did not agree. They were probably bullied by the other nine and overtaken and squashed their reasoning of what they believed.
It is a shame some did not agree at first and were worn down for this verdict. They gave in.
Now we know there was an incompetent jury . They did not even look at the evidence and go over it.. the ones from the jury that did speak are making themselves out as incompetetent by the reasons they could not give a guilty verdict.
All that Biaz did is what every defense attorney does, creating doubt in any way possible by ripping down , adding ,muddying the evidence .
But the intelligent deep thinking ones on a jury can make sense of the details and if they can't , they will ask to go over the evidence to look at what the details are and come to a complete conclusion .
In this case the circumstances of Casey's actions speaks volumes to people who have the common sense gene. It is the foundation of her guilt and the physical evidence backs up the circumstances of what Casey did.
This jury did not weigh the evidence in any manner . They did not do their job and their answers shows the lack of detail to weigh the evidence and did a shallow job of coming to their conclusion.
Personally I think Nancy Grace does an excellent job of keeping people who are missing or found dead in the news and she had devoted her life to the cause of justice. If so many people in the world didn't feel "entitled" to do crimes which result in the death of innocents - there would be no place for the Nancy Grace's of the world. One thing to keep in mind about her - she married late in life and had a set of twins that she absolutely adores. I think it is only natural for her to be so focused and vigilant not only because of the type of human being she is, but because she is a caring and responsible parent. Personally, I hope she stays on the radar - like John Walsh has - and continues to keep the stories alive, personal, and in the forefront of our attention. She provides a valuable contribution to families going through the worst times of their lives. You don't have to like her to believe that she has justice and a sense of "doing the right thing." I believe it is personal to her. Just my opinion.......
Please don't compare John Walsh...who has done more for the victims of violent crime than almost anyone alive...to the rabid attention ***** commonly known as Nancy Grace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taratova
Their were a few who did not agree. They were probably bullied by the other nine and overtaken and squashed their reasoning of what they believed.
It is a shame some did not agree at first and were worn down for this verdict. They gave in.
Figured it wouldn't be long until this conspiracy theory came up.
In January 2010, Casey Anthony was in court in front of Judge Strickland. The charge was check fraud (felony charges) the checks she stole from Amy Huizenga. Judge Strickland said "the court is going to withhold adjudication with time served and one year of supervised probation,” “I've done what I think is fair based on what I know.”
Casey has been in jail. Does this mean she has served her probation in jail or will she have to serve the probation for the stolen check charges when she is released?
Judge Strickland was the original judge on Caylee's death trial but Baez had him removed. Judge Perry took over at that time.
Apparently she has. I'm sure every human being in the system who has anything to do with validating her release date, including Judge Perry, has been over all the details of her record with a fine-toothed comb. This case is so high profile, they don't want to make any mistakes. And if Judge Perry could have possibly kept her in jail or under supervision one minute longer he would have. This is political. The loss for the state is bad news for the State Attorney at election time. If Judge Perry had shown one tiny bit of leniency toward Anthony, it would be bad for him at election time as well.
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.
