chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
What Bill said....
Closing arguments on Anthony trial
- Thread starter skyraider
- Start date
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Sorry but you all have to get over it, because
It wasn't that she was guilty or deserved to die but it is that the system is setup where the state or feds need to prove what they said and not try a case in the forum of public opinion - they failed miserably.
From what I can see without delving into the sorted disgusting history of the case, is that the state rushed the case because of political and public opinion reasons - nothing less. They took the chance and hoped that they could fool the jury but the lost.
I think the people of the county need to get a grip on the verdict and start asking some serious questions like who should be fired first and should the judge be removed from the bench for letting it go forward during the evidence part of the trial.
THE SYSTEM WORKED
It wasn't that she was guilty or deserved to die but it is that the system is setup where the state or feds need to prove what they said and not try a case in the forum of public opinion - they failed miserably.
From what I can see without delving into the sorted disgusting history of the case, is that the state rushed the case because of political and public opinion reasons - nothing less. They took the chance and hoped that they could fool the jury but the lost.
I think the people of the county need to get a grip on the verdict and start asking some serious questions like who should be fired first and should the judge be removed from the bench for letting it go forward during the evidence part of the trial.
Brisco
Expert Expediter
Why not let the MAJORITY of the population who thinks she's guilty. Draw straws to see who gets to LYNCH her?
She was Tried and found NOT GUILTY. Get over it.
Doesn't mean she is INNOCENT of the charges.
Have a neighbor who's backyard backs up to the side of my house. (my house faces North, hers West) She had this one little dog for years and years. Sweetest and quietest little thing.... Well, when that little "Jessica" past away, neighbor went a got a bigger dog. As that dog grew, it got louder and louder. Neighbor would leave dog out all the time and the dog became a barker. Dog would bark at everything, leaves rustling in the wind, butterflys farting, everything. I spoke with her several times about it. She turned into a hard-headed little shat about it and decided her dogs right to bark over-rode my right to live a peaceful and quiet lifestyle in my own home.
Well, after 6 months of this crap, I got the city involved. She was warned 2-3 times, did not respond to the city, and a Citation was issued. Instead of paying the citation and then quieting her dog down, she hired an Attorney to the tune of $1,000 to challenge the citation. Guess what, she won. Attorney found a loophole in how the ordinance was written, and citation was dismissed.
Didn't end there......this whole fiasco changed the writing of the ordinance by the city. Made the news here:
Hurst Could Change Dog Bark Ordinance
And the Charter was ammended:
http://www.ci.hurst.tx.us/Publications/Council/Packets/2010/20100622/Ord2142_2R.pdf
I now live a quiet and peaceful life in my own home. (At times)
My neighbor was not found Not Guilty cause her dog was NOT Barking, she beat the rap cause of how the Law/Ordinance was written, period. I am quite sure her $1,000 Attorney warned her of this new ordinance that could NOT be beaten, and she has since learned to respect this neighbor, as well as the others around her, when it comes to her barking dog.
Again, just because Casey Anthony was found NOT GUILTY, it does not mean she is INNOCENT in the eyes of America. Double Jeopardy Laws is what will keep us from ever seeing Justice brought forth for Caylee. And that is something we know we will have to live with whether we like it or not.
I would guess there are people who have "Googled" John Wayne Gacy, Jeffery Dahmer, Richard Speck and Jack the Ripper. It's doesn't mean they are serial killers. Anymore then "Googling" Chloroform makes her a killer.
Brisco
Expert Expediter
Well, if one googles how to cook ear lobes 84 times, and then is connected to a series of ear lobe thefts by way of half eaten ear lobes in the trunk of their car.................
.......... aahhh, just forget it. You'll never "Get It."
Here are some of the things I don't get.
I don't get Nancy Grace, telling me how to think, what to think when to stand & when to sit.
Any other "expert" Attorney telling me what to think because he\she is an attorney.
The Jury were there day in and day out.
From start to finish.
No TV reporters telling them this is what happened.
No Radio or News Paper reporters telling them this is what I think happened.
Apparently they were not allowed to watch TV at night so they would know it was their duty to convict because the Nancy Grace, the Press, radio & TV demanded it.
I don't get Nancy Grace, telling me how to think, what to think when to stand & when to sit.
Any other "expert" Attorney telling me what to think because he\she is an attorney.
The Jury were there day in and day out.
From start to finish.
No TV reporters telling them this is what happened.
No Radio or News Paper reporters telling them this is what I think happened.
Apparently they were not allowed to watch TV at night so they would know it was their duty to convict because the Nancy Grace, the Press, radio & TV demanded it.
Last edited:
greg334
Veteran Expediter
But see this is what I am getting at. Nancy has made money off of this stuff and she is so insignificance of a person. If she, like others who were impaneled to tell us what to think, were in the legal system, why is it all of them are fighting for 'justice' on TV and not in the courts?
chefdennis
Veteran Expediter
Whos DNA was found on the "duct tape"?? Oh thats right, no ones...whos finger prints were found on the "duct tape"?? Oh yea...no ones.....How did Caylee die??? Oh yea, the prosecution has no idea...why did casey not report caylee missing for 31 days?? Because chances are that she killed her...but the prosecution was too over zealous and had too weak of a case to try for the death penalty...but did it anyhow and had their azz's handed to them because they couldn't prove beyound a reasonable doubt Casey did anything....oh other then lye to the cops.....
She walks tomorrow, a free woman to make millions of dollars...
She walks tomorrow, a free woman to make millions of dollars...
Brisco
Expert Expediter
Whos DNA was found on the "duct tape"?? Oh thats right, no ones...whos finger prints were found on the "duct tape"?? Oh yea...no ones.....How did Caylee die??? Oh yea, the prosecution has no idea...why did casey not report caylee missing for 31 days?? Because chances are that she killed her...but the prosecution was too over zealous and had too weak of a case to try for the death penalty...but did it anyhow and had their azz's handed to them because they couldn't prove beyound a reasonable doubt Casey did anything....oh other then lye to the cops.....
She walks tomorrow, a free woman to make millions of dollars...
Tell ya what Chef.............try this on your own.
Go to the pound, pick up a stray dog, take it home, chloroform it to put it to sleep, wrap duct tape over its mouth to kill it, wrap it in a blanket, 2-3 trash bags, then place it in a laundry bag, go put it exactly where Casey placed Caylee on June 16th 2008, except June 16th 2012 in this case, and then let the monsoon/flooding/heat/humid season pass.
Better yet, before you do all this, take your hands and put your finger prints ALL OVER that duct tape and those trash bags, as well spit, pee, or poop, all over it too before you place it out there.
Then, wait til December 11th 2012 and go pick up all what remained of your little experiment. Once you get everything recovered, let 35 of the Top Forensics Experts from all over the world test that stuff for fingerprints, for DNA, and for trace evidence relating back to you. They'll probably come back with negative results just as what happened in this case.
Read my post a couple of pages back covering Richard Cain. There was chance to convict this child killer if he had just done his job. All the evidence you so seek was just 2 months fresh at that time, and everything you seek would have been there.
Oh well, Life goes on.........except for Caylees that is..................
Whos DNA was found on the "duct tape"?? Oh thats right, no ones...whos finger prints were found on the "duct tape"?? Oh yea...no ones.....
6 months in a swamp will eliminate a lot of evidence.
How did Caylee die??? Oh yea, the prosecution has no idea...
Duct tape over nose & mouth is a pretty good clue.
why did casey not report caylee missing for 31 days??
Because she was busy with her new 'bella vita'.
Because chances are that she killed her...but the prosecution was too over zealous and had too weak of a case to try for the death penalty...but did it anyhow and had their azz's handed to them because they couldn't prove beyound a reasonable doubt Casey did anything....oh other then lye to the cops.....
She walks tomorrow, a free woman to make millions of dollars...
Just for the record: when everyone was watching Nancy Grace, I was reading depositions, transcripts, cellphone 'ping' charts, timelines, etc. [I saw maybe 10 minutes of NG's show - it was repulsive.] I don't let 'the media' tell me what I think, ok? I look further, when it interests me, and a sociopath is interesting.
There was a great deal the jury didn't see or hear, and the one already said they were "sick to our stomachs, crying, not ready" - those last 2 words say it all: they didn't deliberate carefully enough, and were very conscious of not wanting to "add to the sensationalism", so they voted the unexpected. I just hope they stay sick to their stomachs for a long time yet.
She also Googled the tv show "One Tree Hill", specifically the 100th episode, in which a child is stolen by the nanny. And she deleted every entry on her MySpace account for the months preceding June - what incriminating stuff did she manage to dispose of, I wonder....
And finally: the jury gets to see a lot less than you think - much is kept out by the judge, and they are often sent out of the room during trial, so they have no idea what wasn't allowed in evidence.
NG was a former prosecutor wasn't she?
Say what ya want...Bottomline.....she is innocent...a jury of her peers...
Say what ya want...Bottomline.....she is innocent...a jury of her peers...
Brisco
Expert Expediter
Nope........Ken, you need to retract this.
A jury of her peers found here "Not Guilty", NOT Innocent.
Right now, only 4, Caylee, God, Satan, and Casey knows the true truth to the Innocence or not.
My belief is that she is NOT Innocent, and I will keep that belief until Satan comes and collects that empty soul of Casey Anthony.
Actually, she was innocent from the very beginning. The jury merely confirmed that fact by finding her "Not guilty". That's why they call it "innocent until proven guilty". That's why you aren't guilty just because someone says you are, or charges you with something, or because they come up with evidence that really isn't evidence of anything and says that it's evidence (which is why a lot of "evidence" never makes it into a trial). For example, the only thing a Google search is evidence of, is a Google search. If you want to go beyond that, you must make assumptions, even if other factors of circumstantial evidence connects the Google searches, the Google searches still remain evidence of nothing other than Google searches. People do that stuff all the time, especially in the court of opinion, where they look at things and draw conclusions based literally on no evidence whatsoever. That kind of stuff is the bread and butter of conspiracy wackos.
The questions of why did she do this, or that, or why didn't she do this? Why was she smiling and partying? The answers are all guesses and assumptions, and you cannot draw any kind of factual conclusions from assumptions. It's like, "If you have nothing to hide, why won't you let me search your car?" As if refusing to allow a warrantless search is somehow evidence of something. It's not. And it's why criminal cases are tried in a courtroom and not in the court of public opinion.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Actually Turtle, you are a bit wrong. You can dispute this with the two judges who explained it to me if you want to.
The jury did not find her innocent or confirmed she was.
They found her not guilty on some of the charges and that was it.
They don't confirm or deny the her innocents in this court.
The innocent until proven guilty or presumption of innocents is not a "right" because law enforcement and anything outside of court does not have to assume innocents but can assume guilt - this include the public's court of opinion.
The assumption of innocents is a part of the criminal court proceeding when an accusation is formally made, and it is used in the trial proceedings that follow if there is enough evidence to go forward when it is adjudicated. It is the burden that is placed on the accuser to prove their case that the person is guilty - not the person being accused. In this case, the defnse didn't have to work as hard as they did because the evidence was crap and the state could not prove anything substantial.
Also in this case the presumption of innocents was not part of the jury's charge and was not part of their decision. They could only say if she was not guilty of the charges presented to them within the scope of the evidence presented to them and only that evidence.
The thing that is misconstrude is this idea that we have some sort of issue with innocents when we actually have an issue with not guilty. IF we were say like the Scots who have three options - guilty, not guilty and not proven, we can say the jury confirmed her innocents by providing a not guilty verdict, then yes the jury can confirm an innocents of a person.
The jury did not find her innocent or confirmed she was.
They found her not guilty on some of the charges and that was it.
They don't confirm or deny the her innocents in this court.
The innocent until proven guilty or presumption of innocents is not a "right" because law enforcement and anything outside of court does not have to assume innocents but can assume guilt - this include the public's court of opinion.
The assumption of innocents is a part of the criminal court proceeding when an accusation is formally made, and it is used in the trial proceedings that follow if there is enough evidence to go forward when it is adjudicated. It is the burden that is placed on the accuser to prove their case that the person is guilty - not the person being accused. In this case, the defnse didn't have to work as hard as they did because the evidence was crap and the state could not prove anything substantial.
Also in this case the presumption of innocents was not part of the jury's charge and was not part of their decision. They could only say if she was not guilty of the charges presented to them within the scope of the evidence presented to them and only that evidence.
The thing that is misconstrude is this idea that we have some sort of issue with innocents when we actually have an issue with not guilty. IF we were say like the Scots who have three options - guilty, not guilty and not proven, we can say the jury confirmed her innocents by providing a not guilty verdict, then yes the jury can confirm an innocents of a person.
Greg, you're all over the place in there. First you say that, "law enforcement and anything outside of court does not have to assume innocents but can assume guilt - this include the public's court of opinion,". But if you can assume guilty, then there is no need for a trial. Then you say, "It is the burden that is placed on the accuser to prove their case that the person is guilty - not the person being accused," which contradicts the first statement, because if there is a burden of proof requirement on the accuser, then the original assumption of guilt cannot be made. If a person can be assumed to be guilty, then there is no need for a burden of proof to prove that guilt. Then, you sum it all up in the last sentence by repeating what I said.
People, including law enforcement and fans of Nancy Grace, may believe that someone committed a crime, but they cannot assume guilt. The very definition of assume is to take for granted without proof, to suppose, to postulate, to express a hypothesis. You and your two judges can dispute that with the three judges and a legal dictionary that explained it to me.
"The jury did not find her innocent or confirmed she was."
True enough, the jury did not render an "innocent" verdict, because that's not how our system of justice works, but in finding her "not guilty" it confirms the fact that she was presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. If she committed the crime but the prosecution failed to prove her guilty, she's still innocent, and she's not any less innocent of the "not guilty" charges than before the trial started.
"They don't confirm or deny the her innocents in this court."
I have no idea what that means.
But I'll take a stab at it. By rendering a "guilty" verdict, the jury denies her innocence, because her guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the presumption of innocence no longer applies since there is now proof to the contrary. By rendering a "not guilty" verdict, the jury confirms the presumption of, and therefore her actual, innocence, because like it or not, you really and truly are innocent until proven guilty. That's what presume means in relation to the presumption of innocence, where to presume means to assume as true in the absence of proof to the contrary.
Also, "Also in this case the presumption of innocents (sic) was not part of the jury's charge and was not part of their decision. They could only say if she was not guilty of the charges presented to them within the scope of the evidence presented to them and only that evidence."Huh? The presumption of innocence was absolutely part of the jury's charge, just as it is in every trial, regardless of whether the judge voices it in those words or not. The charge to the jury is to decide whether or not the prosecution proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that jury charge is always based on the presumption of innocence.
People, including law enforcement and fans of Nancy Grace, may believe that someone committed a crime, but they cannot assume guilt. The very definition of assume is to take for granted without proof, to suppose, to postulate, to express a hypothesis. You and your two judges can dispute that with the three judges and a legal dictionary that explained it to me.
"The jury did not find her innocent or confirmed she was."
True enough, the jury did not render an "innocent" verdict, because that's not how our system of justice works, but in finding her "not guilty" it confirms the fact that she was presumed to be innocent until proven guilty. If she committed the crime but the prosecution failed to prove her guilty, she's still innocent, and she's not any less innocent of the "not guilty" charges than before the trial started.
"They don't confirm or deny the her innocents in this court."
I have no idea what that means.
But I'll take a stab at it. By rendering a "guilty" verdict, the jury denies her innocence, because her guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the presumption of innocence no longer applies since there is now proof to the contrary. By rendering a "not guilty" verdict, the jury confirms the presumption of, and therefore her actual, innocence, because like it or not, you really and truly are innocent until proven guilty. That's what presume means in relation to the presumption of innocence, where to presume means to assume as true in the absence of proof to the contrary.
Also, "Also in this case the presumption of innocents (sic) was not part of the jury's charge and was not part of their decision. They could only say if she was not guilty of the charges presented to them within the scope of the evidence presented to them and only that evidence."Huh? The presumption of innocence was absolutely part of the jury's charge, just as it is in every trial, regardless of whether the judge voices it in those words or not. The charge to the jury is to decide whether or not the prosecution proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that jury charge is always based on the presumption of innocence.
14Wheeler
Seasoned Expediter
Weirdess thing happened to me walking to the donut shop
this morning. Lo and behold....four members of the supreme
court were giving passer-bys their opinions and explanations
of the Anthony case.
Nancy had me all confused....now with this chance encounter,
I've figured the whole thing out
thanks Judge
this morning. Lo and behold....four members of the supreme
court were giving passer-bys their opinions and explanations
of the Anthony case.
Nancy had me all confused....now with this chance encounter,
I've figured the whole thing out
thanks Judge