Casey Anthony

[WillowTree]

Casey Anthony has brought light and hope to the hearts of murderers everywhere.

What an odd and untrue thing to say.

How so? if I was a murderer this whole trial has given me new angles to work on.

all ya gotta do is rot the body til they can't tell how she died then ya walk.

 

[High_Gravity]

What an odd and untrue thing to say.

How so? if I was a murderer this whole trial has given me new angles to work on.

all ya gotta do is rot the body til they can't tell how she died then ya walk.

Exactly, hopefully in the future we can come up with some better technology to deal with this sort of thing.

 

[WillowTree]

So, the great American jury has fucked it up again. Why do we always say the jury system is so great?

I don't know.

I am a lawyer and I have tried cases to juries. I have talked to jurors afterwards. What I have heard has scared me.

For instance, I lost a case, personal injury, I was defending. Ladies on the jury tell me, "your client wasn't negligent, but we thought she (plaintiff) was real nice." Right... facts be damned, you awarded her all that money because she was "real nice"...

I won a case, personal injury. Again, I was defending. Facts weren't so great for my side, actually -- plaintiff could have easily won. Again, I talk to jurors. They tell me "she was such a *****" so they denied her money. OK, again, facts be damned.

It's like all these people thought the jury trial was about "who they like" and "who they don't"... the mental level of a 9-year-old, or something. They couldn't focus on the basic question before them: "You are here to decide if the defendant, Blank Corp., was negligent. Negligence is defined as blah blah." Etc. Nope, tuned it all out.

Are American juries too stupid to be trusted? Should we switch to professional juries? Do juries really tend to get it right more often than not?

Jurors are humans having emotions and are bound to make sentimental decisions: I, pro se, took a false imprisonment case in Texas court to jury, made a case that got judge, defense counsel and jurors leaving me complimentary notes. I won case with less than 15 minutes jury deliberation, but got crappy award because jurors thought I did not look like I needed much money and defendant looked pitiful!

As per Casey Anthony: You forget that the prosecutor has burden of proof and I do not think prosecutor proved case beyond doubt:

1). Prosecutor built case on mere speculation.

2). Assuming child was murdered by Casey and parents covered up, why then were parents not named as defendants?
3). I think Casey Anthony is victim of incest and child may have been product, and reason parents would have helped with cover-up to suppress possible beans spilling by Casey.

4). If Casey indeed murdered her child, I think research would show Casey's father and possible sire of deceased child, George Anthony, has ties with his community and is being protected by State after consideration of implications.


Counsel, I am at peace with the NOT GUILTY verdict in this case. Just too many inclusive issues. Thus, I would rather see a guilty walk, than see an innocent punished.

This freaking board has more people claiming to be lawyers than there are fish in the ocean. And if you are a lawyer then God help us.

 

[Steelplate]

Yeah... don't you pine for the good ol' days? The Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials....

What a bunch of shit. We don't convict people on opinion. We convict them on fact. The facts didn't support that she killed Kaylee. Did she actually kill her? I don't know for sure... but she may very well have.

If she did do it... she'll pay for it in God's good time.

It's Caylee - at least have the decency to get her name right

One ******* letter with the same phonetic... sue me.

Look... I understand the emotion and anger. Let me ask you something. Are you folks who are lamenting this decision religious people? I am, and if she's guilty, she'll pay. As far as I'm concerned, there's a reason our Court system has the whole "innocent until PROVEN guilty" thing. Because it's far better to have a guilty person go free than to execute an innocent. That's why the burden of proof is on the Prosecution and why we are heard by a jury of our peers.

You folks do realize that those of you who were glued to the TV know more about the trial than the jury does, don't you? All of those times that the jury was dismissed while the lawyers argued on admissibility of evidence and testimony and procedure? You got to see that... the jury didn't. So you have more information to base your opinion on than they did.
Furthermore, the jury was sequestered. They had no access to media at all. You have that *****, Nancy Grace convicting her by the opening statements on CNN. So therefore, your opinion is further swayed by things like that.

If it was your child on trial... would you want the Jury to hear public sentiment and the rantings of the media? Gimme a break.

let God do the judging.

 

[FurthurBB]

The great american jury DID NOT **** up the Anthony case. The prosecution couldn't link her to the death. The evidence other than impeachment of the suspect was just not there!

They convicted her of lying? If she's innocent what was she lying about? doyathink?

The evidence is very compelling that she lied to police, who wouldn't convict her of it?

 

[High_Gravity]

The great american jury DID NOT **** up the Anthony case. The prosecution couldn't link her to the death. The evidence other than impeachment of the suspect was just not there!

They convicted her of lying? If she's innocent what was she lying about? doyathink?

The evidence is very compelling that she lied to police, who wouldn't convict her of it?

Why did she lie to the police? shes innocent right?

 

[boedicca]

All these two cases prove is that our culture is dominated by Sensationalism Promoting Media.

 

[FurthurBB]

I like William Joyce's idea of having professional jurors.

Because the average IQ of American citizens has dropped into the two digit category.

Not to mention having a PhD will get you cut from the jury faster than prejudice. That just shows me that they do not want intelligent jurors.

 

[FurthurBB]

Whats the big deal about this case anyway? If this woman would of killed her child a few years earlier she would just had been exercising her "reproductive rights".

Murder is illegal.

 

[jillian]

I like William Joyce's idea of having professional jurors.

Because the average IQ of American citizens has dropped into the two digit category.

Not to mention having a PhD will get you cut from the jury faster than prejudice. That just shows me that they do not want intelligent jurors.

that's untrue. but if your expertise is in an area that is the subject of the trial, no, you aren't going to be chosen for the jury. you are supposed to be educated by the experts the lawyers put on the stand... same as you cannot go to the scene at which an accident happened.

the jury did not hear the same things or see the same things as the public saw and heard. (including commentary designed to sway the opinion of viewers). the jury felt, according to what i heard today, that the evidence of murder, particularly capital murder, was not proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. The entire case was circumstantial and there was no evidence of cause of death. there was also conflicting testimony about the odor in the car.

jurors won't put someone to death based on that... no matter how much you may "feel" a case should go a certain way.

 

[jillian]

Whats the big deal about this case anyway? If this woman would of killed her child a few years earlier she would just had been exercising her "reproductive rights".

Murder is illegal.

ignore him. he's trolling and being an imbecile.

 

[Si modo]

I like William Joyce's idea of having professional jurors.

Because the average IQ of American citizens has dropped into the two digit category.

Not to mention having a PhD will get you cut from the jury faster than prejudice. That just shows me that they do not want intelligent jurors.

that's untrue. but if your expertise is in an area that is the subject of the trial, no, you aren't going to be chosen for the jury. you are supposed to be educated by the experts the lawyers put on the stand... same as you cannot go to the scene at which an accident happened.

the jury did not hear the same things or see the same things as the public saw and heard. (including commentary designed to sway the opinion of viewers). the jury felt, according to what i heard today, that the evidence of murder, particularly capital murder, was not proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. The entire case was circumstantial and there was no evidence of cause of death. there was also conflicting testimony about the odor in the car.

jurors won't put someone to death based on that... no matter how much you may "feel" a case should go a certain way.

That's why I was stunned when I was chosen for a jury trial in a wrongful termination case at a chemical processing plant. I was in grad school for my PhD in chemistry at the time and already had a BS in chemical engineering at the time.

Neither attorney disqualified me.

We found for the corporation, btw. The guy was shitcanned for being a slacker.

 

[Wry Catcher]

So, the great American jury has fucked it up again. Why do we always say the jury system is so great?

I don't know.

I am a lawyer and I have tried cases to juries. I have talked to jurors afterwards. What I have heard has scared me.

For instance, I lost a case, personal injury, I was defending. Ladies on the jury tell me, "your client wasn't negligent, but we thought she (plaintiff) was real nice." Right... facts be damned, you awarded her all that money because she was "real nice"...

I won a case, personal injury. Again, I was defending. Facts weren't so great for my side, actually -- plaintiff could have easily won. Again, I talk to jurors. They tell me "she was such a *****" so they denied her money. OK, again, facts be damned.

It's like all these people thought the jury trial was about "who they like" and "who they don't"... the mental level of a 9-year-old, or something. They couldn't focus on the basic question before them: "You are here to decide if the defendant, Blank Corp., was negligent. Negligence is defined as blah blah." Etc. Nope, tuned it all out.

Are American juries too stupid to be trusted? Should we switch to professional juries? Do juries really tend to get it right more often than not?

I think you are spot on, professional juries might be the way to go.

If we are to be judged by a jury of our peers, only professional criminals would be afforded trial by jury.

 

[WillowTree]

Yeah... don't you pine for the good ol' days? The Inquisition, Salem Witch Trials....

What a bunch of shit. We don't convict people on opinion. We convict them on fact. The facts didn't support that she killed Kaylee. Did she actually kill her? I don't know for sure... but she may very well have.

If she did do it... she'll pay for it in God's good time.

It's Caylee - at least have the decency to get her name right

One ******* letter with the same phonetic... sue me.

Look... I understand the emotion and anger. Let me ask you something. Are you folks who are lamenting this decision religious people? I am, and if she's guilty, she'll pay. As far as I'm concerned, there's a reason our Court system has the whole "innocent until PROVEN guilty" thing. Because it's far better to have a guilty person go free than to execute an innocent. That's why the burden of proof is on the Prosecution and why we are heard by a jury of our peers.

You folks do realize that those of you who were glued to the TV know more about the trial than the jury does, don't you? All of those times that the jury was dismissed while the lawyers argued on admissibility of evidence and testimony and procedure? You got to see that... the jury didn't. So you have more information to base your opinion on than they did.
Furthermore, the jury was sequestered. They had no access to media at all. You have that *****, Nancy Grace convicting her by the opening statements on CNN. So therefore, your opinion is further swayed by things like that.

If it was your child on trial... would you want the Jury to hear public sentiment and the rantings of the media? Gimme a break.

let God do the judging.

We should turn Manson loose. There is no evidence that he killed a single soul.

 

[High_Gravity]

It's Caylee - at least have the decency to get her name right

One ******* letter with the same phonetic... sue me.

Look... I understand the emotion and anger. Let me ask you something. Are you folks who are lamenting this decision religious people? I am, and if she's guilty, she'll pay. As far as I'm concerned, there's a reason our Court system has the whole "innocent until PROVEN guilty" thing. Because it's far better to have a guilty person go free than to execute an innocent. That's why the burden of proof is on the Prosecution and why we are heard by a jury of our peers.

You folks do realize that those of you who were glued to the TV know more about the trial than the jury does, don't you? All of those times that the jury was dismissed while the lawyers argued on admissibility of evidence and testimony and procedure? You got to see that... the jury didn't. So you have more information to base your opinion on than they did.
Furthermore, the jury was sequestered. They had no access to media at all. You have that *****, Nancy Grace convicting her by the opening statements on CNN. So therefore, your opinion is further swayed by things like that.

If it was your child on trial... would you want the Jury to hear public sentiment and the rantings of the media? Gimme a break.

let God do the judging.

We should turn Manson loose. There is no evidence that he killed a single soul.

Yup, it was all circumstancial, he didn't actually do the killings his minions did, and they testified to such in court.

 

[High_Gravity]

Charles Manson would get acquited if he went to trial in America today.

 

[WillowTree]

Charles Manson would get acquited if he went to trial in America today.

As well he should be.

 

[jillian]

Not to mention having a PhD will get you cut from the jury faster than prejudice. That just shows me that they do not want intelligent jurors.

that's untrue. but if your expertise is in an area that is the subject of the trial, no, you aren't going to be chosen for the jury. you are supposed to be educated by the experts the lawyers put on the stand... same as you cannot go to the scene at which an accident happened.

the jury did not hear the same things or see the same things as the public saw and heard. (including commentary designed to sway the opinion of viewers). the jury felt, according to what i heard today, that the evidence of murder, particularly capital murder, was not proven BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. The entire case was circumstantial and there was no evidence of cause of death. there was also conflicting testimony about the odor in the car.

jurors won't put someone to death based on that... no matter how much you may "feel" a case should go a certain way.

That's why I was stunned when I was chosen for a jury trial in a wrongful termination case at a chemical processing plant. I was in grad school for my PhD in chemistry at the time and already had a BS in chemical engineering at the time.

Neither attorney disqualified me.

We found for the corporation, btw. The guy was shitcanned for being a slacker.

in that case, the actual chemistry wasn't at issue. discrimination was. and you aren't a discrimination attorney. nor had you had any discrimination claims filed by or against you, i'd assume. so there wouldn't have been any danger of your particular field improperly influencing the other jurors or your own decision... at least not that i could see.

discrimination cases are rough. basically, the sole reason for the firing has to be discriminatory. if there is no reason or any reason at all, except in the face of a contract to the contrary, the firing is going to be sustained... well, as long as the "reason" isn't subterfuge.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A bit off topic question. Casey Anthony is to be sentenced tomorrow, why no presentence investigation? Did defense wave or does Florida not order PSI's on misdemeanor convictions?

 

[oldsalt]

Charles Manson would get acquited if he went to trial in America today.

As well he should be.

Do you know how stupid you are making yourself look? Do you care?