- advertisement -

Not guilty?????

Discussion in 'Parents Off Topic' started by MamaTuTu, Jul 5, 2011.

  1. hawkeyegirl

    hawkeyegirl Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    13,157
    Well, for starters, "reasonable doubt" /= for sure. For sure = "no doubt", which is not the legal standard.

    Secondly, there is simply NO evidence that this was an accident. None. No testimony, no circumstantial evidence, no forensic evidence, zero. ALL of the evidence (admissible and otherwise) points to murder. The forensics, the behavior of the principals, the circumstances under which the body was found...all of it. The notion that a former homicide detective thought it would be a better idea to stage a murder than to call 911 to report an accident is ludicrous (and completely unsupported by ANY evidence). It's also completely inconsistent with her parents' behavior before and after they reported Caylee missing. (FWIW, it's completely inconsistent with Casey's behavior too.) It doesn't fit at all with what we know in too many ways.

    Thirdly, if dad killed Caylee and threw Casey under the bus, why was no evidence presented on this at trial? Casey is on trial for her life, and instead of saying, "Hey, my dad killed her," says instead, "Hey, it was an accident and I found her but didn't tell anyone because my dad sexually abused me when I was young, so I threw her body in my car and put duct tape over her mouth and dumped her out in the woods." She chooses to paint him as an incestuous pedaphile, but not as a murderer? What sense does that make? Again, it doesn't fit with what we know.

    I agree with you that on its face it's bizarre that the grandparents didn't report Caylee missing earlier. I think that once you delve into the family dynamics here, it's less bizarre. Casey is a pathological liar, and has lied to her parents from day one. She was a fairly accomplished liar and wove an astonishing web of lies for years that was incredibly detailed. Her parents accepted these lies, because the only other alternative was to admit that they had raised a psychopath, something that they were apparently unwilling to do. So when Casey told them that Caylee was with a nanny (and whatever else she told them), they either believed that or would have been forced to admit to themselves that something was very, very wrong and their daughter likely had something to do with it. I also think that Casey used Caylee as a weapon against them. They knew if they crossed Casey that she would take Caylee and they might never see her again. The irony, of course is that by enabling Casey, she "took" Caylee, and they will never see her again.

    I do agree that her parents probably know more than they're letting on, but I think that all came after the fact. I've seen no evidence to suggest that they were involved in the actual crime. I do think it's painfully obvious that Cindy Anthony perjured herself for Casey, but I can't find it in my heart to blame her for that.
     
  2. Flutterby

    Flutterby Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2006
    Messages:
    14,623

    I think that not having that 'proof' of death is what had them say 'not guilty'.. because the prosecution went after suffocation as the way she died, and they couldn't prove that, therefor there was reasonable doubt.

    We all know she did it, how she did it is the big question. What kills me is that she can never ever ever be tried for any part of this crime again, ever. Although I did hear today that she could be tried in federal court but not a state court.. I don't know what the difference is.. they had some big wig prosecutor on the radio today who explained how in a federal court she could be charged, but its extremely unlikely that anyone would go after that.
     
  3. kiwimum

    kiwimum Approved members

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,360
    Well, I've just read an article in a British newspaper where the alternative juror said that they only saw evidence that she was a good mother.:eek:
     
  4. MamaTuTu

    MamaTuTu Approved members

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    331
    I think the outcome would have been different IF they would have charged her with a "lesser crime" maybe second degree??? If I was part of the jury we would all still be sitting there deliberating till I convinced others :rolleyes: I stand firm on what I believe. But Im also under the impression that ALL the people on the jury have NEVER heard of this case and that is why they were chosen.. So maybe thats why a decision was made so quickly...

    When I first heard of this case I wasnt sure if Casey was lying or not I actually believed this baby girl was kidnapped and the young dumb mother didnt know what to do... (Im a "young" mother too but know other young mothers and some of them in the past have dont really stupid things, so stupid that I stopped associating with them but this is beside the point. I just couldnt grasp how someone could kill their child I could not believe that but for those of us who have watched in horror since the beginning have all herd reports from the media over the years that help us understand what the truth is, that poor baby Caylee was murdered. I wonder if the people of the jury will change their tune once they do a few "google" searches??? Bottom line is... I dont even know right now. I feel violated as a mother by Casey...

    God rest Caylees soul. I hope she is in a place of love... I am truly saddened by this.
     
  5. hawkeyegirl

    hawkeyegirl Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    13,157
    Juror number 3 has told ABC news that she thinks they would have found her guilty of lesser charges than first degree murder. Apparently juror number 3 is completely unaware that they DID CHARGE HER WITH LESSER COUNTS and they found her not guilty of those too.

    The more these jurors talk, the more I'm sure that they didn't understand the law at all. Just pathetic.
     
  6. Becky Stevens mom

    Becky Stevens mom Approved members

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Messages:
    8,719
    I thought that one of the charges was manslaughter:confused: That is more of an accidental killing isnt it? I thought at the very least they could have found her guilty of that and she would have spent a few years in jail instead of getting out next week:mad::( I do understand now that there was not enough evidence for premediated murder in the 1st degree but there was enough for manslaughter and not coming forward with the information about her daughters death immediately
     
  7. MamaTuTu

    MamaTuTu Approved members

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    331
    I didnt realize she was charged with both... I heard not guilty I was so disappointed and now to hear she was charged with a lesser crime and still nothing.... WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS JURY?????

    I dont have cable but when I have time I have watched the live stream on-line I also caught it from time to time at my Moms and asked her to call me as soon as the verdict came in. It was strange tho the times I did watch the case I thought the defense was weak and the prosecution was strong....
     
  8. Jacob'sDad

    Jacob'sDad Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Messages:
    3,803
    I don't think her future life will be real pleasant. In less than a year she will probably be pounding on the prison gates begging to be let in. That is if she hasn't taken her own life first.

    She will probably commit some other bonehead crime that gets her thrown in prison like OJ did. I just pray to God she doesn't kill anyone else.
     
  9. DsMom

    DsMom Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,700
    I'm not at all satisfied with the outcome and, like I said, am horrified that she got away with murder. However, if you saw any of the judges instructions to the jurors before the deliberation, you'd understand that there are a LOOOOONNGG list of things that they must consider and agree upon before they can convict. Trials are not about feelings, but facts and evidence. Our system is set up to prevent innocent people from being convicted...even at the expense of guilty people going free.

    Actually, I take back the "facts" part...facts often play no part in trials...as in this case. But proof must be provided in a concrete form rather than in intuition or gut feelings.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2011
  10. Christopher

    Christopher Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Messages:
    6,771
    I think that is one of the reasons why so many people are upset. It appears the jury did not take the time to deliberate at all.
     
  11. Heather(CA)

    Heather(CA) Approved members

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Messages:
    10,153
    I agree, hopefully this happens so that people that don't report their child missing wont get away with it next time...

    http://news.yahoo.com/caylees-law-petition-drive-missing-child-laws-change-234203533.html
     
  12. sarahspins

    sarahspins Approved members

    Joined:
    May 5, 2009
    Messages:
    2,205
    This could simply be because there was no disagreement over the verdicts. It's not as if the jurors only consider the case DURING deliberation....
     
  13. hawkeyegirl

    hawkeyegirl Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    13,157
    They are not supposed to talk about the case with one another during the trial. They are also instructed not to form any conclusions until after all the evidence is in.

    There was 33 days of testimony, plus tons of exhibits and voluminous jury instructions to digest and discuss. They also had to elect a foreperson, decide on how they were going to handle deliberations, and work in lunch and bathroom breaks. I don't care what the verdict was, they did not spend enough time on this.
     
  14. DsMom

    DsMom Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,700
    Yes...other than that she's getting away with this...this was my main problem with the outcome. That little girl deserved so much more of their time and consideration.:(
     
  15. swellman

    swellman Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,544
    Exactly how much time would you consider fair?
     
  16. Christopher

    Christopher Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Messages:
    6,771
    For me, the time spent deliberating should be greater than the amount of evidence that the jury needs to look at/consider/discuss with each other once the court room portion is concluded.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2011
  17. hawkeyegirl

    hawkeyegirl Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    Messages:
    13,157
    Well, considering the asinine statements jury members are now making to the media, it probably wouldn't have made a difference how much time they spent on this.

    But in general, the amount of time it takes to discuss each witness' testimony, review the exhibits, and apply the jury instructions with respect to each count charged seems like a good yardstick. They simply could not have done that in the 6-10 hours they were "deliberating."
     
  18. swellman

    swellman Approved members

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2008
    Messages:
    3,544
    So, six more weeks ... that's ridiculous.

    ... and if they took an immediate vote and it was, say 11-1, because they all paid attention during the trial, and they discussed it just enough for the holdout?

    I just think it's armchairing to the extreme to assume one knows what 12 other people were or were not thinking after sitting through a 6 week trial. I'm pretty sure I could have formed an opinion right after closing arguments and wouldn't have needed much more discussion. The reason most people think it didn't take long enough is because they think they made the wrong call.

    It's like looking something lost - when you find it you quit looking ... not keep looking.
     
  19. Christopher

    Christopher Approved members

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Messages:
    6,771
    I didn't say six weeks. The trial took six weeks, but that doesn't mean there is six weeks of evidence. Maybe we are comparing apples and oranges. And I never said I knew what the jury was thinking.

    I can't speak for other people, but the reason I think they didn't take long enough is not because I think they made the wrong call. It is because 6-10 hours does not seem like enough time to discuss all the evidence presented in court, all the testimony, etc.

    I just think the death of a child deserves more time than they gave. That's all. We can agree to disagree.

     
  20. Midwestmomma

    Midwestmomma Approved members

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    2,040

Share This Page

- advertisement -

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice