Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

FREE CASEY ANTHONY!!...Really..


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
213 replies to this topic

#205 g5jamz

g5jamz

    Is back

  • Joined: 17-March 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 19,268
  • Reputation: 479
HUDDLER

Posted 08 July 2011 - 09:00 AM

She's basically saying that they had a reasonable doubt, and I think I see what she's saying about the level of crime... the prosecution didn't prove first degree murder but if they had tried to prove manslaughter, they may have been able to convict her on that. The author of that hotair article seems to be pretty biased IMO.

She actually sounded pretty reasonable to me...


You don't judge guilt or innocence based on the potential punishment. You judge guilt or innocence based on the evidence put in front of you and the charges on her.

#206 Claws

Claws

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 29-September 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,100
  • Reputation: 15
HUDDLER

Posted 08 July 2011 - 09:02 AM

And with the murder 1 charge, there was no way it would stick.

#207 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 34,979
  • Reputation: 9,081
HUDDLER

Posted 08 July 2011 - 09:14 AM

You don't judge guilt or innocence based on the potential punishment. You judge guilt or innocence based on the evidence put in front of you and the charges on her.


Did you watch the video or just read the article. She's not saying that they based the judgement on the level of punishment... she's saying that there was reasonable doubt that Casey was not quilty of first degree murder. She's also saying that if there had been lesser charges, there may not have been reasonable doubt for those charges... watch the video.

#208 cptx

cptx

    Junkhead

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 4,806
  • Reputation: 966
HUDDLER

Posted 08 July 2011 - 09:32 AM

There were lesser charges...

#209 MadHatter

MadHatter

    The Only Voice of Reason

  • Joined: 30-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 20,323
  • Reputation: 5,872
HUDDLER

Posted 08 July 2011 - 09:33 AM

And with the murder 1 charge, there was no way it would stick.


Exactly.

Murder 1 is a hard crime to prosecute even under the best of evidence.

However, based on everything that I saw with the evidence (it was curcumstantial) supported at least a manslaughter conviction.

#210 Darth Biscuit

Darth Biscuit

    Dark Lord

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 34,979
  • Reputation: 9,081
HUDDLER

Posted 08 July 2011 - 09:44 AM

There were lesser charges...


First-degree murder
Aggravated child abuse
Aggravated manslaughter of a child
4 counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer:
That she worked at Universal Orlando in 2008,
That she left Caylee with a babysitter named Zenaida Fernandez Gonzalez,
That she told Jeffrey Hopkins and Juliette Lewis that Caylee was missing,
That she received a phone call from Caylee on July 15, 2008.



Yep, and what that juror in that video was saying is that the prosecution did not remove reasonable doubt from the jury that Casey committed those first three crimes on that list.

G5 and this guy from hotair can trumpet it all they want, the juror here is not saying that they acquitted her based on the possible sentencing... she's saying that they found her not guilty because the prosecution did not remove their reasonable doubts.

#211 Bama Panther

Bama Panther

    USAF JAG

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 368
  • Reputation: 5
HUDDLER

Posted 08 July 2011 - 10:37 AM

Yep, and what that juror in that video was saying is that the prosecution did not remove reasonable doubt from the jury that Casey committed those first three crimes on that list.

G5 and this guy from hotair can trumpet it all they want, the juror here is not saying that they acquitted her based on the possible sentencing... she's saying that they found her not guilty because the prosecution did not remove their reasonable doubts.


The question is were those doubts "reasonable"? Seems to me the jurors forced the prosecution to prove their case beyond any possible doubt, as opposed to a reasonable doubt. There is always doubt present, but it is not always reasonable.

#212 Bama Panther

Bama Panther

    USAF JAG

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 368
  • Reputation: 5
HUDDLER

Posted 08 July 2011 - 10:52 AM

Jurors were/are idiots... but I guess you could say a jury of Casey's peers.

http://hotair.com/ar...-convicted-her/

Wow.


After watching that video of Juror #3, which was the second one I've seen of her, I have no doubt in my mind that those jurors had no idea what they were doing.

"The prosecution left us to connect the dots, and we could not do that." WRONG!!! That's what a jury does. Your job is to connect the dots with all the pieces of evidence. If one piece of evidence is missing, you can look at the rest of the evidence to determine what reasonably happened. As Jeff Ashton said, "You don't make an accidental death look like a murder."

"We didn't really believe Krystal Holloway's testimony, because it was based on pure speculation and opinion." Are you effing kidding me? It was direct testimony. Granted, Judge Perry limited its use to impeachment, but direct testimony is not speculation or opinion. Even so, it seems the jury used it for more than impeachment by buying into the idea that the death was accidental. There was no other evidencd of an accidental death.

Sad that such idiots sit on juries to decide such cases.

#213 blackcatgrowl

blackcatgrowl

    Trolls live here

  • Joined: 06-January 10
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 6,944
  • Reputation: 3
HUDDLER

Posted 08 July 2011 - 11:06 AM

After watching that video of Juror #3, which was the second one I've seen of her, I have no doubt in my mind that those jurors had no idea what they were doing.

"The prosecution left us to connect the dots, and we could not do that." WRONG!!! That's what a jury does. Your job is to connect the dots with all the pieces of evidence. If one piece of evidence is missing, you can look at the rest of the evidence to determine what reasonably happened. As Jeff Ashton said, "You don't make an accidental death look like a murder."

"We didn't really believe Krystal Holloway's testimony, because it was based on pure speculation and opinion." Are you effing kidding me? It was direct testimony. Granted, Judge Perry limited its use to impeachment, but direct testimony is not speculation or opinion. Even so, it seems the jury used it for more than impeachment by buying into the idea that the death was accidental. There was no other evidencd of an accidental death.

Sad that such idiots sit on juries to decide such cases.


Spot on.

#214 Bama Panther

Bama Panther

    USAF JAG

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 368
  • Reputation: 5
HUDDLER

Posted 08 July 2011 - 11:18 AM

Spot on.


I think I'm just accustomed to the military system, which starts with a panel (jury) full of officers. They all have college degrees, and most have some form of advanced degrees. Even if the accused selects a panel including up to one-third enlisted members, those also typically have some form of college degree.

Our panel members (jurors) can never comment on their deliberative process, which is what juror #3 is doing, so we never know what they were thinking. However, I believe they truly know, much better, how to determine someone's guilt or lack thereof.