If you were on the jury, how would you find in the trial of Casey Anthony?

Please vote for two items: select one of the top two options, and one of the bottom two options.

  • Casey is guilty

    Votes: 13 100.0%

  • Casey is not guilty

    Votes: 2 15.4%

  • Casey will be found guilty

    Votes: 3 23.1%

  • Casey will be found not guilty

    Votes: 3 23.1%
  • Total voters
    13
Status
Not open for further replies.
strawman

strawman

Just curious.

For the purposes of the poll, assume "guilty" means "guilty of some form of murder" as opposed to manslaughter, child endangerment, or any of the other charges being deliberated.

And if you have no clue what this is about, don't bother looking it up, it's really not worth your time.
 
M

makare

How can we say when we didn't get to see the evidence presented at trial.
 
Fun Size

Fun Size

Unless this trial endings means that Nancy Grace will have to now and forever shut the fuck up about...well, pretty much everything, I have no opinion to share.
 
M

makare

pinecone up the bum?

I intended this as a response to DA but it goes for Nancy Grace too
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
Not guilty on all counts except for lying to the police about everything. What the fuck? She just got away with murder.
 
Dei

Dei

I am so angry right now. I thought the jury might downgrade it to 2nd degree instead of first, should have known they'd be dumb and let her off.
 
M

makare

what was the evidence against her? I havent really heard about it.
 
Espy

Espy

Maybe the prosecutors didn't prove to the jury she did it. It doesn't mean she didn't, it means they just failed to prove it.
 
M

makare

I don't think I could make a choice unless I heard the testimony and saw the evidence as well as the defense. I just can't do it.
 
Dei

Dei

I think what irritated me (and yet was pretty understandable at the same time) was the way her family was perjuring themselves left and right at the end of the defense. At least the prosecution managed to nail Cindi on it.
 
sixpackshaker

sixpackshaker

They should have pressed lesser charges. Or had lesser charges to fall back on. It is kind of what happened with the OJ trial. They swung for 1st degree with special circumstances (death) OR acquittal. Then the DA could not prove its case in a convincing way.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
sixpackshaker said:
Her car had an odor in it... that was all they had on her.
Click to expand...
The abandoned car, which had traces of the girls hair in a state of decomposition (through new testing procedures), the mother who had lied constantly about where her daughter was until her mother contacted the police. The searches for chloroform and killing on her computer. The three defense attorneys who quit the cases for various reasons.

This whole thing was a clusterfuck. She gets away with murder, a father loses his baby and she gets to go get on with her party ways - which is the reason she killed the kid in the first place.
 
Dei

Dei

The jury had the option to downgrade to 2nd degree, and Manslaughter was also on the docket. So the options were there.
Added at: 12:44
Oh god I want to punch the defense team in the face right now.
 
M

makare

Dei said:
The jury had the option to downgrade to 2nd degree, and Manslaughter was also on the docket. So the options were there.
Added at: 12:44
Oh god I want to punch the defense team in the face right now.
Click to expand...
What did they do?
 
strawman

strawman

I didn't think they'd convict her. The jury merely needed a reasonable doubt, and quite frankly the evidence presented does not conclusively prove that Casey did it. So yeah, she got away with murder.

The prosecution didn't have a strong case, but they couldn't drop it (too much publicity) and they couldn't drag the investigation on forever.

Chances are good they tried to get her to plea bargain on smaller charges, and she held her ground.
 
Dei

Dei

They are just doing a formal media address. It's really nothing shocking, I'm just still annoyed about the whole trial. (Plus Jose Baez has this smug look on his face that makes him look like an asshole)
 
M

makare

Dei said:
They are just doing a formal media address. It's really nothing shocking, I'm just still annoyed about the whole trial. (Plus Jose Baez has this smug look on his face that makes him look like an asshole)
Click to expand...
I do hate smugness.
 
C

Chibibar

Well, the thing is that a person must be prove guilty without resonable doubt.

I don't think the prosecution did their job convincing the jury. They provide a lot of circumstantial evidence (from what we read on the news), but what they should REALLY hammer on the jury is

Why didn't she report her child missing for 31 days. I mean, REALLY focus on it. There is something fishy already there IMO.
This is not a run away teenager (even then you still report it) this is a 2 year old.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
She NEVER reported her child missing. Her mom did. Until that time she told people Caylee was at camp, at the nanny's (even though the named nanny doesn't know the family), etc. Once the police were involved, Casey tried to establish an alibi by saying she was at work. When they tried to go to her work they found out she'd been fired from there YEARS ago. In the trial she said that Caylee drowned in the swimming pool and they all panicked. Okay, I could understand that. Then why was the body found in a plastic bag, tied up with duct tape over the mouth? If she drowned in the pool and died, why the need for the duct tape over the mouth? Or the chloroform?

At what point does damning circumstantial evidence become actual evidence? At what point does the extremely anomalous behavior of the partying mother start to look like it confirms what she wrote in her diary about the ends justifying the means and now she's happy again?
 
M

makare

Circumstantial is actual evidence. It all depends on what persuades the jury.
 
strawman

strawman

When I was on the jury for a simple charge, I ended up being the extra - and sent out of the deliberations once the final statements were made. I stayed and chatted with the prosecution during deliberation, and found out a lot more evidence that they couldn't (or wouldn't) present at the trial that would certainly have changed my perception.

Controlling the information the jury receives is of the utmost importance to both the prosecution and defense, and I'm quite certain that they view the trial very differently than we do.

Regardless, "reasonable doubt" is every bit as hard to define as it seems.

As an aside, in my case I was very torn prior to seeing the additional evidence, and apparently so was the rest of the jury, who forced a mistrial by declaring that they could not reach agreement. The information I found from the prosecution actually put me on the side of the defendant, so chances are good the prosecution chose not to share it, rather than being unable to share it. It also showed the importance of having a good defendant, who should have known all the same evidence, and used it to its fullest.
 
C

Chibibar

Dave said:
She NEVER reported her child missing. Her mom did. Until that time she told people Caylee was at camp, at the nanny's (even though the named nanny doesn't know the family), etc. Once the police were involved, Casey tried to establish an alibi by saying she was at work. When they tried to go to her work they found out she'd been fired from there YEARS ago. In the trial she said that Caylee drowned in the swimming pool and they all panicked. Okay, I could understand that. Then why was the body found in a plastic bag, tied up with duct tape over the mouth? If she drowned in the pool and died, why the need for the duct tape over the mouth? Or the chloroform?

At what point does damning circumstantial evidence become actual evidence? At what point does the extremely anomalous behavior of the partying mother start to look like it confirms what she wrote in her diary about the ends justifying the means and now she's happy again?
Click to expand...
that is what the prosecution should hammer on.

I highly doubt a juror would actually think this woman is actually 100% innocent, but I was proven wrong :(
 
strawman

strawman

Chibibar said:
that is what the prosecution should hammer on.

I highly doubt a juror would actually think this woman is actually 100% innocent, but I was proven wrong :(
Click to expand...
The jurors don't think she's 100% innocent. But they don't think she's 100% guilty of first degree murder either. Even 1% reasonable doubt is enough to free someone.
 
M

makare

All reasonable doubt takes is like 98-99 percent certainty. They just have to be certain that no other conclusion could be drawn by those facts.

I also want to add that my personal belief is that jurors are morons. Take the 12 smartest people in the world, slap them on a jury and suddenly they are thoroughly stupid.
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
I fail to see how their doubt can be reasonable.

In testifying that the little girl drowned and that she panicked and tried to cover it up she is basically admitting that she knew her daughter was dead, knew where the body was and was still acting like a hose-bag and not grieving. So here we have someone admitting that the girl is dead and that it was an accidental drowning. So why the fucking duct tape on the body?!? Why would you need to tape the mouth shut of a dead body? And what need for chloroform?

Reasonable doubt my ass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top