In another thread I saw someone mention the Casey Anthony trial and how jurors have finally been selected for it.
What do you think will happen? Do you think that Casey Anthony actually killed her own daughter?
I'm interested in seeing how the trial will play out. I did sort of follow the news report when she claimed that her daughter Caylee was "missing" but I did not believe what she said about the babysitter.
I don't think any of us have enough information to actually say anything concrete one way or the other. If she didn't do it, she's gonna have to provide enough reasonable doubt to the jury to get off. We'll just have to wait and see.
I seen the photos where she was parting when her daughter was missing. So I have to incline that she did do it, but I have this weird feeling about Casey's mother also.
I still remember being terrified when I first watch the tele and saw there was a little girl missing. My heart always drops when I hear or see such stories. As more facts came to light, I became more watchful of the events that unfolded. I have followed it ever since. Watched every preliminary trial. Watched the whole two weeks of jury selection. I would not have passed Jury selection. I think that they were wise to put in lesser charges in the indictment as a fall back, but I believe she's guilty of the first degree murder offense, she is certainly guilty of the lying to law enforcement. There is something seriously wrong, with that girl, and her family. Her body language is like a giant blinking sign of deception. I doubt she will be put on the stand to testify. They kept reminding potential jurors that if she chose to enact her 5th amendment rights, that they can not use that as evidence against her as they deliberate. I got the sense that her lawyers don't intend to portray her as an innocent person, but that everyone else involved is incorrect and/or using the trial to boast themselves either in their profession or community. They may bring mental health professions on the stand to clarify her behavior during that time, that she may have been abused, that she was young and therefor her brain undeveloped in its frontal cortex and she had poor judgement in how to behave during her "fear and grief" of her daughter missing and why she lied repeatedly.
She is as guilty of her daughters death, and even if it wasn't by her own hands, she delivered her child on a silver platter to whom ever actually did the deed.
Having been someone who was abused as a child and adolescent, as someone who was 20 with two children. I didn't even have the support system she had. I can not fathom how a mother could do that to her child, not keep a hawks eye on her child, not know where my child is. I would not as a juror be able to take those facts of age and abuse and accept those as mitigating factors. Which is something the defense possibly will bring up during the sentencing phase.
If found guilty, I hope they do sentence her to death. I want her knowing that everyday she lives is one she lives just so she can die, she will get to know the exact moment she gets to die, which is a grace she didn't even bestow to her own flesh and blood.
Our legal system assumes the accused in innocent until proven guilty.Originally Posted by BiDaveDtown
So you're saying that OJ Simpson is completely innocent?
I'll have to say, after watching an account of Caylee's murder on the TV show "Hard Evidence"(?), it's hard for me not to believe the mother did it. And that's from someone who constantly tells other people to withhold judgement.
The show had her legal team on and they tried to explain away much of the circumstances. That's fine, and I expect them to try and explain things away. When asked the hard questions, though, they said they'd answer those questions "...in due time". Whatever. I'll [try to] give them (and her) the benefit of the doubt.
But the bottom line is I can't get over the mother blowing off the grandmother for a month or so and not letting her see Caylee. Then the mother says Caylee's been with a baby sitter and she doesn't know where she is, all the while (at least how the TV show presented it) Caycee is all about town partying it up with no seeming concern about her daughter's whereabouts.
That just stinks and it's really hard for me to ignore.
Oh, and there was also the video of her speaking to her mother on the phone in jail where all she expresses concern about is herself and how her life is screwed up. Not very flattering to her to say the least.
That said, I've seen how TV shows like that can present a very slanted viewpoint so it will be interesting to see what kind of defense her attorneys put forth. I'd like to think I could keep an open mind despite what I feel is damning circumstantial evidence.
Oh, and I agree with Bryan: I also get a weird feeling about the grandmother.
Re: Casey Anthony trial: Did she do it?
That's only if you have money. I've been in a courtroom different times and I can see good enough to tell that if you have no money or means then they're gonna screw you over, especially if you have a court appointed attorney. I've been there and I've seen several other people standing there at the mercy of the court. And if you are truely at their mercy then they are gonna be a lot harder on ya than they would have been if you were to afford a good lawyer.
(Edit) of course I am not making a statement about this person guilty or not. Just saying: in general that fact holds true.
Last edited by Caaveman; May 22, 2011 at 2:39 PM.
I do not always make the best decisions.
I'm not always right, but I do stand by my
decisions until proved wrong.
Hum, guess I'm still human after all !!!
couldnSo you're saying that OJ Simpson is completely innocent?
't prove he did it.DNA didn't show anything.Wife owed money to a drug dealer,maybe O.J knows who might have done it.I watched and read everything I could find about the case and cuz wife died on his watch he lost civil suit.Now nevada railroaded him and people said "good for him",its payback time,ect and thats what hapenned when his buddies who welded the guns turned states evidence,as long as the state had a big mane to sentence the da's ect were happy.and yes Nevada (judge)did railroad him big time.He now lives close to my house..
About two years ago now when this case had recently happened----I was at a birthday party for a long time friend---he is in law enforcement on the Federal side and practically everyone at the party was in law enforcement in some fashion. As it happened one of the lead homicide detectives for the Orange County (Orlando) Florida Sheriff's Department who was the lead investigator on the case was there and he talked at length about the case---but not of course talking about specific details----he said that in his 20 plus years as a deputy and at over a decade on the homicide squad--he said there is no doubt in his mind that she is guilty--but then again--cops can get tunnel vision about such things and so can prosecutors---but I do have to defer to his expertise. I know that I spend a fair time in Central Florida and between reading about the case and watching the news reports---if the evidence is really as strong as it seems from those reports against her---then I think they will convict her. Since she is a very "unsympathetic" defendant--it is in part because of that and all the publicity surrounding the case that has made it hard to seat a jury---even a few counties away from where the crime took place.
Last edited by 12voltman59; May 22, 2011 at 10:05 PM.
"Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere..." Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
I'm one county away and have tried not to spend too much time watching this trial.
When I look at that precious little girl's photo, it just makes me sick to think of her life ending in such a terrible way.
When I see her mother and look into her eyes, I have little doubt about her guilt. However, I know many people have "LOOKED" guilty, when they weren't.
I was wondering that, if I was chosen for jury duty, if I'd be able to put all of my suspicions behind me and rely only on the facts, as they are presented?
I'm not sure I could do that.
Which is why speculation and personal judgements and debates such as this can be considered prejudicial to the accused receiving a fair trial, especially discussion in the press in the locality where a crime is committed. To circumvent this trials are often moved to a different area, where local people are not quite so close to the crime. This occured in the Bulger case here where the accused boys were tried not in Liverpoool or Bootle where the crime was committed but in Preston some 40 miles away.
In this day and age however, with press speculation and often hysteria, faster and more immediate communications, the advent of the web and social networking, it is questionable whether such a change in trial venue makes much difference. This is especially so in a country as small as England or even the United Kingdom as a whole. Reading some of the history of the case being discussed here, and some of the press and media speculation and comment, and the locations of those who comment in these pages alone, it is questionable whether this is possible entirely in any case even in a country as large as the United States, and in time it is an issue which may have to be addressed by legislators and legal authorities.
A defendant is in law innocent until proven guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, and this is an essential tenet of the laws of both the United Sttates and the United Kingdom as well as many other western countries. Judgemental discussions such as this do nothing to further justice and potentially can harm it, by undermining the judicial process and allowing the guilty as well as the innocent convicted appellant to claim that their trial was unfair upon appeal.
I never speculate on guilt or innocence. Nor should any other. Realist darling, you are right 100%. Such speculation and information which is in the public arena can make it very difficult for jurors to decide upon innocence and guilt. The more media and other coverage a case receives makes it the more difficult, and in some cases, I have no doubt that much of our prejudice goes down to how shifty and guilty a defendant looks as much as the evidence which is available to a jury no matter how careful prosecutors and defenders are in selecting from any list of potential jurors.
Last edited by Katja; May 23, 2011 at 7:25 AM.
They did change the venue of this case from the Orlando area over to a county on Florida's SW coast because of all the local publicity---ever since this case broke----on the local Orlando area TVs and in the Orlando Sentinel, the coverage has been "24/7" on the tv and "wall to wall" in the paper. It has even been hard to seat a jury over in Pinellas Couty where the jury selection phase has been moved to.
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2011/...anthony-trial/
"Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere..." Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Anyone watch the Geraldo show last night where he covered this trial? One prosecuting attorney they had on as a guest said it was remarkable how quickly they chose the jury for this trial. It only took 11 days as opposed to the often weeks it takes to pick a jury in other well known murder trials.
I might add that while much of what was presented on that show was along the lines of what I'd already seen, some of it was presented from a slightly different viewpoint which was refreshing to me. Still, most of the people, including potential jurors that were featured, seemed to feel along the lines of what I do that the month the girl was missing with the mother seeming unconcerned was something they just couldn't let go.
I'll also have to admit, having watched more footage of the mother than I had before, the way she carries herself- her walk and facial expression, etc.- really rubs me the wrong way. I'd like to think I could be an impartial juror. Maybe not.
Fry er!!!!
Its all circumstantial evidence but very strongly points to GUILT. Modern science will make its case but IMO the cops did a poor job o0f investigating it.
I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks