[RichieLion]

Originally Posted by PennBF

I finally get it..!! A poor baby has been killed so lets kill someone. It does
not matter if we can prove the person did it, it's more important that we kill
somone so we feel better. Hey, the mother has lied in her life so lets kill her
and that will make us feel better. Not sure if she killed her child but that is not important. What is important is that we kill someone so we feel better.
Can you believe 12 stupid people who heard all the evidence said we could not kill her. That is not good enough, we have to kill someone so even though those crazy people want evidence lets still kill the mother. That will make us feel better. Justice and law is not important. What is important is our feelings and we want to feel better so lets kill her.

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its
constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1789.

I guess Jefferson was not ready to kill someone to feel better?

Where is all this coming from? Who the heck are you talking to?

[kentucky blue]

Originally Posted by PennBF

I finally get it..!! A poor baby has been killed so lets kill someone. It does
not matter if we can prove the person did it, it's more important that we kill
somone so we feel better. Hey, the mother has lied in her life so lets kill her
and that will make us feel better. Not sure if she killed her child but that is not important. What is important is that we kill someone so we feel better.
Can you believe 12 stupid people who heard all the evidence said we could not kill her. That is not good enough, we have to kill someone so even though those crazy people want evidence lets still kill the mother. That will make us feel better. Justice and law is not important. What is important is our feelings and we want to feel better so lets kill her.

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its
constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1789.

I guess Jefferson was not ready to kill someone to feel better?

Not one poster on this board said she should be killed,not one.You sound like you would have made a great juror in this case.Justice for Caylee was denied and tomorrow the killer goes free. We have been O'Jayed

[sandybill2]

Originally Posted by PennBF

I finally get it..!! A poor baby has been killed so lets kill someone. It does
not matter if we can prove the person did it, it's more important that we kill
somone so we feel better. Hey, the mother has lied in her life so lets kill her
and that will make us feel better. Not sure if she killed her child but that is not important. What is important is that we kill someone so we feel better.
Can you believe 12 stupid people who heard all the evidence said we could not kill her. That is not good enough, we have to kill someone so even though those crazy people want evidence lets still kill the mother. That will make us feel better. Justice and law is not important. What is important is our feelings and we want to feel better so lets kill her.

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its
constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1789.


I guess Jefferson was not ready to kill someone to feel better?

I thought I was obsessed by this trial---sounds like you need to take a deep breath-----go line dancing----or play a round of golf. I don't feel Caylee got justice BUT I never wanted to "kill" her mother----I just wanted some sort of justice-- and some answers -don't think it happened--don't think I will ever have answers. Just worries me that Casey may have more children---and with her lack of morality-- her sociopathic behaviour----- she waited 31 DAYS--- 31 DAYS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! to tell anyone that Caylee was missing and she would not have admitted to that had her parents/brother not made her admit that Caylee was missing!!! How do you explain that?????

[Russ_Boston]

Originally Posted by kentucky blue

Not one poster on this board said she should be killed,not one.You sound like you would have made a great juror in this case.Justice for Caylee was denied and tomorrow the killer goes free. We have been O'Jayed

Not sure that's true. There are other threads on this subject where some thought she should receive the death penalty if convicted.

Justice for Caylee was only denied if the person being accused was the killer. I think she was but 12 people did not think the State proved their case. Good enough for me.

[PennBF]

It is kind of foolish to carry this any further. The last I read the State called for the death penalty. According to ABC when citizens were asked their opinion 85% said she was guilty. If the state wanted the death penalty and
most wanted her convicted I guess you could conclude a great majority wanted her "killed" in accordance with the state proposal. The jury of 12
said she had not been proved guilty and therefore should not die. They did not say she was innocent which is different. My point is that of the ones who want her "killed" as the state demanded it would only be so they feel better since the evidence, as per the jury was not there.

[Russ_Boston]

Just FYI: Only 1 of the possible 'murder' charges carried a possible death penalty sentence. It wasn't 'either/or'.

[Mikeod]

Originally Posted by PennBF

It is kind of foolish to carry this any further. The last I read the State called for the death penalty. According to ABC when citizens were asked their opinion 85% said she was guilty. If the state wanted the death penalty and
most wanted her convicted I guess you could conclude a great majority wanted her "killed" in accordance with the state proposal. The jury of 12
said she had not been proved guilty and therefore should not die. They did not say she was innocent which is different. My point is that of the ones who want her "killed" as the state demanded it would only be so they feel better since the evidence, as per the jury was not there.

The state brings indictments to the trial. While each charge carries potential sentences, the actual sentence is determined during the penalty phase if the defendant is convicted. In this case, there were three felony charges, each of which has potential sentences, including death. The state did not "demand" death. It presented charges, tried to prove them to be true, and would then, if it won, have entered the penalty phase to argue which sentence would be appropriate. But the state doesn't determine the sentence, the judge and jury do.

Frankly, I don't believe the state ever considered that the murder 1 charge would stick. In fact, I remember a retired judge commenting that he was surprised the trial judge did not summarily dismiss the murder 1 charge before handing the case to the jury, since the state provided no evidence that supported that charge.

[Pturner]

Originally Posted by katezbox

PT - I think Hollywood has a lot more impact here than that:

1. If Nancy Grace, a harpy if there ever was one, hadn't made created such a tidal wave over Caylee going missing, then perhaps the DA may have been able to try Casey without a capital murder charge. As it stood, there was too much of a spotlight on this for the state to lead with a lesser charge. As Dillywho has pointed out, what about all the other children that are missing? Where is the justice for them? The answer is in Nancy Grace's ratings based on Caylee's sweetness in her photos and videos.

2. People tend to believe that all crime scene evidence will be as clear as when it is shown on CSI. The prosecution had to meet ridiculous and impossible expectations.

3. Of course the defendant must be found guilty without any "reasonable doubt." When someone's life is at stake - reasonable gets to be a bit tougher. With a Ted Bundy and other serial killers, there is such a pattern that it is easier.

Do I believe she is connected with Caylee's death? Absolutely. Could I vote to convict her of felony murder based on the evidence presented? No.

My dad always told me that what goes around will come around. If you do a good deed - it will be paid back many times over - and vice versa. This likely is bad news for Casey.

Hi Kate,
We agree, especially on the your statement that I bolded. Premeditated murder clearly was not established. If she was "absolutely" connected with Caylee's death, she could have been convinced of manslaughter, i.e., causing Caylee's death by culpable negligence.

BTW, the last time I ever watched Nancy Grace was also the first time, many years ago. Regarding Hollywood's impact on the way people view our criminal justice system, we're also in agreement, which is why I commented on the movie, Twelve Angry Men.

[73Goat]

Originally Posted by renrod

My son once said, "Do you know how dumb the average person is? Well, half the people are dumber than that!

Not exactly. If that were the median, then that would be true. It is not true of the average.

TOday's nitpick is brought to you by the letter 'g' and the number '9'.

[CMANN]

Originally Posted by PennBF

I finally get it..!! A poor baby has been killed so lets kill someone. It does
not matter if we can prove the person did it, it's more important that we kill
somone so we feel better. Hey, the mother has lied in her life so lets kill her
and that will make us feel better. Not sure if she killed her child but that is not important. What is important is that we kill someone so we feel better.
Can you believe 12 stupid people who heard all the evidence said we could not kill her. That is not good enough, we have to kill someone so even though those crazy people want evidence lets still kill the mother. That will make us feel better. Justice and law is not important. What is important is our feelings and we want to feel better so lets kill her.

"I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its
constitution." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Paine, 1789.

I guess Jefferson was not ready to kill someone to feel better?

Well put.

[CMANN]

Originally Posted by kentucky blue

Not one poster on this board said she should be killed,not one.You sound like you would have made a great juror in this case.Justice for Caylee was denied and tomorrow the killer goes free. We have been O'Jayed

not one person is saying that she should be killed? We think they're complaining about? For the record it was Casey Anthony whose rights were being protected. The child is dead. That's a sin. But the jury in my humble opinion did their job based on the evidence presented. I watched every day.

[CMANN]

Originally Posted by PennBF

It is kind of foolish to carry this any further. The last I read the State called for the death penalty. According to ABC when citizens were asked their opinion 85% said she was guilty. If the state wanted the death penalty and
most wanted her convicted I guess you could conclude a great majority wanted her "killed" in accordance with the state proposal. The jury of 12
said she had not been proved guilty and therefore should not die. They did not say she was innocent which is different. My point is that of the ones who want her "killed" as the state demanded it would only be so they feel better since the evidence, as per the jury was not there.

just so that nobody will think I'm taking sides, you are wrong.

The defendant is innocent until proven guilty. You can twist it anyway that makes you feel better but she was found to be innocent.

The defendant is innocent until proven guilty. She was not proven guilty.

[Freeda]

I checked, and found out that she pled guilty in 2010 to six felonies on the check charges; sentenced to fines and time served.

[CMANN]

[QUOTE=mikeod;368617]The state brings indictments to the trial. While each charge carries potential sentences, the actual sentence is determined during the penalty phase if the defendant is convicted. In this case, there were three felony charges, each of which has potential sentences, including death. The state did not "demand" death. It presented charges, tried to prove them to be true, and would then, if it won, have entered the penalty phase to argue which sentence would be appropriate. But the state doesn't determine the sentence, the judge and jury do.

Frankly, I don't believe the state ever considered that the murder 1 charge would stick. In fact, I remember a retired judge commenting that he was surprised the trial judge did not summarily dismiss the murder 1 charge before handing the case to the jury, since the state provided no evidence that supported that charge.[/QUOT

if the prosecution did not believe that the first-degree murder charge would stick then they clearly and intentionally over charged in this case. This could very well be why they lost.

[thistrucksforyou]

Originally Posted by foxmeadow

How the hell did they disregard the defense' opening statement with regards to the death being a drowning? At least an admission that she (and George if you believe Baez) was present with the child when she died. Then the body was found in the woods. She should be at least guilty of manslaughter; or is that the way everyone in Florida disposes of dead children? The jury failed in it's duties because they were tired of being locked away from their families for more than a month. I guess a young childs death has little meaning as compared to getting back home. Even the "finger" in court receives a stiffer penalty.

Like OJ....One with alot of guilt will fall in the end !