[CMANN]

Originally Posted by PennBF

Assumptions:
(A) Casey is a sociopath
(B) Casey is a huge liar
(C) Casey is a typical "Party Girl"
Now..
1. Where was the child killed
2. How was the child killed
3. Who is proven to be the killer
4. What killed the child.
None were answered in the trial!!!

Question: Do you convict her for being A-C or do you not convict her
because you lack 1-4?

As a retired "Good Ole Boy" attorney once said to me .."The law is lousy".

I would call it a mis trial and wait until the State had good proof. I heard
one person at the Defense table say quietly, "It is a travesty of justice"
I could not say it better.

I would have to agree with you. Let me add a couple of my own.

Did the judge gave nearly every decision to the benefit of the prosecution?

Did the prosecution over charge in this case?

Was the judge so concerned about the budgetary expenses of a new trial that may have influenced his decisions?

Was the defense attorney experienced and competent enough to be handling the trial?

Did the defendant in a fair trial?

Does anybody care?

[CMANN]

Has anybody run a search on the Internet for chlorophyll? Spelled several ways such as cholo, cholora, choloro, colo,

you get some interesting results

[dillywho]

Originally Posted by Freeda

There are cases where a body is never found, at all; and so there is no evidence at all of the details of exactly how, when, or where the murder took place; and yet premeditated murder of the missing/never found person is found by a jury (and upheld by the courts), based on strong circumstantial evidence, as exists in this case; and based on the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from it. If the exact details of a murder had to always be proven in order to convict, then a murderer could always get away with it (and unfortunately as we know, sometimes they do), as long as they are good enough at hiding the precise details of the event, and at hiding the body. Think about how scary the world would be if that was the law!

As a sort of analogy, if someone gave another person their valuable gemstone (and there were witnesses, a written signed receipt, etc., to prove that) for safekeeping for the owner; and the person to whom the gem was given to hold it failed, when requested by the owner, to ever return it, and just kept silent and never provided any explanation for its whereabouts, a jury would most certainly be able convict the person for theft, beyond a reasonable doubt; based on the logical inferences from the known material facts. The holder of the gemstone could not just take the position that 'the prosecution must prove that I still have it, and that I didn't lose it, must prove where I have hidden it, and must prove that someone didn't steal it from me; unless they do, I cannot be found guilty of theft for not returning the gemstone'.

You just never know what a jury will do. I may have told about this already, but I served on a murder trial where the guy actually confessed in open court and we ended up in a hung jury because of 2 holdouts for self-defense, not murder or manslaughter. The guy that was shot was 1) unarmed, 2) in the doorway of his home with one hand on the doorframe and the other on the storm door holding it open and yelling at the guy leaving, 3) the shooter was all the way out to his car. He testified to all this and then said, "He called me a ***** *****, I reached into my glove box, got my gun and shot him." All he had to do was get in and leave.

Go figure.

[dillywho]

Originally Posted by CMANN

I would have to agree with you. Let me add a couple of my own.

Did the judge gave nearly every decision to the benefit of the prosecution?

Did the prosecution over charge in this case?

Was the judge so concerned about the budgetary expenses of a new trial that may have influenced his decisions?

Was the defense attorney experienced and competent enough to be handling the trial?

Did the defendant in a fair trial?

Does anybody care?

Right on all counts. And I do care. Our justice system is supposed to be designed to be fair. It's not supposed to be about money and elections. Something is getting lost in the translation.

With all the concern about budgetary problems, inability/difficulty to seat a jury, many doors (despite Judge Perry's efforts) open to grounds for mistrial/appeal, I don't see JP invoking the death penalty should she be found guilty of a death penalty charge and the jury making its recommendation for death. It is only a recommendation, not the sentence. The actual sentence is Judge Perry's call. If he does go with that recommendation, it will be an automatic appeal. Even if that appeal is denied (don't know if that one can be), then they can appeal, and appeal, and appeal for years and that ain't cheap.

[dillywho]

Originally Posted by Pturner

Except that how she got to be such a good liar is not relevant to whether she killed her child.

I have intentionally not watched any of the trial, not wanting to be drawn deeply into something so sordid. I've read some in depth news summaries. I doubt she will get the death penalty. Although the chloroform searches are evidence of premeditation, it is possible that Casey meant to silence and not kill her child with chloroform.

From the evidence I have read, I personally do not have any reasonable doubt that Casey killed her poor, sweet little girl. It breaks my heart.

Some posters have mentioned that it only takes one hold-out on the jury. That works both ways. Given the evidence presented, it seems more likely to me that one or more jurors would be unwilling to render her not guilty on all charges than it does that one or more jurors will be unable to find her guilty on at least one charge related to Calyee's death, even if it's just aggravated child abuse based on the chloroform evidence.

Surely she will be found guilty of at least one and probably all four counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer.

As for a quick verdict, that seems improbably-- although bizarre seems to define this case. Each of seven counts needs to be deliberated. For a quick verdict, there would need to be quick unanimity on all seven, including first-degree murder vs aggravated manslaughter of a child.

Who will play Casey? I'd cast Jody Foster. She plays complex roles. I could see Meryl Streep as the mother. It's sad that this will be a blockbuster film. But as Don Henley sang, "It's interesting when people die, give us dirty laundry."

You're right. Lying has nothing to do with the killing, accident, or whatever it was. The fact that she lies about everything and has been for years, long before she ever had a child, goes to all kinds of speculation of why she lies.

Based on the evidence presented, I don't see any reason for her not to be convicted on those charges. The others? I think it's really just a wait and see. Like I said before, you just never know what a jury will do....never.

[Freeda]

Originally Posted by dillywho

For the life of me, I cannot understand why they are allowing the photoshop presentation of the duct tape, decomp progression, along with Casey in the picture (there were plenty of Caylee by herself). To me, that is as inflammatory as it gets.

I agree; to me that was one of the most likely unduly prejudicial pieces of evidence that may lead to a successful appeal of a guilty verdict; I can't understand why in the world the prosecution offered it nor why the judge allowed it; particularly with Casey's smiling face left in the photo.

At this point I have no idea what the jury will do; although I really can't imagine an acquittal. I think that if the jury recommends a death penalty, the Judge will give that sentence. However, I think, and actually I hope, that the jury won't recommend a death penalty, if for no other reason than to spare her parents and brother any more tragedy. If anything, I think the jury will sympathize with Cindy feeling enough desparation to have pretty blatantly lied under oath in order to try to save her daughter's life, and will think that, whatever else they may think of Casey, her mother found enough in Casey to love (despite whatever Cindy thinks that Casey may have done to Cindy's own grandchild) to risk emprisonment herself in order to try to spare her daughter from the risk of the death penalty. (Something that I think I would do, too, without any hesitation, if I thought it would help, for any of my children if they were in the same predicament that Casey appears to be in; and I think most parents if push came to shove would do the same; blessedly, we are unlikely to ever know).

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by Freeda

I agree; to me that was one of the most likely unduly prejudicial pieces of evidence that may lead to a successful appeal of a guilty verdict; I can't understand why in the world the prosecution offered it nor why the judge allowed it; particularly with Casey's smiling face left in the photo.

At this point I have no idea what the jury will do; although I really can't imagine an acquittal. I think that if the jury recommends a death penalty, the Judge will give that sentence. However, I think, and actually I hope, that the jury won't recommend a death penalty, if for no other reason than to spare her parents and brother any more tragedy. If anything, I think the jury will sympathize with Cindy feeling enough desparation to have pretty blatantly lied under oath in order to try to save her daughter's life, and will think that, whatever else they may think of Casey, her mother found enough in Casey to love (despite whatever Cindy thinks that Casey may have done to Cindy's own grandchild) to risk emprisonment herself in order to try to spare her daughter from the risk of the death penalty. (Something that I think I would do, too, without any hesitation, if I thought it would help, for any of my children if they were in the same predicament that Casey appears to be in; and I think most parents if push came to shove would do the same; blessedly, we are unlikely to ever know).

I agree, Freeda.

[graciegirl]

Did anyone see the story on 20/20 last night? It is a story of a mother some thirty years ago who shot her three children? Two survived and one testified at the trial that her mother shot them.

She too was very attractive, lied about it, showed inappropriate behavior just after the deaths and was diagnosed with narcissistic behavior and sociopathy. And she too was single and the children were getting in her way of having a good time. She was convicted and is still incarcerated.

She was pregnant at the time and that daughter was adopted. That child was raised by loving parents but became very wild and had two children, the second she adopted out. She (the daughter born after she was arrested) apparently is leveling out now and attending college to become an obstetrician.

[Barefoot]

I just read this on a website, supposedly true, but who could ever trust a jailhouse inmate.

"Not long after remains of 2-year-old Caylee were found in December 2008, Anthony told fellow inmate Robyn Adams that investigators found the bones in a black garbage bag with a baby blanket. That last detail — the baby blanket — wasn't public knowledge at the time."


Continue reading at NowPublic.com: Casey Anthony Latest News: Full Casey Anthony Jail Letters | NowPublic News Coverage http://www.nowpublic.com/world/casey...#ixzz1QxBf9PJc

[CaliforniaGirl]

Originally Posted by PennBF

Assumptions:
(A) Casey is a sociopath
(B) Casey is a huge liar
(C) Casey is a typical "Party Girl"
Now..
1. Where was the child killed
2. How was the child killed
3. Who is proven to be the killer
4. What killed the child.
None were answered in the trial!!!

Question: Do you convict her for being A-C or do you not convict her
because you lack 1-4?

A-C are all fairly obvious to anyone who has watched any part of this trial and should certainly be obvious to the jury. Not cause for conviction, however.

As for 1-4:
1. Would be nice to know but is not necessary for conviction.
2. Would be nice to know but is not necessary for conviction.
4. Would be nice to know but is not necessary for conviction.

3. If Baez had not been such a blabbermouth in his opening statement, they could have possibly argued in closing that the State had not adequately associated Casey with the dead body. However, Baez said the child drowned, numerous witnesses testified to the smell of decomposition in the trunk of her car...and she was the one driving the car. That (to me) associates Casey with the dead body. Dead body found with laundry bag and other articles from the home pretty much rules out outsiders being involved. Dead body found in swampy woods rules out suicide. Dead body in the swampy woods = homicide. Homicide = death at the hands of another or as the result of actions of another, whether accident, manslaughter or murder.

IMHO, if the child had accidentally drowned, Casey would have called 911. The wrath of Cindy could in no way compare to years in prison (3 already so far!) and the possibility of life in prison or being put to death. On the other hand, if she ACCIDENTALLY overdosed the child with chloroform, how does she explain that to anyone without admitting to responsibility for her death? She doesn't - therefore, she makes up convoluted lies and manages to hide the body so well that it would (hopefully) be so decomposed when/if found that no cause of death could be proven.

Did the state prove premeditated murder? It certainly planted the seeds but did not prove it. Did the state prove aggravated child abuse? Nope - that requires "multiple instances", and even the State's witnesses testified that she was a good mother. In my mind, that lets out premeditated murder and felony murder (also does away with death penalty.) If I were on the jury I would find her guilty of voluntary manslaughter, and would pray the judge impose the maximum sentence simply because she threw the child away like trash.

PennBF, you also referenced Geraldo Rivera in another post. Whenever he appears, I just laugh...if he weren't married I would swear he has the hots for Jose Baez. Baez could show up in court in a pink tutu and Geraldo would go on air and announce what a brilliant legal move that was. Perhaps a bit of Latino bias, maybe? Having watched this trial in its entirety, switching between 4 different channels, almost every pundit EXCEPT for Geraldo agrees that Baez pretty much convicted Casey with his opening statement. And if it weren't for his ego, he would have been 2nd chair and let Cheney Mason be 1st chair, and it would have been an entirely different trial altogether. Baez was so out-lawyered it was often laughable.

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaGirl

A-C are all fairly obvious to anyone who has watched any part of this trial and should certainly be obvious to the jury. Not cause for conviction, however.

As for 1-4:
1. Would be nice to know but is not necessary for conviction.
2. Would be nice to know but is not necessary for conviction.
4. Would be nice to know but is not necessary for conviction.

3. If Baez had not been such a blabbermouth in his opening statement, they could have possibly argued in closing that the State had not adequately associated Casey with the dead body. However, Baez said the child drowned, numerous witnesses testified to the smell of decomposition in the trunk of her car...and she was the one driving the car. That (to me) associates Casey with the dead body. Dead body found with laundry bag and other articles from the home pretty much rules out outsiders being involved. Dead body found in swampy woods rules out suicide. Dead body in the swampy woods = homicide. Homicide = death at the hands of another or as the result of actions of another, whether accident, manslaughter or murder.

IMHO, if the child had accidentally drowned, Casey would have called 911. The wrath of Cindy could in no way compare to years in prison (3 already so far!) and the possibility of life in prison or being put to death. On the other hand, if she ACCIDENTALLY overdosed the child with chloroform, how does she explain that to anyone without admitting to responsibility for her death? She doesn't - therefore, she makes up convoluted lies and manages to hide the body so well that it would (hopefully) be so decomposed when/if found that no cause of death could be proven.

Did the state prove premeditated murder? It certainly planted the seeds but did not prove it. Did the state prove aggravated child abuse? Nope - that requires "multiple instances", and even the State's witnesses testified that she was a good mother. In my mind, that lets out premeditated murder and felony murder (also does away with death penalty.) If I were on the jury I would find her guilty of voluntary manslaughter, and would pray the judge impose the maximum sentence simply because she threw the child away like trash.

PennBF, you also referenced Geraldo Rivera in another post. Whenever he appears, I just laugh...if he weren't married I would swear he has the hots for Jose Baez. Baez could show up in court in a pink tutu and Geraldo would go on air and announce what a brilliant legal move that was. Perhaps a bit of Latino bias, maybe? Having watched this trial in its entirety, switching between 4 different channels, almost every pundit EXCEPT for Geraldo agrees that Baez pretty much convicted Casey with his opening statement. And if it weren't for his ego, he would have been 2nd chair and let Cheney Mason be 1st chair, and it would have been an entirely different trial altogether. Baez was so out-lawyered it was often laughable.

C-Girl ... you are right on!

[ceejay]

Originally Posted by Barefoot

C-Girl ... you are right on!

[PennBF]

There is little question by anyone that Judge Perry was a supporter of the State. That he restricted the ability of Baez to defend his client and provided a different attitude towards the Defense vs State.
Having said all of this the only way for Baez to work around such terrible Judicial bais was to ask questions he knew would be sustained but served
the answers to the Jury and to the witness who knew what the response should be to avoid a challenge. I am not saying Baez is an F.Lee Bailey but if that was his purpose I congrat him on using that as a tactic in order to try to neutralize the bais court. Remember there are at least 3-4 reasons for an attorney to object to a question, (a) it is a true objection, (b) the attorney wants the witness to take his time and really think the answer out, (c) to destroy the rhythm between the attorney and witness, (d) to set up a confrontation with the examining attorney, etc. The state used these as an extremely fine practice and given the bais of the court they could easily get away with (c) and (d). These were taken away from Baez by the court.
Before anyone wants to "hang"' Baez they should really understand the constraints he was under and how he had to be pretty creative to get around the Judge and State. In particular the Judge.

[CaliforniaGirl]

Originally Posted by PennBF

There is little question by anyone that Judge Perry was a supporter of the State. That he restricted the ability of Baez to defend his client ...

To each his own, PennBF.

Personally, I think the only thing that restricted Baez' ability to defend his client was his own incompetence. He does not know how to get information out of a witness without asking leading questions (he skipped that part of law school, maybe) and when his leading questions are rightly objected to, he gets flustered and asks the same questions 3 more times but always leading - with the end result being that the information he's trying to get in doesn't get in. He simply doesn't know how to do it - you can't fault the state or the Judge for that. And since it is his job, he should know how to do it or stay out of a courtroom until he does.

There were several occasions when I knew what he was trying to get a witness to say, but couldn't get it in...it was almost painful to watch. And instead of asking Mason how to do it correctly, he would just give up. So that information never got to the jury. He had very competent, very skilled co-counsel that he under-utilized.

I believe Judge Perry has been completely fair concerning sustaining or overrulling objections, following the law. Hearsay is hearsay, leading is leading...you just can't argue with that.

Baez was like David fighting Goliath with a slingshot...except that he had a cannon sitting next to him he could have used and didn't! There is no excuse for that hubris. As much as I dislike Casey Anthony, even she deserved better representation than she got.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaGirl

To each his own, PennBF.



Personally, I think the only thing that restricted Baez' ability to defend his client was his own incompetence. He does not know how to get information out of a witness without asking leading questions (he skipped that part of law school, maybe) and when his leading questions are rightly objected to, he gets flustered and asks the same questions 3 more times but always leading - with the end result being that the information he's trying to get in doesn't get in. He simply doesn't know how to do it - you can't fault the state or the Judge for that. And since it is his job, he should know how to do it or stay out of a courtroom until he does.

There were several occasions when I knew what he was trying to get a witness to say, but couldn't get it in...it was almost painful to watch. And instead of asking Mason how to do it correctly, he would just give up. So that information never got to the jury. He had very competent, very skilled co-counsel that he under-utilized.

I believe Judge Perry has been completely fair concerning sustaining or overrulling objections, following the law. Hearsay is hearsay, leading is leading...you just can't argue with that.

Baez was like David fighting Goliath with a slingshot...except that he had a cannon sitting next to him he could have used and didn't! There is no excuse for that hubris. As much as I dislike Casey Anthony, even she deserved better representation than she got.

I agree with you once again California Girl!!

I think......Baez just isn't as smart and certainly was not as well prepared as the two prosecution attorneys. They sure did their job well. Their preparation was done as well as it could be done IMHO. Their research was deep and they knew the subject(s) about as well as their expert witnesses. They never got blind sided or surprised by their direct questioning, as Baez frequently did.

I didn't see any injustice by Judge Perry. I really respected his fairness. And I liked the fact that he didn't mess with someone acting up in his court room and he called Baez for sloppy planning and not being ready a few times. Baez SHOULD have been ready.

Just sayin......