[PennBF]

I am really fed up with the commentator's/lawyers on TV. Judge Alex tonight explaining how the Jury did not understand. The Jury is the final decision and he should try to understand their logic and not deem them as being somewhat "Lacking"..How is he smarter than 12 people who listened to every single word of testimony.? The same goes for Nancy Grace, etc.etc. What arrogrance these people have. It really demonstrates how bad TV is
when it comes to commentators and ego's.
There was a Judge on channel 11 who was excellent and was logical and
balanced. The rest are running by explaining why the Jury was "lacking",
trying to justify their bad judgement throughout the trial, and so on.
THe jury ruled and that's it..

[bogeybabe]

Judgement Day is coming for Casey. We may not see it, but believe me, she will rue the day she walked out of jail. Her life will never be "normal"....some little bit of justice for Caylee.///
It sickens me that her family got away with tossing her out like trash.!

[RichieLion]

Originally Posted by PennBF

I am really fed up with the commentator's/lawyers on TV. Judge Alex tonight explaining how the Jury did not understand. The Jury is the final decision and he should try to understand their logic and not deem them as being somewhat "Lacking"..How is he smarter than 12 people who listened to every single word of testimony.? The same goes for Nancy Grace, etc.etc. What arrogrance these people have. It really demonstrates how bad TV is
when it comes to commentators and ego's.
There was a Judge on channel 11 who was excellent and was logical and
balanced. The rest are running by explaining why the Jury was "lacking",
trying to justify their bad judgement throughout the trial, and so on.
THe jury ruled and that's it..

This trial was on TV for every second of it and covered by these reporters who also listened to every word of testimony. These jurors left their common sense at the door. We're in the age of people expecting too much from science due to the "CSI" shows which depict improbable and impossible scientific outcomes from the scarcest of evidence. I don't have to leave my common sense behind just because 12 people did.

I'm with Nancy Grace. Somewhere out there, the Devil is dancing tonight.

[billmar]

Originally Posted by RichieLion

This trial was on TV for every second of it and covered by these reporters who also listened to every word of testimony. These jurors left their common sense at the door. We're in the age of people expecting too much from science due to the "CSI" shows which depict improbable and impossible scientific outcomes from the scarcest of evidence. I don't have to leave my common sense behind just because 12 people did.

I'm with Nancy Grace. Somewhere out there, the Devil is dancing tonight.

Maybe the state overeached w/the charges, maybe it wasn't first degree. But, I find it hard to believe she is innocent when she failed to report her child missing for 30 days, and when confronted, lied about giving her to a nonexistent babysitter. If she didn't have anything to do with it, why did she tell all the lies (which the jury did convict on). I think you have it right...the Devil is dancing tonight.

[CaliforniaGirl]

Originally Posted by RichieLion

This trial was on TV for every second of it and covered by these reporters who also listened to every word of testimony. These jurors left their common sense at the door. We're in the age of people expecting too much from science due to the "CSI" shows which depict improbable and impossible scientific outcomes from the scarcest of evidence. I don't have to leave my common sense behind just because 12 people did.

I'm with Nancy Grace. Somewhere out there, the Devil is dancing tonight.

ITA. There was no common sense in that jury room. The child climbed into the pool by herself, drowned, was pulled out by George Anthony, was handed off to Casey Anthony and then mysteriously ended up in the swampy woods in trash bags with duct tape over her mouth. Makes sense to me - not. Sad that the jury couldn't connect the dots. Sad that she'll probably sell book/movie rights, do a reality show and become a millionaire celebutante. I do believe in karma, though...and her day will come.

The bigger issue for me is our judicial system as a whole. I must have heard 20 times today that this verdict is proof that "our judicial system works." Am I the only one who disagrees? To be judged by a jury of one's peers doesn't seem to work so well any more - we have OJ, Robert Blake, Casey Anthony going free while the Innocence Project works so hard to free the wrongly convicted.

[barb1191]

Originally Posted by PennBF

As unpopular it is to say justice was done I believe this is a great example
of the American Justice System. The state tried to kill a person without any
true proof. It is not important whether she is innocent or guilty..What is important is that they tried to kill her without proof. The results today are
a perfect example of how everyone is protected from unfair prosecution
without proof. The jury heard all the evidence and made their decision. We owe them a huge amount of praise for demanding proof before killing someone.

So true; well put PennBF....

[Pturner]

Originally Posted by JimJoe

Two thoughts:
1. They should not have charged this as a death penalty case. From a practical standpoint, they raised their burden of proof from beyond aLL reasonable doubt to beyond ALL doubt.. a big mistake in my opinion.
2. I would have considered just charging her with the 4 counts of lying to the officers TO BEGIN WITH.. they would have had a trial run on her defense and maybe have even gotten to cross examine her on the stand.. There is no statute of limitations on murder. She may have made more statements if she was not charged initially with murder. They could then go after her with the Murder charge without the death penalty. Lying about a crime is not a lesser included offense of murder and would not bar later prosecution for murder.
JJ

Hi JimJoe,
Thanks for your excellent analysis as an experienced criminal attorney. FWIW, not a single poster on TOTV said they thought the state proved Casey guilty of first degree murder. It seemed clear that the state could not prove that.

Personally, I don't see the "reasonable" doubt that Casey killed Callie. However, as you said, from a practical standpoint-- though not a legal one-- the prosecution probably raised its burden with the jury from beyond a reasonable doubt to beyond a shadow of a doubt on the manslaughter charge by putting the clearly unproven capital offense on the table.

[Pturner]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaGirl

ITA. There was no common sense in that jury room. The child climbed into the pool by herself, drowned, was pulled out by George Anthony, was handed off to Casey Anthony and then mysteriously ended up in the swampy woods in trash bags with duct tape over her mouth. Makes sense to me - not. Sad that the jury couldn't connect the dots. ...

The bigger issue for me is our judicial system as a whole. I must have heard 20 times today that this verdict is proof that "our judicial system works." Am I the only one who disagrees?

No, you are not the only one. To my thinking, common sense is not just permitted in our jury system, it is necessary for our justice system to work. That's why the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt-- i.e., a doubt that is based on reason-- and not the impossible beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[Russ_Boston]

Originally Posted by JimJoe

If she had testified there was an accidental drowning and coverup, they may have still charged her with murder based on Child Endangerment (allowing the child to have access to a pool and drown in it, and a resulting death... good strategy by her lawyer to keep her off the stand.

Was this one of the charges against her? I didn't see that one. I thought it was only the 3 Felony charges (murder, manslaugher and aggrevated child abuse)? How could she be charged once the case was underway with another charge? I didn't think you could do that. Can you?

[Russ_Boston]

Originally Posted by JimJoe

2. I would have considered just charging her with the 4 counts of lying to the officers TO BEGIN WITH.. they would have had a trial run on her defense and maybe have even gotten to cross examine her on the stand.. There is no statute of limitations on murder. She may have made more statements if she was not charged initially with murder. They could then go after her with the Murder charge without the death penalty. Lying about a crime is not a lesser included offense of murder and would not bar later prosecution for murder.
JJ

Good point but don't 99.99% of all misdemeanor charges just get pleaded out? There would not have been any trial for just these. She would have just shut up and taken the penalty for these misdemeanors which is normally just probation and a fine or very very little jail time.

Am I wrong?

[chuckinca]

It takes 12 of 12 jurors to find the defendant guilty; it also takes 12 of 12 jurors to find the defendant not guilty. Clearly, all the jurors believed that the state didn't prove her guilty.


.

[Pturner]

Originally Posted by chuckinca

It takes 12 of 12 jurors to find the defendant guilty; it also takes 12 of 12 jurors to find the defendant not guilty. Clearly, all the jurors believed that the state didn't prove her guilty.


.

...and they took a lot of time reviewing and analyzing the evidence.

[jackz]

Originally Posted by Pturner

...and they took a lot of time reviewing and analyzing the evidence.

My take is that their mind was made up WITHOUT reviewing the evidence based on the amount of time they were out.

I recall being posted in The Netherlands when the OJ verdict came in and now being posted in Italy when the Casey verdict came in.

Both times the comments I hear from Non U.S. citizens in these countries is your jury system is BROKEN, I am afraid I have to agree.

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by jackz

My take is that their mind was made up WITHOUT reviewing the evidence based on the amount of time they were out.

I recall being posted in The Netherlands when the OJ verdict came in and now being posted in Italy when the Casey verdict came in.

Both times the comments I hear from Non U.S. citizens in these countries is your jury system is BROKEN, I am afraid I have to agree.

I think it is broken too.

I understand when Penn and Tweety and others say that the case had to be proven with hard facts but circumstantial cases have won before too.

[Russ_Boston]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

circumstantial cases have won before too.

yes but most of the time they could answer at least one of these things with hard scientific evidence:

HOW did the person die?
WHEN did the person die?
WHAT was the exact method used to kill?
evidence to point to EXACTLY who did it.

Looking back at this case I don't think either was convincingly proved.

Do I think she did it? Heck yes. I can only hope that the justice system works as well for me or someone I know if we are improperly accused.