<p>I am watching some of the trial now and the prosecutor is not likeable. He is being very snarky with a defense witness and needs to chill. Just listening to him makes me want to root against him. The defense attorney was having trouble asking his own witness questions that made sense. I hope I’m catching them both on a bad day. </p>
<p>Casey Anthony looks bored and is completely devoid of emotion.</p>
<p>Cartera–what channel is covering the trial?</p>
<p>^^^ Most of the time (lead atty) Linda Drane Burdick and Frank George have asked most the questions.</p>
<p>I think Jeff Ashton specialty is cross-examination…especially with scientific stuff. He’s actually doing a great job of showing how the defense’s smoke and mirrors tactics are just blowing smoke.</p>
<p>Jeff Ashton’s reputation is to be the pitt bull to go up against defense BS. If Casey is put on the stand, expect Ashton to be the one to cross-examine (tear her apart).</p>
<p>Watching this trial really shows that if you want to be involved with criminal prosecution or defense, you better understand science.</p>
<p>It was on HLN. </p>
<p>I don’t even know the name of the prosecutor I was watching. This is the first time I have watched. He was bullying the witness too much for my tastes and came across as an …hole. Juries don’t like bullies. He needs to be careful.</p>
<p>Edited to add - the coverage is still on BTW - a recap of the testimony today.</p>
<p>*To play Devil’s advocate – perhaps literally in this situation – what do people do when their irritating burden of a child dies accidentally? Her behavior is consistent with the possibility that she was wishing for Caylee’s death, but didn’t do anything to cause it beyond negligence. Maybe it was, in Casey’s eyes, a delightful surprise. *</p>
<p>I don’t agree with that. Even if Casey just thought that Caylee was a burden, the finding of a dead child (any child or person) is going to be a shocking experience - and even more so if the death was because of neglect or mistake (not watching child and she drowned). </p>
<p>My son found dead bodies after the Tornadoes and he didn’t go out partying over the next few days even tho he didn’t even know the victims - nor was he in any way responsible for their deaths…he was shell-shocked for weeks.</p>
<p>I have known people to have soon-to-be-ex-spouses die shortly before divorces were final (and the divorces were highly desired), but the people still go thru a shocking period for awhile…even if the new situation is very beneficial (especially financially) to them. </p>
<p>Even if Casey didn’t want the responsibility of Caylee, finding her accidentally dead is still going to cause shock.</p>
<p>This will sound terrible to some, I’m sure, but have you ever wished that instead of being convicted, someone like Casey Anthony would be acquitted but then killed by some vigilante, just to rid the world of her?</p>
<p>I know society couldn’t function if that’s how things worked, but I’m just saying, did you ever wish?</p>
<p>I think this case stirs up such powerful emotions in me (and many others, I’m sure) because I just wish I could save all the little, unwanted children and give them a loving home and lots of hugs. Someone who acts the way Casey Anthony has, regardless of whether she’s a murderer, is just not human.</p>
<p>Well, exactly how Caylee died is not the issued, but whether Casey purposefully did it with the intent to kill her is. And that is what cannot be proved. There are too many closely lined theories as to what happened With Scott Peterson, and I do not believe this should have been a capital case, there were really many reasonable possibilities. He was very clearly planning a future without his wife which made for a strong motive. With Casey, no can loudly and clearly proclaim that she wanted to be rid of that child. She wanted to stash her away at times, yes, but never did she talk about getting rid of her.</p>
<p>Maybe Cindy did insist that Casey keep the child. Clearly she was wrong, but sometimes in cases like this a child is the stimulus to make someone grow up. I have seen it happen many times. I would not take that chance because the down side risk is so catastrophic, but I can see where some would pin ones hopes that a baby is the catalyst for a change.</p>
<p>Mantori, I don’t feel this way about Casey Anthony, or for most cases. However, I am not for getting rid of the death penalty because there are some horrid people out there that really are a danger to all, even in prisons. That is when I think it should be used. For heinous crimes where it is a sure thing. For Scott Peterson, Casey Anthony, there is some doubt. Not much but some, particularly for Casey. I believe both should spend their lives in prison. They need the restrictions and structure of prison as they are not capable of living by our society’s rules.</p>
<p>*Well, exactly how Caylee died is not the issued, but whether Casey purposefully did it with the intent to kill her is. *</p>
<p>She doesn’t have to have purposely done it. Felony murder does NOT require pre-med. When you commit a felony (and don’t intend to kill), but the person dies…it is Felony Murder. </p>
<p>So, if you chloroform/drug your child so you can party, and the child dies, that is Felony murder since that is felony child abuse. </p>
<p>Maybe Cindy did insist that Casey keep the child.</p>
<p>I never believed that claim…and even if Cindy told her that she thought Casey should keep the baby, Casey was over 18 and could not be forced to keep the baby. When in the hospital she could have easily told a nurse that she wanted to give the baby away.</p>
<p>And…Cindy found out about the pregnancy quite late…it was sooooo late that Cindy immediately suggested planning a shower. And, Cindy immediately took her shopping for maternity clothes. I firmly believe that Casey liked all the hoopla that went on with her pregnancy and had no intention of giving Caylee up. When you look at the hospital pics of when Caylee was born…Casey is beaming. She sure doesn’t look like an unhappy new mom.</p>
<p>*For Scott Peterson, … there is some doubt. *</p>
<p>??? What doubt??? It’s been nearly 9 years since Laci was killed. There has never been any other evidence that anyone else had anything to do with her murder. Two or three of the cement anchors that he had JUST made were “missing”…who the heck loses large heavy anchors???</p>
<p>Before Laci’s body was found, her sister told police what Laci was wearing on the night of Dec 23 (the night before she went missing). When her torso was found, remnants of those clothes were on her body. Laci was a well-groomed gal…she wouldn’t be wearing the same exact outfit the next day.</p>
<p>And…she wasn’t found wearing the outfit that Scott claimed that she was wearing on Christmas Eve day.</p>
<p>Does everyone who wants to be rid of someone talk about that desire to the people around them? I can’t imagine that Casey would share those thoughts with anyone. Again, the internet searches are, to me, very incriminating. If anyone looked at my internet history right now they would see sites about bed bugs, pest control, local obituaries and the weather. One could figure out that A. I have bed bugs. B. I need an exterminator. C. I know someone who lost a loved one and D. I want to know if I need a raincoat tomorrow.</p>
<p>What I don’t have is a history of sites about chloroform, chest trauma and neck breaking.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe “some doubt” simply means that without an eyewitness or physical evidence tying the accused inexorably to the crime, one can never be absolutely, positively, 100% sure who did it. There’s always a remote possibility that things are not as they seem. (That’s why the legal standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt” and not “beyond all doubt”.)</p>
<p>^^^^
Exactly. As I understand it, it isn’t the responsibility of the prosecution to eliminate every single remote possibility that things are not as they appear. It is very important that the jury understand the difference between reasonable doubt and all doubt. Any juror who is uncomfortable with recommending the death penalty when there is very, very a remote possibility that the person is innocent shouldn’t be sitting on a capitol case.</p>
<p>The Casey Anthony trial is now another Orlando tourist attraction :o. Adults are leaving the kids at Disney while they spend a day at the trial. A mother in line for a “ticket” in said “this was a way better attraction.”. Others are coming to town just for a day or two at the trial. They are also visiting the Anthony home address and the location of where the remains were found. This is nuts. </p>
<p>After a fistfight at 4am over two men cutting in line, and complaints of having to park and walk and camp out in line in a not so safe part if town, they have changed the admission system. Now they take names/ID’s at 4 pm for the next day. Cuts down on the same folks day after day as you can’t be in court and waiting for a place for the next day at the same time. </p>
<p>Too bad they can’t charge admission as a way to recoup the enormous costs of putting on this trial.</p>
<p>*Any juror who is uncomfortable with recommending the death penalty when there is very, very a remote possibility that the person is innocent shouldn’t be sitting on a capitol case. *</p>
<p>Well, anyone who is looking for 100% certainty in cases where the crime wasn’t caught on video tape shouldn’t be on any jury.</p>
<p>I really highly doubt that she will get the DP.</p>
<p>The prosecution only asked for the DP so it would have a DP qualified jury. After the OJ case, prosecutors have learned to go for the DP (even if you don’t expect to get it) because of the kind of jury you get with a DP qualified jury. DP qualified juries are less likely to think that police are so corrupt that they have planted evidence against the defendant and are more likely to trust FBI experts and such.</p>
<p>That is not the criteria for jury selection. As long as you are not against the death penalty under any circumstances, you are eligible for jury on a capital case. At least, here in NY, that is the case. I have been in jury pools and never been bumped for my death penalty views</p>
<p>It is sometimes to the detriment of the prosecuter to seek the DP, since if there is enough doubt there, jurists will often move down the verdict so that no death penalty can be given during sentencing. You might be fairly sure about something and the accused may be guilty of involvement in something beyond reasonable doubt but a jurist may feel that the DP is too severe of a sentence for the specific situation. Happens all of the time. That’s why it is not wise for prosecutors to overreach.</p>
<p>In the state of Illinois prosecutors will go for the death penalty so that the state pays for the trial. We just had it happen here. The judge ended up sentencing the defendent to life without parole. That’s over in Illinois though; the death penalty is banned as of July 1.</p>
<p>*It is sometimes to the detriment of the prosecuter to seek the DP, since if there is enough doubt there, jurists will often move down the verdict so that no death penalty can be given during sentencing. *</p>
<p>If there is that much doubt there, the jury shouldn’t be convicting on any counts, much less give LWOP.</p>
<p>That is not the criteria for jury selection.</p>
<p>What are you referring to?</p>
<p>*Too bad they can’t charge admission as a way to recoup the enormous costs of putting on this trial. *</p>
<p>LOL…that would be small potatoes compared to the TV coverage…wonder if they’re making any money from that? But, they are making money from the additional tax dollars paid to the state by all the people going there.</p>
<p>Gosh…I’m starting to suspect that if Casey gets convicted, it will be over-turned because Jose Baez isn’t competant.</p>
<p>When he got this case, he had only been an atty for 3 years. It’s not like he’s been doing any similar/serious cases since then…so he’s essentially not more than a 3 year atty now. He’s not DP qualified (which is why the old guy is sitting in First Chair).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree. The jury could conclude that Casey Anthony definitely killed Caylee but that it wasn’t proven that she did so intentionally. That would warrant a conviction on a lesser charge that doesn’t invoke the death penalty.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Definitely!</p>
<p>Some of the defense’s witnesses have been PATHETIC…too old, nearly senile, didn’t know Caylee’s name! or…too young and inexperienced.</p>
<p>The prosecution has made mincemeat out of some of them.</p>
<p>I loved the prosecution’s reaction when that older lady suggested a dog buried the bone that deeply.</p>