<p>This should be good.</p>
<p>mom2collegekids–Perfect re-do of Peterson case. (post 1371)</p>
<p>The jury did what the jury was suppossed to do. That does not mean we have to agree with the decision. There no absolutes - there are alot of grey areas - which gives a person pause. That pause makes me think Casey is involved - whether intentional murder or accident. But no one will know for sure but Casey. </p>
<p>And how I feel about the case or how anyone else feels about the case should not be up for debate here. There’s been alot of - you are letting you’re emotions guide you. If you think for one minute the jury strictly followed the rules and did not let there emotions get involved - you are naive. The jurors that have spoken have all said they did not like George - why - they thought he was combatitive - argumentative. Well maybe that’s the way he acts when someone accuses him of child molestation. It’s ok for Casey to Party after the death of her child, but not OK for George to be a little upset at the questioning. If emotions weren’t involved - they would deliberated strictly on his testimony - but they did not.</p>
<p>It’s all about emotion. Baez entire opening statement was to get the Jury to “feel” for Casey. This poor child has been programmed to act this way because of years of sexual and mental abuse. Yet there was NO evidence provided to back this up.</p>
<p>The jury still got it right, but that does not mean emotion isn’t involved.</p>
<p>And finally, She was found “not guilty” - she was not found “innocent”.</p>
<p>If you strictly go by the notion that if you are not proven guilty, then you have to be innocent then what about all the people in jail today that did not commit a crime and were found guilty. Well they were proven guilty in a court of law, by a jury of their peers so they must be guilty. We all know that is not the case.</p>
<p>It isn’t yes or no or black or white or Not Guilty or Innocent - there are grey areas in life and there are grey areas in justice.</p>
<p>During the trial of Casey Anthony, the prosecution managed to establish what people already knew:</p>
<p>-The skeletal remains found were those of Caylee and there was duct tape sticking to<br>
her skull;
-Casey lied to the police about a number of things;
-Casey denied murdering her daughter;
-Casey was not a person of the highest character.</p>
<p>Some of those things are damning indictments if a woman applies for the Mother of the Year Award or is trying to be a role model to young women. I would hope that none of my daughters turns out to be like Casey Anthony.</p>
<p>However, having a bad character does not mean one is a murderer. If that were so, then Washington, D.C., would be the murder capital of the world. (Come to think of it, not long ago, D.C. WAS the murder capital of the world, and it is true that bad character abounds in that city. Nonetheless, my original point stands.)</p>
<p>Seizing on the duct tape, prosecutors then claimed that Casey smothered her child with it in order to get rid of her so that she could be a Big Party Animal. The problem was that they had no idea if the child were smothered with duct tape or not, none. They were engaging in conjecture, and any jury that takes its job seriously is not going to convict on the basis of a pretty loose conjecture.</p>
<p>Now, had Casey’s DNA been found on the duct tape, that might have demonstrated a connection to the prosecution’s narrative, but, alas, they found nothing of the sort. What they had was a little girl’s skeletal remains and a mother of less-than-savory character.</p>
<p>In the end, the jury did convict Casey Anthony of the obvious: she lied to the police. The crimes are misdemeanors, and the maximum she could get if the sentences for each of the four counts are run consecutively is four years, and she already has been jailed for three. Thus, whatever time she will spend in jail almost is over.</p>
<p>Picking up on poetgrl’s post 1373 and MommaJ’s post 1375…I do wonder about how Baez claimed sexual abuse of Casey by George in opening statements and then provided no evidence during the trial of said abuse, and then the judge would not allow Baez to mention abuse again in the closing arguments (due to lack of evidence presented)…but wouldn’t the judge order the jury to disregard the allegation of sexual abuse in the opening statement since nothing was presented at the trial about that? I don’t know how trials work but it would seem that such statements should be stricken from the record or else an attorney could make any wild claim in an opening statement that is never remotely backed up. As someone stated, a juror is talking about George’s abuse of Casey and that it played a factor. So, I assume the judge did not instruct the jury to take those statements out of the record? On the one hand he didn’t let the defense attorney mention such a claim in the closing arguments, but I would like to think it was then stricken from the record from the opening arguments for the same reason (no evidence presented during trial).</p>
<p>jsanche32, I think in terms of the legal progress, myself and others would agree with you that according to the system, this trial was pretty fair.</p>
<p>But I think there is a certain amount of outrage to be had at the system itself and how apparently easy it is for a clearly-guilty individual to slip through the system. Perhaps we should be mad at the prosecution for failing to leverage the system properly – I don’t know. </p>
<p>I just disagree that there wasn’t enough evidence to convict her. The circumstantial evidence is enough to suggest beyond reasonable doubt that she was involved. Even if we can’t punish her for murder, the system should be able to punish her for at least being an accessory to her death. It should be illegal to intentionally make an accident look like a murder, for instance – preventing that defense from being used. It should be illegal to fail to report a missing child past a certain amount of time.</p>
<p>*Based on the evidence presented at trial (which is all the jury is allowed to consider), how did Casey kill her daughter? *</p>
<p>HOW did Scott Peterson kill Laci???</p>
<p>and, he’s on death row.</p>
<p>The prosecution is NOT required to show how a person was killed. </p>
<p>After all, juries convict murderers when NO BODY has been found…where OBVIOUSLY no one can show evidence of how the person was killed.</p>
<p>I do not understand why some people think the jury has to KNOW how the person died in order to convict…that’s just not true.</p>
<p>Here’s a case where the jury convicted (no body found) and the defendant was claiming that the wife was STILL ALIVE!!!</p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reiser[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Reiser</a></p>
<p>soozievt… i dont think the judge has to say anything as he already says anything the lawyers say is not to be considered, only the evidence is to be considered.</p>
<p>mom2ck… if i’m understanding the jurors interviewed so far…it wasnt just CAUSE of death that was a problem… i think they were saying that they didnt have enough evidence to say if that cause was the result of drowning or of murder…ie if she had drowned they would consider it an accident, if it was the duct tape it was murder…but they felt they didnt have that answer…left them with 2 possibilities and as we know that to them meant murder wasnt proven… or at least that they saw another equal possibility…which was reasonable doubt</p>
<p>*Sorry if this has been brought up as I just watched the repeat of Dr. Drew’s interview with Jesse Grund, Caseys ex fiance. I found him to be 100% credible, and although he inferred (didn’t actually say) that Casey was guilty, he told horrific stories of Cindy Anthony (he was present during these verbal attacks) berating her and saying things to Casey that I couldn’t even imagine a mother saying to her child. Horrible and vile comments that made me cry for Casey! (and I think she did it.)</p>
<p>I’m sure the transcript of the interview is out there somewhere, but I am much too tired to look. This was coming from a guy who said he would never speak to the media for 3 years as he didn’t want to corrupt the process.</p>
<p>Not that her mother possibly being ***** from hell excuses her from killing or at least dumping her child in the woods, but it changes my mind about Cindy. *</p>
<p>I do think Cindy was a ***** from hell, but I think George and Casey were always pushing her to the edge with their irresponsible antics that SHE always had to “clean up” and pay for.</p>
<p>George secretly gambled away a good part of their savings, and had not been employed on a stable basis since they moved to Florida when Casey was a very young child. </p>
<p>Casey had stolen over 200 checks from her mom and had done many other bad things. </p>
<p>Cindy was the only one keeping the ship afloat in that household. While I don’t condone anyone saying vicious things to another, Jesse witnessed these things being said to “Casey the very irresponsible adult”…not Casey a child.</p>
<p>I respect Jesse Grund, but he knows that Casey brought a lot onto herself.</p>
<p>*mom2ck… if i’m understanding the jurors interviewed so far…it wasnt just CAUSE of death that was a problem… i think they were saying that they didnt have enough evidence to say if that cause was the result of drowning or of murder…ie if she had drowned they would consider it an accident, if it was the duct tape it was murder…but they felt they didnt have that answer…left them with 2 possibilities and as we know that to them meant murder wasnt proven… or at least that they saw another equal possibility…which was reasonable doubt *</p>
<p>Oh, I agree that each member of the jury thought…</p>
<p>“Hmmmm…Well, I guess it’s possible that Caylee drowned, Casey panicked, Casey stuffed her body in the trunk, Casey later put on the duct tape, bagged her, and threw her away.”</p>
<p>And, that’s why they couldn’t bring themselves to convict…but…that ignores Casey’s IMMEDIATE party behavior and getting that particular tattoo. And, it doesn’t explain why she didn’t at least respectably bury Caylee somewhere…instead of throwing her out like garbage. Casey had PLENTY of time to have taken the body to a deserted area, dig a hole and bury her. But, Caylee wasn’t worth the time or effort.</p>
<p>saw that interview too… i was surprised he said the things he did about Lee… who knows if casey was lying then too? she lied to him about being the father, until he had a paternity test and also just checked the calender lol</p>
<p>*but wouldn’t the judge order the jury to disregard the allegation of sexual abuse in the opening statement since nothing was presented at the trial about that? *</p>
<p>Yes…the jury is given some kind of instruction that they are only to consider what is said in sworn testimony and presented evidence…and what lawyers say is not evidence.</p>
<p>A jury of her peers. That about sums it up!</p>
<p>Thanks parent56 and mom2collegekids…for explaining that the jurors are instructed to only weigh evidence and not what lawyers say. But then why would the judge rule that Baez was not allowed to bring up sexual abuse of Casey by George in closing arguments? He said that no evidence in the trial was presented on that allegation. But if you go by your explanations that what lawyers state should not be considered, why then wouldn’t Baez be allowed to state whatever he wanted in closing arguments just like he did in the opening argument?</p>
<p>not really sure soozievt… i think it is because closing can only go over what was presented in trial…baez didnt introduce anything… otherwise in closing the attorney could just throw out some other theory without the other side having had a chance to present anything… cartera could probably answer this one accurately</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think the jury had to know that to find Casey guilty. It’s “guilty beyond reasonable doubt” not guilty without any doubt.</p>
<p>That is just ludicrous logic.</p>
<p>The Prosecutions case was based on her having suffocated her daughter.</p>
<p>The ME determined that they didn’t know how she died.</p>
<p>Connect the dots.</p>
<p>Good article by Alan Dershowitz (professor - Harvard Law) - WSJ July 7</p>
<p>[Alan</a> M. Dershowitz: Casey Anthony—The System Worked - WSJ.com](<a href=“http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303544604576429783247016492.html?mod=googlenews_wsj]Alan”>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303544604576429783247016492.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>thanks ignatius…good article!!</p>