Casey Anthony?

Parent Cafe
1901

<p>

Unless things have changed radically since my active days as a trial lawyer, that is very far off the mark. I had lawyers, nurses, engineers, teachers, etc. on juries. I once even had a probation officer on a jury where I was representing the defendant in a criminal case – my client felt comfortable with him and asked me to keep him on, despite his law enforcement ties. The jury in that case hung 6/6, with the probation officer voting for acquittal. </p>

<p>There is some general lore among lawyers about what sort of professions make good “defense” jurors and which are better “prosecution” jurors, but that is not related to level of education. In general, people with artsy careers are seen to make better defense jurors (more creative & imaginative), whereas people whose jobs are more rule or number oriented (for example, accountants) are seen as better prosecution jurors. But that is a broad generalization, and obviously attorneys know the type of questions to ask on voir dire to help get a better sense of the individuals.</p>

<p>I don’t know about Florida, but in most states juror pools are drawn largely from voter registration rolls, so it tends to pull in more stable and somewhat better educated people than simply a random sample of the general population. In order to ensure a cross-section of the community, the courts are supposed to look at other sources as well, such as DMV records – but practically speaking, they usually are only going to reach individuals who have a stable address. People who move around a lot simply never receive the jury summons in the first place.</p>

<p>I have never seen a juror excluded based simply on level of education – certainly I wouldn’t have done that, and I never saw my co-counsel or opposing counsel do that. We wanted smart jurors. The kind of jurors who would look at evidence critically, and could understand concepts such as the presumption of innocence, burden of proof, and reasonable doubt. The last thing that any lawyer wants is jurors who are going to simply go with their gut feelings because the testimony is too complicated for them to understand.</p>

1902

<p>

</p>

<p>They might not have, but apparently elsewhere the threats are real…</p>

<p>[‘Casey</a> Anthony lookalike’ rammed off road](<a href=“http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8273554/casey-anthony-lookalike-rammed-off-road]'Casey”>http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8273554/casey-anthony-lookalike-rammed-off-road)</p>

1903

<p>

</p>

<p>Florida jurors are drawn from DMV records. It used to be from registered voters but it was changed (not for the better, in my opinion).</p>

<p>One of the bodyguards that was at the Anthony home after Casey was released from jail back in 2008 said in an interview that he’s convinced that Casey harmed Caylee after the huge blowup fight that she had with Cindy the day before Caylee died. He believes that Casey did it primarily to hurt/punish Cindy. He said that he thinks the reason Cindy perjured herself with the chlorophyll/chloroform Google search testimony because she felt somewhat responsible for Caylee’s death because of that argument. I find the theory sort of plausible.</p>

1904

<p>George was a retired cop-</p>

<p>George wasn’t a retired cop…he was a former cop.</p>

<p>He may have only had the “police issued” one that had to be returned when he left the force.</p>

1905

<p>However, before Caylee’s death, Casey was clearly freeloading off her parents (by lying about having a job and a nanny) and taking advantage of those who cared about her (by stealing from her friend and family). She has wiped out any loyalty family and friends ever felt for her by claiming she was sexually abused by her male relatives and lying to everyone about what happened to Caylee, etc…</p>

<p>Exactly. I really felt for her parents considering that they really believed the Zany story. Imagine sitting thru those court days and having to watch those videos now knowing that every word out of Casey’s mouth was a bald-faced lie.</p>

<p>And to also know that every time they were having money troubles (which they were), those problems would have been lessened if Casey had really been working and providing for herself and Caylee. Instead, she had told them lie after lie as to why her “paycheck” wasn’t enough to pay for everything. </p>

<p>Casey had even said that her “nanny” cost her $400 a WEEK! That was to “explain” why she still needed so much financial help from C&G. Ugh!!!</p>

<p>*My question is whose generosity is Casey going to live on now? If her lawyers are not going to bankroll the start of her new life, who is? From the New York Times article, her best bet is probably a book deal, but I am guessing most Americans will boycott her book and boycott a company that offers her a book deal. And why would a publishing company (and readers) believe Casey will provide the truth for a book, given her extensive history of lying? *</p>

<p>Well, Baez may not want to bankroll her, but he is going to want to keep her mouth controlled a bit. </p>

<p>And…I agree…publishers are going to worry that Americans will boycott any book by Casey. And…who’d believe anything in the book anyway.</p>

<p>George and Cindy are the ones who should write a book exposing each and every lie and stealing that she did from them and Cindy’s parents.</p>

<p>*I think a tricky thing in this case is that it was nearly impossible to get the parents and brother to testify against Casey. *</p>

<p>I don’t agree. Cindy perjured to get rid of the pre-med (DP). She wouldn’t perjure herself now.</p>

1906

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t understand your point. I was saying that the parents or brother were not apt to testify AGAINST Casey. The fact that Cindy even perjured herself about the computer searches was to HELP Casey. So, what I believe is that in the trial, the prosecution could not get help from the immediate family members as they had just cause to want to protect Casey, a loved one, especially from the death penalty.</p>

<p>I’m not understanding how you say you don’t agree when what you wrote is what I was trying to say as well. :confused:</p>

1907

<p>

Well, there’s the problem, isn’t it? An accident isn’t “murder.” You need proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this person killed that person intentionally - or at least in the course of some other criminal conduct such as a robbery or carjacking to convict them of murder. </p>

<p>What’s surprising to me is that so many people try to deduce what “must have happened” by applying logic and reason to explain the conduct of Casey and her father. Casey is obviously seriously mentally/emotionally damaged. The imaginary friends and associates, taking the police to her “workplace” of her fictitious job - those are not the actions of a rational person. And George attempted suicide - ditto. Clearly Casey and George both acted in illogical and irrational ways on numerous occasions. Assuming that you can deduce what must have happened by assuming they wouldn’t do something because it doesn’t make sense is foolish - they did lots of stuff that didn’t make sense. </p>

<p>

Yes, in California, in any case, you are mistaken. The juries I’ve reviewed generally had a plurality or majority of college graduates, with lots of teachers, and retired business people, supervisors, etc. Even a former prosecuting attorney and a judge. (Yes - it happens.)</p>

<p>I guess what really bugs me is this: This is one case, where one little girl died, either criminally or as a result of an accident. And people are up in arms - outraged - threatening the jury and demanding “reforms” of our legal system.</p>

<p>But over a hundred men have been released from death row over the past 20 years after having been locked up for decades in some cases - in many cases due to irrefutable evidence that they were innocent of the crime they were convicted of and sentenced to death - and nobody gives a rat’s ass. [The</a> Innocence Project - News and Information: Innocence Blog](<a href=“http://www.innocenceproject.org/news/Blog.php]The”>http://www.innocenceproject.org/news/Blog.php) Is Nancy Grace frothing at the mouth over this possible miscarriage of justice where a Mom was convicted of murdering her 3 year old based on scientific evidence - when the prosecution withheld evidence which may have exonerated her? [Appeals</a> court to hear arguments for new trial - chicagotribune.com](<a href=“Chicago News - Chicago Tribune - Chicago Tribune”>http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-in-arsondeath-appeal,0,2489439.story) Does anyone even care?</p>

<p>It sometimes seems to me that some Americans would rather see 100 innocent people be imprisoned or executed than that one or two guilty ones go free.</p>

1908

<p>

</p>

<p>“Plausible” is not the same as “beyond a reasonable doubt.” And the fact that someone is “convinced” of a surmised explanation – even if he’s right – is not evidence.</p>

1909

<p>^^And that is why the jury didn’t find Casey guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and why there are still many plausible reasons to believe she was truly involved in the child’s death and why the case frustrates many. They can understand the legal process but still be disillusioned that someone who seems to have done something wrong, cannot be convicted. Even some jurors have stated that they think Casey was involved but were unable to find the proof needed beyond a reasonable doubt in order for her to be found guilty in a court of law.</p>

1910

<p>I just came across an article that says one of Casey’s attorney’s says that Casey is contemplating a possible legal career! :eek:</p>

<p>To clarify…I don’t mean a career that is legal as opposed to illegal, LOL, but a career in the criminal justice system. :)</p>

1911

<p>Oh, don’t get me wrong, I think Casey was somehow involved, or knew something she’s never told. But bottom line, the prosecution didn’t do its job, and in that case, the jury had no choice but to acquit.</p>

1912

<p>I’m not ready to accuse the prosecution for not doing its job. I think they presented all the evidence they could, but that was not enough to convict her beyond a reasonable doubt. They had to work with what they had, which made it a tougher case. However, perhaps they could not have tried her for capital murder and maybe (no way to know this for sure), the outcome may have been different.</p>

1913

<p>Well, let me clarify. I’m sure they did the best with what they had. It’s just that they didn’t have enough to support the charge they made. They may have gotten a conviction if they hadn’t overreached.</p>

1914

<p>LasMa, we seem to agree. :)</p>

1915

<p>*Quote:
I think a tricky thing in this case is that it was nearly impossible to get the parents and brother to testify against Casey.</p>

<p>========================</p>

<p>I don’t agree. Cindy perjured to get rid of the pre-med (DP). She wouldn’t perjure herself now.</p>

<p>====================================
I don’t understand your point. I was saying that the parents or brother were not apt to testify AGAINST Casey. The fact that Cindy even perjured herself about the computer searches was to HELP Casey.*</p>

<p>My feeling was that the Ants didn’t mind testifying against Casey to a point. They didn’t mind if she were found guilty of causing Caylee’s death…but, they would stop helping (and lie) to keep her from the DP (hence Cindy’s role).</p>

<p>My feeling was that they didn’t want her to be acquitted or even found guilty of some small thing and get only a few years…because they didn’t want her back in their lives as a burden. I think they wanted her IN JAIL…but not with the DP. </p>

<p>I think once they were told that “Caylee drowned” (which they don’t seem to believe) and they know Geo wasn’t involved, that they can’t help but feel that Casey did DO something. And, they do know that Cindy yelled at Casey the night before (for stealing from the grandparents)…so their personal feelings are going to be conflicted. They feel some guilty (because the argument may have led to something evil), they feel that Casey deserves some punishment, but they didn’t want the DP.</p>

1916

<p>But the bottom line is that the testimony from the parents wasn’t that reliable due to conflicting feelings because after all, their own daughter’s life now was on the line in the trial, and yet their grandchild was dead, possibly due to this same daughter. So, of all the witnesses, and they were the closest to Casey, it was difficult and who knows who is telling the truth due to various motivations. Casey we know was lying. I just think it was hard to get at the real story and the truth in this case. Nobody still knows exactly what happened (other than Casey who I believe DOES know).</p>

<p>I also think the testimony of the parents was affected by Casey’s allegations (via Baez) in the opening that George molested her and was the one who covered up the toddler’s death. Because if those allegations are not true (and no evidence was presented to back it up…judge also declared), that was a mighty pill to swallow going forward with the trial for her family on top of everything else that has gone down for them in the past few years since Caylee went missing that has to be heartwrenching.</p>

<p>I can’t imagine being in Cindy and George’s shoes because here is a situation where their own daughter may have done something horrific and where their grandchild died very possibly due to their daughter’s wrongdoing in some capacity, and yet, this is their daughter whom they love. And now the daughter won’t talk to them and appears to have thrown the dad under the bus in the trial as well.</p>

1917

<p>*But the bottom line is that the testimony from the parents wasn’t that reliable due to conflicting feelings *</p>

<p>I agree that some of their testimony wasn’t reliable but I think some of that was because it was hard to reconcile their earlier testimony (when they felt that Casey was 100% innocent and not a big fat liar about the situation)…with years later when they realized that she was involved.</p>

<p>When the Ants were first depo’d over 2 years ago, they were “on the attack” and they were rude to the prosecutors. They didn’t believe it when the prosecutors told them that Casey didn’t have a job, they didn’t believe that the partying pics were taken in late June/early July, they didn’t believe it when they were told that there wasn’t a Zany. So, their answers and their actions were sometimes ridiculous…simply because they believed Casey. </p>

<p>I know that some think Geo was involved because he smelled the “dead body smell” but didn’t call the police. He believed that Casey and Caylee were fine, so he “set aside” a big red flag. Now, some will say that people just don’t do that. Well, yes, they do. I know a teacher who painfully admits that he ignored a red flag that one of his students was being physically abused at home. But, since he knew the parents, and didn’t think they’d be the type to abuse, he concurred that the red flag was because of something innocent. Later, when the abuse came out, he felt terrible for not reporting what he had noticed. Yes, he was obligated to report any suspicions, but he didn’t have “suspicions” that the child was being abused. His mind hadn’t gone to that “next level” after seeing the red flag. Now, if not reporting the red flag means that HE was the abuser or that HE was part of the cover-up, then that is just silly. He was wrong not to not let his mind go to that “next level” and suspect abuse, but he wasn’t the criminal. He just used poor judgment because he allowed his opinions of the parents cloud his thinking.</p>

<p>Geo and Cindy really had no reason to suspect that Casey would hurt Caylee. 99.99% of us would never suspect our own kids of hurting our grandkids. </p>

<p>And…yes…people who have never hurt children before, will sometimes kill their kids. Susan Smith was a “model mom” before she drowned her 2 boys. Her H said that he never would have suspected that Susan would have done that. Ever. she had been a devoted mom. </p>

<p>And…behind Cindy’s back, Geo did later go to the police and tell them of his concerns about the death smell. He had to do this because Cindy was so crazily insisting that Caylee was alive and would not allow any talk that dealt with the possibility of her being dead. Cindy wouldn’t even allow any of “their” searchers to look in fields or lakes or places where a dead body would be found. It wasn’t because Cindy was “in on it”…it was because she believed Casey.</p>

1918

<p>She’s free.</p>

1919

<p>Wonder where she’s heading.</p>

1920

<p>Well, the bars are still open, any Hot Body contests going on?</p>