SageAgainstTheMachine Posted July 8, 2011 Posted July 8, 2011 There the tragedy will always stay, in the house. The greatest tragedy is that while the system worked this time and perhaps let a guilty person go free there has been too many times where the innocent have been incarcerated. To all: Does it matter more if one guilty person is found innocent or one innocent person is found guilty? On principle, it's absolutely worse to incarcerate an innocent person. That's the ideal of the US legal system in a nutshell.
DC Tom Posted July 8, 2011 Posted July 8, 2011 On principle, it's absolutely worse to incarcerate an innocent person. That's the ideal of the US legal system in a nutshell. Most people who claim to support justice in turn hate the US legal system, unfortunately. Mostly because they think "moral outrage" is "justice". The image that just popped in my head is her being shoved out of windowless van on a street corner. Anyone else think the same thing? I was thinking more along the lines Die Hard With a Vengeance, when John McClane is dropped off in Harlem with an "I hate !@#$s" poster board. Miami, and "I hate spics!" works just as well... I just saw the local sheriff's presser and he was pleading with the public to not resort to violence because of this verdict. "Please, under no circumstances resort to violence...be extra-vigilant and peaceful around 2pm tomorrow afternoon, which is when we're releasing her... "
billsfan89 Posted July 8, 2011 Posted July 8, 2011 Think about it. Is this really the best legal system out there? People overseas I bet will tell ya different. I do fault the jury. One had a DWI, one didn't even finish HS. One said she had a hard time judging people. The Defense won this case at jury selection. They got some really dumbass people it seems. I do think that jury selection is a big problem in the USA. I think a system of professional jurors (A pool of people paid to be on juries) would work better than choosing people stupid enough not to get out of jury duty or being selected to a jury. Although a system of professional jurors has its flaws I think you would see better verdicts on cases.
Bufcomments Posted July 8, 2011 Posted July 8, 2011 I did not expect here to be found guilty. The standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and there just wasn't enough evidence as to how the child died, and the da's case painted her not only as rotten human being but was so over the top as to lead one to reasonably conclude she had some psychotic break after the child died, and there was no proof showing how she died or that the mother did it. That doesn't mean she didn't do it, just that there wasn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she did. Your last sentence said it all. But my problem is it seems the public had more info about the case than the jury did. I find that troublesome. I do think that jury selection is a big problem in the USA. I think a system of professional jurors (A pool of people paid to be on juries) would work better than choosing people stupid enough not to get out of jury duty or being selected to a jury. Although a system of professional jurors has its flaws I think you would see better verdicts on cases. That is a great idea, having paid jurors. It would also bring in more educated people and it make the lawyer really earn that big money that recieve. Work at a lawyers office for a year and let me tell ya they get money.
DrDawkinstein Posted July 8, 2011 Posted July 8, 2011 (edited) Your last sentence said it all. But my problem is it seems the public had more info about the case than the jury did. I find that troublesome. The public didnt have more info. They had more opinions drilled into them over and over. They had the story dramatized to the fullest and shoved down their throats until they laid on the couch and pictured being that little girl and seeing her mommy killing her. And they were convinced the verdict was easy. Not so much when youre actually in the courtroom, sequestered and cutoff. And that's how the jury should be. If there was evidence discussed in the news that wasnt submitted in the trial, then it wasnt submitted for a reason. Edited July 8, 2011 by DrDareustein
NoSaint Posted July 8, 2011 Posted July 8, 2011 (edited) Your last sentence said it all. But my problem is it seems the public had more info about the case than the jury did. I find that troublesome. should a reporter ever decide to share questionable information while you are on trial you might find it less troublesome. just as troublesome is how low the standards of reporting are. the nancy graces of this trial are a joke that some people dont seem to get. that said, i think she did it but you cant write law to perfectly fit every set of evidence, every overzealous prosecuter, every loophole. all you can do is decide whether you want to err on the side of convictions or releases, and i prefer releases in spite of days like this. Edited July 8, 2011 by NoSaint
Buftex Posted July 8, 2011 Posted July 8, 2011 On principle, it's absolutely worse to incarcerate an innocent person. That's the ideal of the US legal system in a nutshell. First, like many, I think the jury in this case did their job, and the case made by the state was not strong enough to sentence this woman to death. I have very little doubt that she was involved, somehow, in her daughters death. And, I agree, taking the chance of sentencing someone to life in prison, or death, when there is the chance that they might be innocent, no matter how small that chance, is vital. But, I keep hearing this rote response that "better to let one guilty person go, than sentence an innocent person". That would be great, if it meant that letting this one person, possibly slide, does nothing to ensure that an innocent person will not be found guilty...I just think it is a silly response. One case has nothing to do with another. The public didnt have more info. They had more opinions drilled into them over and over. They had the story dramatized to the fullest and shoved down their throats until they laid on the couch and pictured being that little girl and seeing her mommy killing her. And they were convinced the verdict was easy. Not so much when youre actually in the courtroom, sequestered and cutoff. And that's how the jury should be. If there was evidence discussed in the news that wasnt submitted in the trial, then it wasnt submitted for a reason. And that is one of the fugged up things about this case. One of the jurors admits, he couldn't get the idea of George Anthony sexually abusing his daughter, out of his head. The defense laid out this theory, and did not have one shred of evidence to back it up, not even circumstantial evidence, other than the word of their client, who they are admitting, is truth challenged. But it tainted GA's testimony...I know, it is up to the state to make their case for guilt, but the defense, IMO, was not held to any level of responsibility.
bbb Posted July 8, 2011 Posted July 8, 2011 I do think that jury selection is a big problem in the USA. I think a system of professional jurors (A pool of people paid to be on juries) would work better than choosing people stupid enough not to get out of jury duty or being selected to a jury. Although a system of professional jurors has its flaws I think you would see better verdicts on cases. This is what I've been saying for awhile. Makes perfect sense.
Ramius Posted July 8, 2011 Posted July 8, 2011 I was thinking more along the lines Die Hard With a Vengeance, when John McClane is dropped off in Harlem with an "I hate !@#$s" poster board. Miami, and "I hate spics!" works just as well... The sign in Miami idea wouldn't work because no one could read it.
Albany,n.y. Posted July 8, 2011 Posted July 8, 2011 I do think that jury selection is a big problem in the USA. I think a system of professional jurors (A pool of people paid to be on juries) would work better than choosing people stupid enough not to get out of jury duty or being selected to a jury. Although a system of professional jurors has its flaws I think you would see better verdicts on cases. How about hiring professionals as prosecutors? Competent prosecutors would have known better than to charge murder 1 with the possibility of the death penalty in a case where they had no clue how the child died. Who knows what happened? One thing is for sure, the prosecutors would have had a much better chance of convicting her of being negligent in the child's death if they didn't shoot for the moon & try to kill her because of media pressure.
Nervous Guy Posted July 8, 2011 Posted July 8, 2011 I do think that jury selection is a big problem in the USA. I think a system of professional jurors (A pool of people paid to be on juries) would work better than choosing people stupid enough not to get out of jury duty or being selected to a jury. perhaps they weren't stupid enough...I was watching Nightly News last night and saw a sign carried by one of the protestors "The jury is gulity of muder"
Donald Duck Posted July 8, 2011 Posted July 8, 2011 First, like many, I think the jury in this case did their job, and the case made by the state was not strong enough to sentence this woman to death. I have very little doubt that she was involved, somehow, in her daughters death. And, I agree, taking the chance of sentencing someone to life in prison, or death, when there is the chance that they might be innocent, no matter how small that chance, is vital. But, I keep hearing this rote response that "better to let one guilty person go, than sentence an innocent person". That would be great, if it meant that letting this one person, possibly slide, does nothing to ensure that an innocent person will not be found guilty...I just think it is a silly response. One case has nothing to do with another. And that is one of the fugged up things about this case. One of the jurors admits, he couldn't get the idea of George Anthony sexually abusing his daughter, out of his head. The defense laid out this theory, and did not have one shred of evidence to back it up, not even circumstantial evidence, other than the word of their client, who they are admitting, is truth challenged. But it tainted GA's testimony...I know, it is up to the state to make their case for guilt, but the defense, IMO, was not held to any level of responsibility. George Anthony lying on the stand about the Holloway affair tainted his testimony and GA deliberately throwing his daughter under the bus on numerous occasions soured the jurors towards him in my opinion. I've got to tell you though, judging from the family's reaction(George and Cindy) I'm not so sure this wasn't all staged in an effort to save Casey. In order for Casey to be found not guilty, somebody else had to bite the bullet and appear at least partly responsible in part to what happened to little Caylee. The whole family with the exception of Lee seems very capable of giving false statements under oath. Even Georges breakdown on the stand when he starts crying/sobbing was for the most part tearless and did not ring true. What If Caylee was molested by George Anthony? Hiding the body would make more sense then wouldn't it.(I'm just saying) perhaps they weren't stupid enough...I was watching Nightly News last night and saw a sign carried by one of the protestors "The jury is gulity of muder" We can thank the media/ Nancy Grace for this type of BS Nervous Guy
Arkady Renko Posted July 9, 2011 Posted July 9, 2011 How about hiring professionals as prosecutors? Competent prosecutors would have known better than to charge murder 1 with the possibility of the death penalty in a case where they had no clue how the child died. Who knows what happened? One thing is for sure, the prosecutors would have had a much better chance of convicting her of being negligent in the child's death if they didn't shoot for the moon & try to kill her because of media pressure. People are convicted of murder often when the body isn't even found. It is silly to think that they needed to prove the exact method in which she was murdered. should a reporter ever decide to share questionable information while you are on trial you might find it less troublesome. just as troublesome is how low the standards of reporting are. the nancy graces of this trial are a joke that some people dont seem to get. that said, i think she did it but you cant write law to perfectly fit every set of evidence, every overzealous prosecuter, every loophole. all you can do is decide whether you want to err on the side of convictions or releases, and i prefer releases in spite of days like this. No need to change the law. You just need jurors who know how to look at evidence logically.
Terry Tate Posted July 9, 2011 Posted July 9, 2011 No need to change the law. You just need jurors who know how to look at evidence logically. Shh, you're going to interrupt the people who are patting the backs of the jury as logical and reasonable examples of doing the right thing. After 46 days of listening to evidence and testimony in a First Degree Murder trial, they didn't ask a single question of the judge, didn't want to review any evidence or testimony, and spent a whole 11 hours "deliberating". They then found her not guilty and are now complaining about how hard it was. "Reasonable", my butt.
bbb Posted July 9, 2011 Posted July 9, 2011 I agree with the last two posters. A lawyer friend of mine said there more than enough to convict, but now jurors have watched too much CSI stuff and want to see something like a DNA smoking gun or something.
Donald Duck Posted July 9, 2011 Posted July 9, 2011 (edited) People are convicted of murder often when the body isn't even found. It is silly to think that they needed to prove the exact method in which she was murdered. No need to change the law. You just need jurors who know how to look at evidence logically. Shh, you're going to interrupt the people who are patting the backs of the jury as logical and reasonable examples of doing the right thing. After 46 days of listening to evidence and testimony in a First Degree Murder trial, they didn't ask a single question of the judge, didn't want to review any evidence or testimony, and spent a whole 11 hours "deliberating". They then found her not guilty and are now complaining about how hard it was. "Reasonable", my butt. I agree with the last two posters. A lawyer friend of mine said there more than enough to convict, but now jurors have watched too much CSI stuff and want to see something like a DNA smoking gun or something. Lets hear the evidence The duct tape that was traced back to George Anthony? Or the single marker found on the duct tape that didn't match Casey or the victim? Or the heart shape on the duct tape that magically disappears? Or all the coffin flies that should have been in the trunk ,but weren't? Or the stain of decomposition in the trunk you couldn't see or test positive for? We have a compromised crime scene that couldn't be relied upon. Bogus testimony from kronk the person that found Caylee's remains.(skulls originally out of the bag in August,then its in the bag in December, oops that doesn't work, its back out of the bag) We have George and Cindy Anthony who both lied on the stand. We have George faking a suicide, his reasoning, so he can go see Caylee in heaven. Well thats not going to happen now is it. The list goes on and on, there was no evidence, no cause of death and anybody that watched 100% of this trial knows it. Edited July 9, 2011 by Fig Newton
Sig1Hunter Posted July 9, 2011 Posted July 9, 2011 Fig, I watched about the entire trial...sad to admit, but it held my attention. I came to a much different conclusion regarding the evidence than you did. To me, it was overwhelming circumstantial evidence, and through common sense the dots were easily connected. It seems to me that the jurors, and some observers, left their common sense at the door when it came to examining the evidence in this case. The duct tape is from their house The car was driven by the defendant The car was stashed in a parking lot (backed in) after supposedly running out of gas. Trash bag from boyfriends apartment in trunk, when dumpster right next to car in the parking lot where it was stashed. Car smelled of human decomp, a fact testified to by about a dozen people and confirmed by scientific methods. A mother who makes up story after story of missing child. A mother who doesn't care that her only child is known to her to be dead and lives the party life, all the while rebuffing law enforcement attempts at helping her. Duct tape placed on the mouth of the body. 1+1=2 quite easily here.
Donald Duck Posted July 9, 2011 Posted July 9, 2011 (edited) Fig, I watched about the entire trial...sad to admit, but it held my attention. I came to a much different conclusion regarding the evidence than you did. To me, it was overwhelming circumstantial evidence, and through common sense the dots were easily connected. It seems to me that the jurors, and some observers, left their common sense at the door when it came to examining the evidence in this case. The duct tape is from their house The car was driven by the defendant The car was stashed in a parking lot (backed in) after supposedly running out of gas. Trash bag from boyfriends apartment in trunk, when dumpster right next to car in the parking lot where it was stashed. Car smelled of human decomp, a fact testified to by about a dozen people and confirmed by scientific methods. A mother who makes up story after story of missing child. A mother who doesn't care that her only child is known to her to be dead and lives the party life, all the while rebuffing law enforcement attempts at helping her. Duct tape placed on the mouth of the body. 1+1=2 quite easily here. With all due respect Sig1 Duct tape proves absolutely nothing here and was actually traced back to George, not Casey. The car proves nothing because there was no evidence in it. Dozens of people also testified that they didn't smell anything. No DNA on duct tape, tape wasn't stuck to the mouth, and the crime scene was thoroughly compromised by Kronk. Let me ask you something Sig, lets say the duct tape was originally stuck to flesh, the flesh completely decomposes and is gone along with the sticky side of the duct tape, so how does it then get stuck to the skull? Decomposition was not proven by scientific methods... Edited July 9, 2011 by Fig Newton
Sig1Hunter Posted July 9, 2011 Posted July 9, 2011 Tape wasn't stuck to the mouth? Again, I defer back to my common sense. The tape wasn't stuck to the mouth because there wasn't any skin left for it to stick to. And, it certainly was stuck to the mouth at one point because it was still stuck to her hair. Why would anyone put duct tape over the mouth of a 3 year old girl that accidentally drowned in a swimming pool? The tape was traced back to both Casey and George. They both lived in the same house. As far as the car goes, it had plenty of evidence. Who testified that the car didn't smell like human decomp? Cindy? Nope. George? Nope. Cops? Nope. Tow truck driver? Nope. Dr who is expert in human decomp? Nope. All said it smelled overwhelmingly like human decomp. Can you explain why it was ditched the way it was? The only plausible explanation that fits with everything else is that she was trying to cover up the smell of her dead daughter that was in the trunk.
Recommended Posts