Page 66 of 102 FirstFirst ... 165662636465666768697076 ... LastLast
Results 976 to 990 of 1527
Like Tree35Likes

Thread: Casey Anthony's Trial Begins

  1. #976
    Elite Member nwgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    4,954

    Default

    How long was this trial? And how long did they deliberate?

    Maybe I'm cynical, but I bet they spent more time talking about how they were gonna band together post trial and figuring out ways to make $ off this shit, or avoid the media till they get reps or something equally self-serving, than they did actually deliberating the trial, evidence, etc. If they don't come out very soon, collectively, and start making some $ off this, I'll eat my hat. Or pillowcase, cause I only have one hat and I really like it.

    Its been awhile since I worked in corporate america and therefore dealt with large groups of people having to make decisions together AND come to unanimous agreements, but back when I used to have to do that, it took hours to agree to minute shit like which water company should provide the water cooler. And these people figured everything out in what? 12 hours. Yeahhhh...makes sense.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."

  2. #977
    Elite Member JadeStar70's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    BFE, Iowa
    Posts
    7,551

    Default

    The actual trial started May 24th, 2011, and it went to the jury on July 4th, 2011. They deliberated for just under 11 hours.

  3. #978
    Elite Member cmmdee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Eva's Love Den
    Posts
    25,572

    Default

    ^ I deliberated longer than that bullshit on a felony child neglect/abuse jury once. Trial was 3 days long. We convicted--on what the mother DIDN'T do as a parent that ultimately led to her child being harmed. We were one person "not guilty" and sold him on the "willful act or omission" words in the definition of what the charge meant. And her daughter is walking around alive today.

    Seriously. So sad. All of this.

  4. #979
    Gold Member nana51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    in Sunny San Diego
    Posts
    1,308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AliceInWonderland View Post
    Caylee was given Xanax by her mother to knock her out at night so she could go party, thats abuse in my book.
    That is why she said her nanny's name was "zanny" a term used for Xanax.

    Quote Originally Posted by bellini View Post
    Yes I agree with all that. I also think she killed Caylee instead of handing her over to her mother to raise to spite her mother. I got the impression that mother and daughter had an acrimonious relationship, probably compounded by the fact that Cindy was on her back about Caylee. So I think she killed Caylee out of spite as well. She'd rather have her dead than let her mother have her, or in other words, win.
    I agree 100% with that.
    Last edited by Tati; July 6th, 2011 at 08:06 PM.
    Oh, I offended you with my opinion? You should hear the ones I keep to myself.

  5. #980
    Elite Member MsChiff's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    ♥In your heart ♥
    Posts
    5,752

    Default

    I feel a little better after reading this (Juror #3 spoke out):

    "I did not say she was innocent," said Ford, who had previously only been identified as juror number 3. "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."
    The jury's jaw dropping not guilty verdict shocked court observers, but it was also a difficult moment for the panel, Ford said in an exclusive interview with ABC News. No one from the jury was willing to come out and talk to the media in the hours after the verdict.
    "Everyone wonders why we didn't speak to the media right away," Ford said. "It was because we were sick to our stomach to get that verdict. We were crying and not just the women. It was emotional and we weren't ready. We wanted to do it with integrity and not contribute to the sensationalism of the trial."



    Casey Anthony Juror Says They Were Sick to Stomach Over Not Guilty Verdict - ABC News

  6. #981
    Bronze Member FreeLL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MsChiff View Post
    I feel a little better after reading this (Juror #3 spoke out):

    "I did not say she was innocent," said Ford, who had previously only been identified as juror number 3. "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."
    The jury's jaw dropping not guilty verdict shocked court observers, but it was also a difficult moment for the panel, Ford said in an exclusive interview with ABC News. No one from the jury was willing to come out and talk to the media in the hours after the verdict.
    "Everyone wonders why we didn't speak to the media right away," Ford said. "It was because we were sick to our stomach to get that verdict. We were crying and not just the women. It was emotional and we weren't ready. We wanted to do it with integrity and not contribute to the sensationalism of the trial."



    Casey Anthony Juror Says They Were Sick to Stomach Over Not Guilty Verdict - ABC News
    I agree with this juror because there was reasonable doubt and she was facing at least a decade for the lesser charges.

  7. #982
    Elite Member Kat Scorp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Down Under in Boganville
    Posts
    3,307

    Default

    Yeah right. Again, during the 10 hour deliberation they didn't look at any of the evidence (according to what I read at Websleuths) - they didn't even look at George Anthony's timecard to see if there was time for the cover up to take down. They didn't review the texts/interviews about what happened when the car was recovered. It was a case about a dead two year old with a MOUNTAIN of circumstancial evidence that they. Did. Not. Look. At. during their measily 10 hour deliberation.

    I call bullshit on the story of being distressed. They just wanted to go home.

  8. #983
    Elite Member Lobelia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    a backwards hillbilly state
    Posts
    20,801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nana51 View Post
    That is why she said her nanny's name was "zanny" a term used for Xanax.
    Does anybody have a credible source for this? Casey once told a friend that she could score some xanax but is the Caylee/nanny connection anything more than internet speculation?
    "I've cautiously embraced jeggings"
    Emma Peel aka Pacific Breeze aka Wilde1 aka gogodancer aka maribou

    Yip, yip, yip in your tiny indignation. Bark furiously on, lady dog.

  9. #984
    Elite Member NoNoRehab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    LYNWOOD JAIL
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    I disagree with everyone who says that this is how the judicial system works and the jury did their job, because it sounds like increasingly the jury did not do their job.

    Juries are supposed to seriously consider the evidence and testimony. This jury apparently didn't even review any of the evidence during deliberation. Jurors are supposed to put emotion aside, not vote based on which attorney is more appealing. The sexual abuse thing was disallowed by the judge, so the jurors should not have even considered it. No evidence or testimony was offered as to the drowning theory (which the defense basically dropped in its closing anyway) so the jury should not have considered it: closing and opening arguments are supposed to represent the testimony and evidence each side will/did offer, not a way to get in wild, unsubstantiated theories. Jurors are warned every day by the judge and at every break that they are not supposed to discuss the case with each other during the trial, and according to the alternate juror they did. They're warned extensively that if they can't make a fair judgment due to timely life circumstances or if they have an emergency, they should notify the judge. They're not allowed to throw out an acquittal because they "want to get out of there."

    It sounds to me that the jurors did not take the case seriously and made several errors, which is NOT how the judicial system is supposed to work. A little girl died and an indifferent jury that couldn't be bothered to work is no justice.
    "Don't trust nobody, and 'nobody' meaning Jay Leno in particular." -Chris Rock

  10. #985
    Elite Member Moongirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Cal-i-for-nigh-ay!
    Posts
    6,947

    Default

    Casey Anthony Juror: Ask Me Anything ... For a Price | TMZ.com


    Casey Anthony Juror: Ask Me Anything ... For a Price
    7/6/2011 10:06 AM PDT*by TMZ Staff**


    One of the jurors in the Casey Anthony trial has decided to go public with his side of the story -- but TMZ has learned, he's not talkin' ... unless the price is right ... and 5-figure offers are already pouring in.

    http://tmz.vo.llnwd.net/o28/newsdesk...letter_TMZ.pdf


    A publicist for the unidentified juror is sending a letter to media outlets, claiming, "Our client -- a married, college-educated, 33-year-old white male with two young children -- is willing to consider granting one or more media interviews so long as the opportunities are paid."

    We're told the juror has already received multiple offers from big news operations, including at least one major network.* Sources tell us ... the high offers are in the "mid 5-figures."

    Paid interviews are a hazy moral territory for obvious reasons -- and the publicist, Rick French, admits, paying for sit-downs is "always a sticky subject and believe me, I understand the delicacy of this type of negotiation."

    But French insists ... sticky or not, his client ain't budging -- "He will not entertain any offers that don't include compensation for a myriad of reasons."

  11. #986
    Elite Member NoNoRehab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    LYNWOOD JAIL
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    After the verdict was read, Judge Perry told the jury that they couldn't discuss the case unless compelled by court order. So hopefully if that report is true the judge is taking note.
    "Don't trust nobody, and 'nobody' meaning Jay Leno in particular." -Chris Rock

  12. #987
    Elite Member MontanaMama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Evading P6 & P7
    Posts
    13,259

    Default

    No he didn't, he said they weren't obligated to discuss the case if they chose not to, except if for some reason the were compelled by a court order.
    If i hear one more personal attack, i will type while drunk, then you can cry! - Bugdoll
    (716): I'd call her a cunt, but she doesn't seem to have the depth or warmth
    Quote Originally Posted by shedevilang View Post
    (Replying to MontanaMama) This is some of the smartest shit I ever read

  13. #988
    Elite Member celeb_2006's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    13,468

    Default Marcia Clark: Casey Anthony verdict, worse than O.J.!

    Marcia Clark: Casey Anthony verdict, worse than O.J.! - Yahoo! News

    While the stunning Casey Anthony acquittal defied logic, O.J. Simpson prosecutor Marcia Clark details how juries often delude themselves—and why this verdict trumps even her case.


    Sick, shaken, in disbelief. As I listened to the verdicts in the Casey Anthony case, acquitting her of the homicide of her baby girl, I relived what I felt back when court clerk Deirdre Robertson read the verdicts in the Simpson case.
    But this case is different. The verdict far more shocking. Why?

    Because Casey Anthony was no celebrity. She never wowed the nation with her athletic prowess, shilled in countless car commercials, or entertained in film comedies. There were no racial issues, no violent Rodney King citywide riot just two years earlier.

    Because of those factors, many predicted from the very start in the Simpson case—in fact, long before we even began to pick a jury—that it would be impossible to secure a conviction.

    There was no such foreshadowing here, and few who predicted that a jury might completely acquit Casey Anthony of the killing of her daughter.
    The trial itself, despite bumps and turns, never introduced any unexpected bombshells that blew up in the prosecution’s face (à la detective Mark Fuhrman’s racially charged interview tapes with a novelist). All things considered, it went pretty smoothly. Judge Belvin Perry was fantastic—a model of even-tempered, no-nonsense control who kept the flow of evidence orderly and succinct, and who never let the lawyers run amok. He even jailed and fined a spectator for acting up in court.

    So there was no racist cop, no questions about evidence collection, and no endless cross-examination on irrelevancies like Columbian necklaces and drug cartels. And while there was significant media coverage before the trial, it didn’t come close to the storm that permeated the Simpson case for months prior to jury selection.

    As a matter of fact, the coverage we did see of the Casey Anthony case leaned heavily in favor of conviction. The photographs of a half-clothed Casey dancing in a Hot Body contest days after her daughter died, getting tattooed with the words “La Bella Vida” (Beautiful Life), Casey’s apparent celebration of freedom now that her baby was dead, the videotape of her spitting fury at her parents while in custody, and most important, her endless lies for a solid month about what had happened to her daughter.

    Those lies were—most people agreed (myself included)—the proverbial noose around her neck. What mother sees that her child has drowned in the pool and not only fails to call 911, but then duct tapes her mouth and nose, hides the body in the trunk for days, and then dumps it in the woods? And then goes out to party and lies for a whopping 31 days about where the baby is? Who but a killer mother does that?


    The defense had to come up with a plausible reason for that behavior. One that would persuade the jury that the death was accidental. One that would show the lies were not evidence that Casey was a psychopathic killer but would instead show that they were merely the irrational behavior of a troubled but ultimately innocent mother.

    And so her lawyer, Jose Baez, came up with a shocker—the twist that ensured this case a primetime spot on cable, and occasionally network, television: He claimed that Casey Anthony’s despicably callous behavior in the wake of her baby’s death could be explained by the fact that she’d been molested by both her father and her brother.

    I’m not so sure the logic follows. Even if it did, I never saw one shred of proof to back up the claim. Zilch.

    We got a bit of innuendo in one brief reference to the fact that the FBI gave paternity tests to both brother and father—the intended point being that Casey had made the molestation claims early on. But with no evidence as to when those tests were performed, the intended implication was all but lost. Certainly, it was too weak to support Baez’s claim.

    In the end, after all the incendiary bluster of his opening statement, Baez never even tried to sell that story in any real way. (And there was a chance he could have: If the judge allows it, an attorney can put on a psychologist to give a general discussion of child abuse accommodation syndrome, even if he doesn’t claim the defendant on trial suffers from the syndrome.)
    Nor did the defense make any serious inroads on the prosecution’s physical evidence.

    "After the verdict was read in the Simpson case, as the jury was leaving, one of them, I was later told, said: “We think he probably did it. We just didn’t think they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.”

    But then again, it didn’t need to. Because this case wasn’t really about the physical evidence. Caylee’s body was too decomposed to offer much information. Cause of death was undetermined. All the coroner could say was that it was a homicide, but that conclusion wasn’t based on science so much as logic: The body was found wrapped in plastic bags and dumped in the woods. In fact, the most compelling aspect of the medical examiner’s testimony (who was, by the way, a great witness) was not medical but merely logical: that when a baby drowns—and she said that’s a common cause of death for babies—the mother or father calls 911 every single time; and if the baby had merely died accidentally, then why put duct tape over the baby’s face?

    So it was a circumstantial case. Most cases are. But the circumstances were compelling. Maybe not sufficient to prove premeditated murder—and I never believed the jury would approve the death penalty—but certainly enough to find Casey Anthony guilty of manslaughter at the very least.

    Why didn’t they? My guess, since I’m writing this before the inevitable juror cameos, is that the jury didn’t necessarily believe Casey was innocent but weren’t convinced enough of her guilt to bring in a conviction. The thinking goes something like this: Sure, Casey’s behavior after her daughter's death looks bad—dancing, partying, lying—but that doesn’t mean she killed the baby. Sure, that duct tape was weird, but that could’ve been done after the baby was already dead—no way to know who or when that tape was put on the baby’s face. Sure, the chloroform computer search seems damning, but that may not even have been done by Casey (her mom took the fall for that one).

    And so, every bit of evidence presented by the prosecution could’ve been tinged with doubt. At the end of the day, the jury might have found that they just couldn’t convict her based on evidence that was reconcilable with an innocent explanation—even if the weight of logic favored the guilty one.
    Jury instructions are so numerous and complex, it’s a wonder jurors ever wade through them. And so it should come as no surprise that they can sometimes get stuck along the way. The instruction on circumstantial evidence is confusing even to lawyers. And reasonable doubt? That’s the hardest, most elusive one of all. And I think it’s where even the most fair-minded jurors can get derailed.

    How? By confusing reasonable doubt with a reason to doubt. Some believe that thinking was in play in the Simpson case. After the verdict was read in the Simpson case, as the jury was leaving, one of them, I was later told, said: “We think he probably did it. We just didn’t think they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.” In every case, a defense attorney will do his or her best to give the jury a reason to doubt. "Some other dude did it," or "some other dude threatened him." But those reasons don’t necessarily equate with a reasonable doubt. A reason does not equal reasonable. Sometimes, that distinction can get lost.

    In Scotland, they have three verdicts: guilty, not guilty, and not proven. It’s one way of showing that even if the jury didn’t believe the evidence amounted to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it didn’t find the defendant innocent either. There’s a difference. And maybe that’s what today’s not-guilty verdict really meant. Not innocent. Just not proven. The jurors will eventually speak out and tell us.

    Meanwhile, although I must accept their verdict, I don’t have to agree with it. Because I did follow this case, and I have to be honest: If I’d been in that jury room, the vote would’ve been 11 to 1. Forever.

  14. #989
    Elite Member McJag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    42,527

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NoNoRehab View Post
    After the verdict was read, Judge Perry told the jury that they couldn't discuss the case unless compelled by court order. So hopefully if that report is true the judge is taking note.
    No, he said unless they wanted to...he never mentioned they could talk for moola either. That may have been an oversight.
    I didn't start out to collect diamonds, but somehow they just kept piling up.-Mae West

  15. #990
    Elite Member NoNoRehab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    LYNWOOD JAIL
    Posts
    2,739

    Default

    Thanks, I just heard the court order part.

    It's a pipe dream, but I would love if the state would investigate the jury and nail them on these errors that are being reported.

    Also, we really need to change laws so that jurors can't profit from a case, whether an acquittal or a guilty verdict. Seems to me that it's only with these high profile acquittals like OJ, Michael Jackson and now Casey Anthony the jurors rush to the media with their hands extended the next day - makes me wonder if they know the media is more interested in hearing their perspective on letting someone go then when "boring" justice is served.

    That one juror should rot in hell - he has two little daughters, eh? They should probably watch their back since apparently Daddy doesn't think there's anything wrong with partying after one's daughter is killed and thrown away like trash. And now he wants to profit over a dead little girl, to boot.
    "Don't trust nobody, and 'nobody' meaning Jay Leno in particular." -Chris Rock

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Josef Fritzl cellar trial begins
    By Honey in forum News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: March 18th, 2009, 07:56 AM
  2. Civil trial of Keanu Reeves begins in LA
    By celeb_2006 in forum Latest Gossip
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: November 7th, 2008, 04:24 PM
  3. Dutch 'HIV attack' trial begins
    By Honey in forum News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 13th, 2008, 10:23 PM
  4. R Kelly's trial finally begins
    By ana-mish-ana in forum Latest Gossip
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: May 9th, 2008, 02:35 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 16th, 2007, 06:54 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •