• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Casey Anthony Verdict, jurors safety?

tessaesque said:
1. Duct tape on the mouth was speculation, not proven fact.
2. There was no proof and the diary didn't say "I killed my child".
3. There was no proof of felony murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, or neglect. Can't convict when there's reasonable doubt.

Also, I'd recommend you actually read transcripts/evidence reports. You are woefully misinformed.
Click to expand...

I have. There is forensic expert testimony that the way the skull was found indicates the duct tape was over the mouth.

The diary said this:

I have no regrets, just a bit worried. I just want for everything to work out okay.I completely trust my own judgement & know that I made the right decision. I just hope that the end justifies the means.I just want to know what the future will hold for me. I guess I will soon see -- This is the happiest that I have been in a very long time.I hope that my happiness will continue to grow -- I've made new friends that I really like. I've surrounded myself with good people -- I am finally happy. Let's just hope that it doesn't change.
Click to expand...

Why make an accident look like a murder? An accident would cause someone to act how she did after the death? That is not reasonable.
 
Link

An FBI technician testified Thursday in the Casey Anthony murder trial that duct tape found on 2-year-old Caylee Anthony's body was contaminated during testing by another technician.
Click to expand...

Heather Seubert, who worked in the forensic DNA analysis unit at the FBI when she examined evidence in the case, testified that DNA on duct tape at the crime scene did not match Caylee or her mother or grandparents.
Click to expand...

This is probably why the jury would disregard the duct tape scenario. I know that if I had been on that jury I would have disregarded it after learning these two points.
 
MC.no.spin said:
According to juror 2, they were 6-6 on this charge at first, the not guilty winning out because George could have been the caregiver at time of death.

The facts all pointed to Casey being the caregiver. Scott Peterson case had circumstantial evidence also, he got murder 1. I think these jurors got duped just like Casey's other victims. Evil is the hardest thing to confront.
Click to expand...

The way our court system is set up for murder charges there must be no doubt as to whether someone is guilty or not. If there was reasonable doubt as to who was the caregiver (George or Casey) then by law they cannot convict on your points here.

As for Peterson, the circumstantial evidence was overwhelming. Far more than what was presented at Casey's trial from what I have gathered so far.
 
MC.no.spin said:
According to juror 2, they were 6-6 on this charge at first, the not guilty winning out because George could have been the caregiver at time of death.

The facts all pointed to Casey being the caregiver. Scott Peterson case had circumstantial evidence also, he got murder 1. I think these jurors got duped just like Casey's other victims. Evil is the hardest thing to confront.
Click to expand...

There are always stronger personalities on the jury the influence the weaker personalities......You had a mother with a 7 month old child on the jury that hadnt seen her child in 31 days..if she gave a guilty verdict it could have been another two weeks of sequestered, she should have NEVER been on that jury. You had another jurist that told the judge on day one she was picked that she had the cruise of her lifetime scheduled for the beginning of july, the judge told oh dont worry we will be long done by then....the day of the verdict she had two days till her cruise left. She wanted OUT.
Tesseque has taken all of baez's talking points and put them here and she is avoiding all the contrary evidence....GEORGE did not kill cahley...if he did it would be well known. He was a homicide detective, why in gods name would he cover up an ACCIDENT and not call 911 the simple truth is he would not unless he knew his daughter killed her intentionally and he was trying to save her....Which I do not believe happened. If you listened to the tapes, the Interviewing Police Officer time and time again gave her the opportunity to say it was an accidental drowning....thats where SHE got that idea to begin with.
Casey killed Cahley. She has to this day not told the truth on where her daughter was the last day she saw her. Casey is a sociopath and pathelogical liar and I dont believe her parents are any where near as bad as baez painted them to be. Get this right people Criminal Defense lawyers are liars...professional trained liars with a license to lie
 
lpast said:
There are always stronger personalities on the jury the influence the weaker personalities......You had a mother with a 7 month old child on the jury that hadnt seen her child in 31 days..if she gave a guilty verdict it could have been another two weeks of sequestered, she should have NEVER been on that jury. You had another jurist that told the judge on day one she was picked that she had the cruise of her lifetime scheduled for the beginning of july, the judge told oh dont worry we will be long done by then....the day of the verdict she had two days till her cruise left. She wanted OUT.
Tesseque has taken all of baez's talking points and put them here and she is avoiding all the contrary evidence....GEORGE did not kill cahley...if he did it would be well known. He was a homicide detective, why in gods name would he cover up an ACCIDENT and not call 911 the simple truth is he would not unless he knew his daughter killed her intentionally and he was trying to save her....Which I do not believe happened. If you listened to the tapes, the Interviewing Police Officer time and time again gave her the opportunity to say it was an accidental drowning....thats where SHE got that idea to begin with.
Casey killed Cahley. She has to this day not told the truth on where her daughter was the last day she saw her. Casey is a sociopath and pathelogical liar and I dont believe her parents are any where near as bad as baez painted them to be. Get this right people Criminal Defense lawyers are liars...professional trained liars with a license to lie
Click to expand...

George and Casey were more afraid of Cindy finding out that Caylee was dead. Cindy terrorized both George and Casey. Listen to statements about the family from the Fiancee.

How did the cadaver dogs find spots in the Anthony's back yard, if Caylee had not been pulled out of the pool? Caylee got up early in a June 2009 morning, and everyone thought someone else was taking care of Caylee, till George and Casey found her in the pool.

George and Casey solve all their problems with lies. The duct tape was intended to make the drowning look like an abduction. If Caylee had been found, and it was believed that she had been abducted, then Casey and George would have avoided criticism from Cindy. Cindy went around all day making herself feel good by criticizing George and Casey.




//
 
The Toast said:
Speaking of facts, here is an interesting one...The duck tape was actually proven to have been put on after the body had decomposed.

Isn't that interesting......
Click to expand...

No it wasn't.
 
MC.no.spin said:
I have. There is forensic expert testimony that the way the skull was found indicates the duct tape was over the mouth.

The diary said this:



Why make an accident look like a murder? An accident would cause someone to act how she did after the death? That is not reasonable.
Click to expand...

One forensic expert testified that the duct tape was over the mouth and nose. Three others testified that you cannot confirm that. The diary still doesn't indicate that Casey caused the death of her child (I had read it before, you didn't need to repost it). Also, because I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist, I will not pretend to understand the entire spectrum of possible behaviors relating to the realization of the death of a loved one. "Reasonable" is rarely a word you'll find in the psych community, though.
 
lpast said:
There are always stronger personalities on the jury the influence the weaker personalities......You had a mother with a 7 month old child on the jury that hadnt seen her child in 31 days..if she gave a guilty verdict it could have been another two weeks of sequestered, she should have NEVER been on that jury. You had another jurist that told the judge on day one she was picked that she had the cruise of her lifetime scheduled for the beginning of july, the judge told oh dont worry we will be long done by then....the day of the verdict she had two days till her cruise left. She wanted OUT.
Tesseque has taken all of baez's talking points and put them here and she is avoiding all the contrary evidence....GEORGE did not kill cahley...if he did it would be well known. He was a homicide detective, why in gods name would he cover up an ACCIDENT and not call 911 the simple truth is he would not unless he knew his daughter killed her intentionally and he was trying to save her....Which I do not believe happened. If you listened to the tapes, the Interviewing Police Officer time and time again gave her the opportunity to say it was an accidental drowning....thats where SHE got that idea to begin with.
Casey killed Cahley. She has to this day not told the truth on where her daughter was the last day she saw her. Casey is a sociopath and pathelogical liar and I dont believe her parents are any where near as bad as baez painted them to be. Get this right people Criminal Defense lawyers are liars...professional trained liars with a license to lie
Click to expand...

I have only repeated evidence provided in court and have never quoted Baez, first of all. Secondly, I have not spoken in absolutes, as you've done here. I have never endorsed nor refuted Casey's guilt because I simply don't know if she is. Anybody who says they do is responding from an emotional, "gut instinct" type place. Using the evidence (and only the evidence), the prosecution failed to provide evidence that could not be refuted. When it WAS refuted, it created reasonable doubt. That is why Casey was acquitted. Not because she's actually innocent and not because of Baez talking points, but because the prosecution was not able to provide irrefutable evidence.
 
Hey, I know. Bring her over my apartment and we can all have a REAL trial there. Time to get this thing right. (rolls eyes)
 
tessaesque said:
One forensic expert testified that the duct tape was over the mouth and nose. Three others testified that you cannot confirm that. The diary still doesn't indicate that Casey caused the death of her child (I had read it before, you didn't need to repost it). Also, because I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist, I will not pretend to understand the entire spectrum of possible behaviors relating to the realization of the death of a loved one. "Reasonable" is rarely a word you'll find in the psych community, though.
Click to expand...

Where this case failed is on this point. There was no education of the jury into the mind of Casey. The sociopath experts should have been marched in. The traits could have been highlighted, as the lack of empathy Casey showed towards others was very evident. I don't feel the prosecution wanted mental health to be part of the case, for fear of an acquittal based on insanity.
 
The Toast said:
^So the smell of a decomposing body in her car and 87 searches on chloroform doesn't make you wonder?
Click to expand...


Yes, it makes one wonder, but doesn't necessarily spell out murder. Her lawyer threw out a scenario (accidental drowning) and it was plausible, making it even harder to prove that it was murder. Casey got lucky that things worked out the way they did, if she did indeed murder her daughter - but she might not be so lucky in the future, and she's going to be very much watched!
 
The Toast said:
Yes sir! Casey Anthony star witness: Duct tape put on Caylee after death | wtsp.com
Click to expand...

It wasn't proof, it was a theory by a well paid Spitz that was shot down in cross examination.

Spitz said that it was his opinion that the duct tape was placed after the face had decomposed. Ashton then asked how the person put the duct tape on the decomposed skull. He said the person took duct tape and cut it into sections to keep the mandible intact. Ashton asked if the person picked the skull off the ground to put the tape on it. Spitz said he couldn't answer.

Then, Spitz said maybe. Ashton went on to say that if the person picked up the skull, the mandible would have fallen off. The person would have to pick up the skull and mandible and put it back in its anatomical position and then tape it.

Then, Spitz argued that the tape was put only on one side. Ashton then made it a hypothetical that if the person wanted the mandible back in place, why would it take three pieces of duct tape!

Okay, I have fallen down the Rabbit Hole.

Then Ashton asked why there was not glue residue on the skull? Spitz said that bone is solid and dense... then I got confused again.

Ashton then indicated that the duct tape was not stuck to the bone. Spitz said that the water would remove some of the glue.

Spitz then said that the person could have taken the head someplace, put the tape on, and brought it back. Ashton then pointed out that what happened to the hair that was stuck to the tape?

This examination got to go very far beyond the absurd.

Spitz said that somebody at the ME's office might have put the hair over the skull for the picture.

When Ashton showed him a picture of the skull at the site, he said that somebody did it in that picture as well.

He was saying somebody rearranged the hair !
Click to expand...

http://sprocket-trials.blogspot.com/2011/06/casey-anthony-trial-day-22.html
 
Last edited:
MC.no.spin said:
Where this case failed is on this point. There was no education of the jury into the mind of Casey. The sociopath experts should have been marched in. The traits could have been highlighted, as the lack of empathy Casey showed towards others was very evident. I don't feel the prosecution wanted mental health to be part of the case, for fear of an acquittal based on insanity.
Click to expand...

Everyone deals with despair, heartbreak etc etc different. You base your opinion on, from what you saw in the news, a lack of empathy. Yet you have no idea what the woman experianced off the screen. Whether behind bars or after they found the body, or if what they say is true after they found the body in the pool. None of those times did you see. Also there are some people that just can't show emotion like others can. I've been to more funerals than I care to count. I've only cried at one of them...and even then I tried to hold it back until I was alone in my car.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Everyone deals with despair, heartbreak etc etc different. You base your opinion on, from what you saw in the news, a lack of empathy. Yet you have no idea what the woman experianced off the screen. Whether behind bars or after they found the body, or if what they say is true after they found the body in the pool. None of those times did you see. Also there are some people that just can't show emotion like others can. I've been to more funerals than I care to count. I've only cried at one of them...and even then I tried to hold it back until I was alone in my car.
Click to expand...

Despair? She was saying she is happier than ever, told no one for a month, hid the body, said she was kidnapped, framed others, etc. People who think she is innocent need help right along with her ass. Learn to smell bs it will save you later.
 
MC what is your avatar?
 
MC.no.spin said:
Despair? She was saying she is happier than ever, told no one for a month, hid the body, said she was kidnapped, framed others, etc. People who think she is innocent need help right along with her ass. Learn to smell bs it will save you later.
Click to expand...

And did she say what she was happier than ever about?
 
MC.no.spin said:
Despair? She was saying she is happier than ever, told no one for a month, hid the body, said she was kidnapped, framed others, etc. People who think she is innocent need help right along with her ass. Learn to smell bs it will save you later.
Click to expand...

If you follow the law you cannot convict a person on suspicion, you need evidence. All the evidence in this case was largely circumstantial which leaves room for reasonable doubt. If you cannot even determine the cause of death how can any sane person convict someone of 1st degree murder?
 
Baralis said:
If you follow the law you cannot convict a person on suspicion, you need evidence. All the evidence in this case was largely circumstantial which leaves room for reasonable doubt. If you cannot even determine the cause of death how can any sane person convict someone of 1st degree murder?
Click to expand...

Scott Peterson jury did just that. It's not suspicion it is making a rational conclusion based on an investigation of the data available, having a strong conviction that has no reasonable doubt.

Even if it was reasonable to think it may have been an accidental death, it is not reasonable to think George was the caregiver at the time. Finding her guilty of manslaughter of a child was a lay-up.

They could have said Caylee was abducted by aliens and some of you would buy it.
 
Last edited:
MC.no.spin said:
Scott Peterson jury did just that. It's not suspicion it is making a rational conclusion based on an investigation of the data available, having a strong conviction that has no reasonable doubt.

Even if it was reasonable to think it may have been an accidental death, it is not reasonable to think George was the caregiver at the time. Finding her guilty of manslaughter of a child was a lay-up.

They could have said Caylee was abducted by aliens and some of you would buy it.
Click to expand...

Juries have convicted many persons in cases they should not have. Some examples are convicting persons of 1st degree murder when they do not even have a victim (no body or other evidence they are deceased) but this does not make it right.

Were manslaughter charges put against her? I honestly do not know but if they were not then the jury can't simply find her guilty of charges no represented.
 
Baralis said:
Juries have convicted many persons in cases they should not have. Some examples are convicting persons of 1st degree murder when they do not even have a victim (no body or other evidence they are deceased) but this does not make it right.

Were manslaughter charges put against her? I honestly do not know but if they were not then the jury can't simply find her guilty of charges no represented.
Click to expand...

Yes they were. Juror #2 said half the jurors thought she was guilty of this but the other half said there was no proof Casey was the caregiver, that it could have been George. A sign they were fooled by the defense attorney, a poor show.
 
Nancy Grace sure is playing this for all it's worth. Isn't there another crime somewhere in America?
Don't get me wrong I love mysteries and this is darned sure one heck uva mystery!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom