you don't beleive a woman who gave birth to a child could commit premidated murder?? Ever hear of Susan Smith or Andrea Yates?? Just to name a couple. Get a clue!
The Anthony Verdict
- Thread starter jerkbait_1075
- Start date
you don't beleive a woman who gave birth to a child could commit premidated murder?? Ever hear of Susan Smith or Andrea Yates?? Just to name a couple. Get a clue!
We can agree to disagree is fine with me. I think the jury was wrong plain & simple. I served on juries & was an elected foreman in 1 case so have some experience in these matters. The 1st vote on Casey was 10-2 then went to 12 for not guilty. Believe me locking up the jury for all that time while the trial was ongoing is very tough on them & the jury wants to get on with their lives & the juror social pressure is immense. I still think at least this should have been a hung jury so FL could choose to retry. No one can believe a word Casey says about any subject that is for sure a "born liar".
From juror#3 "If you're going to charge someone with murder, don't you have to know how they killed someone or why they might have killed someone, or have something where, when, why, how? Those are important questions. They were not answered."
My point I made earlier. The real crime here is that the Prosecutor made no case at all. None. The law is the law and the jury did a great job.
I've got a clue.Apparently you need FEW
Both Yates and Smith confessed
The Prosecutor in this case did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Anthony was guilty of 1st Degree murder.
, Sorry John
Last edited:
"She may be a rotten person but I don't believe a Woman that gave birth to a girl could commit premeditated murder."
I disagree. There are definitely some completely f***ing crazy people in our society, and I believe that some of them probably will do/have done things that seem utterly impossible to most folks. Just my 2oo cents.
I disagree. There are definitely some completely f***ing crazy people in our society, and I believe that some of them probably will do/have done things that seem utterly impossible to most folks. Just my 2oo cents.
anonomoose
New member
It is easy to cast the blame on the prosecutor...they tried the case with what they had to try it with...and lost. They would be geniuses had the case gone the other way.
On the other hand the defense, by the way was very in experienced and a bunch more I won't address here....laid out a foundation that was hair raising in the beginning, but did NOT support those wild excuses with a single witness or person who could support them. In fact the closing arguments of the case restricted him so much that few thought that he did a good job at all. You are required to lay out the closing arguments based upon the evidences you bring out in testimony, and none of the wild ideas that were brought out in opening arguments had support. His whole case was refuting evidences the prosecution brought against her.
Still, the case went the other way. It is far more likely that the "hot button" topic of the death penalty played a much larger issue here...and that pantie wasted jury stood very much against the death penalty and therefore the prosecutor was shot in the foot before even bringing first witness.
Also most folks watch too much CSI on TV....it isn't like that at all. Nearly all cases have their mistakes made on both sides. Some cost the case in either direction which is why the appeal processes go on forever if you are convicted....our system figures on mistakes and is aimed at allowing for corrections. A new trial.
Actually I thought the prosecution did a pretty good job....with what they were dealt with....a decomposed body, tape over the mouth....even canned air from the truck of the ladies car....all pretty cutting edge stuff....for a county prosecutors office.
Also keep in mind that those liberals on the jury ...and more and more I see it that way, came from a very liberal area of the country....don't try and do this in the Yoopee.....you might find Marquette has a nice room all ready for you.
Finally, NASH....in nearly ALL of those DNA rescissions, it is the fact that the DNA "Tested" didn't match, and simply cast doubt enough so that a judge would grant a motion for a new trial. The prosecutor decides NOT to re-try the case and the prisoner goes free....it doe NOT mean the guy wasn't guilty as charged...only that the new evidence was enough to support a new trial and the prosecutor decides NOT to try the case again....costing a bunch of tax payer money to do it...often after years have passed by and evidence and testimony would be difficult at best to get a conviction all over again. The media boils this right out....and presents to the world that the guys is innocent...this is very rare.
Remember that for every innocent person put to death...there are probably dozens of guys that get off, only to do the deed again and yet another person is dead because we failed to get the job done the first time. So how many innocent folks you willing to off.....so that we can put these criminals back on the street so that they can kill, rape, murder all over again....believe me for every case hailed by the press of an innocent man who went to jail after being wrongly convicted, there are dozens that get off...only to do it again...and sometimes over and over again. Keep that in mind when you want to throw out the death penalty....if they are dead...they won't be committing the crime again, and if they go to jail for life....it ain't really life and there have been way more many cases of those folks getting out and eventually killing again.
I am not for or against the death penalty...perhaps leaning that way but not committed....but before we throw out any of it...we should see it from both sides and not just the side of the poor persecuted criminal.
D
Deleted member 10829
Guest
Wrong!
The problem is, juror #3 is wrong as has been pointed out all day today! People have been convicted of murder without a body for crying out loud! If you don't have a body you certainly don't know how they died. The judge also gave them instructions that motive was not a necessary part of finding someone guilty of murder. Have you been paying attention?
The problem is, juror #3 is wrong as has been pointed out all day today! People have been convicted of murder without a body for crying out loud! If you don't have a body you certainly don't know how they died. The judge also gave them instructions that motive was not a necessary part of finding someone guilty of murder. Have you been paying attention?
Ahh, mspease, those were different juries, different cases, different locations. That has no bearing on this case.
Whether a juror is right or wrong is totally insignificant. What is important is that a juror is convinced by the prosecution that the defendant committed the crime.
anonomoose
New member
Dang liberals did it again, eh Moose?
The jury is what the jury is. It is the prosecution's job to manage the jury to a successful outcome, yes, even if they are Flaming Florida Liberals.
Spot on, DC... those folks can't even vote right....their license plate should say, "home of the hangin chad.... nothin fishy about that".
And Whitey wants to move there....what was he think'n???
jurry duty I had to go 1 time.was kinda funny when the lyers ask ? of the jurry.with in 2 questions I was let go and sent to diff trial 2 more questions I was told I could go home and more than likley never be called again.guess they did not like my view of crooked cops with huge athority issues or my contempt of gang banger's or any POS with out a legit way to make a living.never called me again.
2 outcomes you don't want to leave to FL residents Presidential Elections & Murder Trials seeking the death penalty. Also count your change of a dollar in the FL Panhandle a real good place for dentist to set up shop. Other than that a nice place with great weather & beaches with friendly people.
D
Deleted member 10829
Guest
Reasonable or shadow?
What does have a bearing on this case is that the judge told them motive was not needed, yet this juror is saying it was. She was wrong about the law, pretty important don't you think? The problem we are getting to today is jury's are confusing "a reasonable doubt" with "beyond a shadow of doubt". It's like they can't connect the dots of a circumstantial case and need to see it on video. I'm not saying they had enough evidence to put her on death row, but for the jury to come back with not guilty on all charges is crazy! The first vote for manslaughter was 6-6, so not all were convinced. The first vote on captial murder was 10-2. The 2 should have stood firm like they always do when it's the other side.
Is there anyone that reads this thread that thinks she had nothing to do with this?
What does have a bearing on this case is that the judge told them motive was not needed, yet this juror is saying it was. She was wrong about the law, pretty important don't you think? The problem we are getting to today is jury's are confusing "a reasonable doubt" with "beyond a shadow of doubt". It's like they can't connect the dots of a circumstantial case and need to see it on video. I'm not saying they had enough evidence to put her on death row, but for the jury to come back with not guilty on all charges is crazy! The first vote for manslaughter was 6-6, so not all were convinced. The first vote on captial murder was 10-2. The 2 should have stood firm like they always do when it's the other side.
Is there anyone that reads this thread that thinks she had nothing to do with this?
thunderstruck88
New member
God will be the only jury this girl will judged by and he will take care of her period!!!
I have. There are 4 things #3 said were not answered. Motive is only one.
anonomoose
New member
Early on, there was lots of discussion about whether a "fair and impartial" jury could even be found in Florida.
Guess we found the answer to that one, didn't we?
Squat....if I were on that jury, it would have been hung....as you pointed out half thought she was guilty but for whatever reason...which might eventually come out....decided to not sit sequestered for months to get to that point.
Any mother who would lie to her parents about the whereabouts of her kid, party down and wait 31 days to report her missing....is all the evidence I need to come to a pretty sure conclusion. This is not normal, atypical, and saying it is unusual is an understatement.
And if that doesn't convince you, the remains of the tape over the mouth removes completely accidental death...who cares about the rest of the evidence? Cast all the doubt you want, but you can't remove those facts and those alone was enough to convict....which they should have done in 24 hours....but we have the liberal jury issue going on here...and seems that even if they found this woman with a gun in her hand and a bullet in the kids head, they would not have convicted her....period. Just wasn't going to happen.
And that is why when the odds are against you....a jury trial is the way to go because you can't predict what a jury is going to do...at least not completely.
Guess we found the answer to that one, didn't we?
Squat....if I were on that jury, it would have been hung....as you pointed out half thought she was guilty but for whatever reason...which might eventually come out....decided to not sit sequestered for months to get to that point.
Any mother who would lie to her parents about the whereabouts of her kid, party down and wait 31 days to report her missing....is all the evidence I need to come to a pretty sure conclusion. This is not normal, atypical, and saying it is unusual is an understatement.
And if that doesn't convince you, the remains of the tape over the mouth removes completely accidental death...who cares about the rest of the evidence? Cast all the doubt you want, but you can't remove those facts and those alone was enough to convict....which they should have done in 24 hours....but we have the liberal jury issue going on here...and seems that even if they found this woman with a gun in her hand and a bullet in the kids head, they would not have convicted her....period. Just wasn't going to happen.
And that is why when the odds are against you....a jury trial is the way to go because you can't predict what a jury is going to do...at least not completely.
"And if that doesn't convince you, the remains of the tape over the mouth removes completely accidental death"
Where was the tape from? Who purchased it? Who put it on her mouth? When was it put on her mouth? Was she dead when it was placed on her mouth? Did the tape cause her death?
All unanswered.
Where was the tape from? Who purchased it? Who put it on her mouth? When was it put on her mouth? Was she dead when it was placed on her mouth? Did the tape cause her death?
All unanswered.