Casey-Anthony Jury should Bury Their Head in SHAME!!!

[GNBRETT]

lol... touche

 

[BandAid]

awesome..........

 

[gnxtc2]

What? where ru getting that from? The majority of criminal cases cases are won based on circumstantial evidence not direct or physical evidence. That is absolutely wrong Billy.

Im really surprised to hear you say that especially since you are a fellow LE officer.

Ill say this again. MOST convictions are won on circumstantial evidence. The
law says it carries the same weight as direct eyewitness testimony.

Both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence are acceptable means of proof in every state. Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other.

Circumstantial evidence is not evidence that comes directly from an eyewitness or a participant. With direct evidence, jurors don’t have to draw any sort of inferences.

EVERYTHING else is circumstantial evidence, which is simply anything that
allows a jury to reach a conclusion by reasoning, as long as it is relevant to the case being tried.

Almost all witness testimony is circumstantial, since most witnesses relate not that they saw the defendant actually commit the crime but instead that they saw or knew something else that might lead a reasonable person to conclude that the defendant indeed committed said crime. That also applies to expert witnesses as well.

Legal experts will all agree that circumstantial evidence makes up the largest percentage of criminal conviction.

Not only can circumstantial evidence be extraordinarily persuasive, but it can often be stronger than direct evidence and stronger than eyewitness testimony or even, sometimes, a confession.

Cmon Billy, you know better then that. Or at least you should.

Maybe I didn't explain myself that well. The circumstanial evidence in this case failed. It left doubts in the jury's mind.

Example: Johnny saw Tom point a gun at Mary and when he fired the gun, Mary fell to the ground. Direct evidence

Johnny saw Tom and Mary enter a room. He heard a gun shot and saw Tom walking out of the room with a smoking gun. Circumstanial evidence
or
Mary walked inside the house with a wet umbrella. Is it possible that it is raining? or did Mary walk under a sprinkler? Circumstanial evidence

And yes, a decaying corspe has its distinctive odor odor. I smelled plenty of them.

Billy T.
gnxtc2@aol.com

 

[S2V6RACER]

It won't be the first time or last time somebody walks. The bottom line the system is set up for a person to walk away that may indeed be guilty, but not enough PROOF to convict them. I would rather see this than a innocent person be convicted 10x. Lets not loose sight what a trial by jury really is. If the prosecution F'ed up then those jackoffs can live with the fact they let a killer walk free, but it's not the jurys fault they did their job.

 

[menmy6]

But you need some evidence.

Not really true , they have convicted people without bodies and evidence just pure witness account.

 

[TURBOPOWERED68]

like the Scott Peterson trial? no hard evidence. ALL circumstantial. so should we set him free now?

IF like you say that only a story was used, then he should be free.

 

[GNBRETT]

I The bottom line the system is set up for a person to walk away that may indeed be guilty, but not enough PROOF to convict them.

actually the system is designed to put the guilty in jail and set the innocent free and give justice to the victim. this did not occur.

does it always happen that way? obviously not. the jury system is flawed because people are flawed. it certainly was not because the prosecution did not prove their case. I watched the entire case from start to finish.

PROOF in a case like this as it is in most criminal cases is a matter of opinion. the problem with many juries is that they are lookn for the smoking gun. that just isnt the case for the majority of criminal cases nor is it needed to convict.

 

[GNBRETT]

IF like you say that only a story was used, then he should be free.

 

[TURBOPOWERED68]

as always you are right
let me ask you
Are stars born from these high profile cases?

 

[WhiteTtype989]

'

 

[GNBRETT]

as always you are right
let me ask you
Are stars born from these high profile cases?

how do u mean?

 

[TURBOPOWERED68]

how do u mean?

Prosecutor
take down the mob = become Mayor

Defense attorney
Get some one perceived to be guilty off = Become a millionaire

Why would any one believe any of these two types of people with out any actual evidence not the nicely named made up type REAL evidence?

 

[scot w.]

Quotes from one of the actual juror's named Ford.


If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be."

The prosecution didn't paint a clear enough picture of what happened to Caylee, Ford argued in a portion of the interview broadcast Wednesday night.

"I have no idea what happened to that child," Ford said.

Ford acknowledged that Anthony's behavior, including not reporting her daughter missing for about a month and partying during that time, "looks very bad ... but bad behavior is not enough to prove a crime."

"I feel she had something to do with it," Ford said of Anthony. "I don't believe it's fair to speculate."

Asked about the anger directed at jurors following the verdict, Ford said: "My reaction is, why be mad at me? The prosecution had to prove it. Why is it my fault if they didn't prove their case? If you give me the evidence, I'm happy to return a verdict accordingly."

Ford said the fact that Anthony could have faced the death penalty was a consideration.

"If they want to charge and they want me to take someone's life, they have to prove it. They have to prove it, or else I'm a murderer too."



I too believe that it's was the prosecution's job to prove the case and that wasn't done good in my eye's. I have watched this case from the very beginning and all the way through as I watched the TV I found myself wanting to believe that she did this but I also seen where the prosecution was grasping at straws to try to find the dumbest little things to convict her. They had nothing substantial and IF she did do this and cover it up, how is it there was no substantial evidence found? This chick wasn't the person to know how to cover up a crime so perfectly which some of the smartest can't do today, she was just a 20 yr old party chick..

Do I believe she had something to do with it? YES...
Do I think her father had something to do with it? YES.. (I think with him trying to commit suicide has some hidden adjenda, to me I think he was afraid of the prosecution finding something out on him...)

I believe more evidence will surface down the road which will prove more...I hope!


SW.

 

[Flaco]

Honestly who cares! Give it a month and everyone will forget and then on to the next attention grabbing headline that Nancy grace will drool all over..

 

[salvageV6]

I think they proved she was duct taped thrown in plastic garbage bags and driven around in Casesys car for a while.

And of course dumped where the father and daughter buried their pets.

If I were a juror as soon as they threw out the penis in mouth Jr. high school scenario, and she was still living with them as an adult (fact), I would have slept through the rest of the defense presentation.

There certainly was no proof any molestation occurred just the usual OJ shotgun defense crap trying to make something stick.

I also would have made the other 11 idiots stay there a few weeks to "deliberate".

Not the one day to get out of there so quickly.

Epic jury failure, but hey one of them changed their mind AFTER the case.

 

[GNBRETT]

Prosecutor
take down the mob = become Mayor

Defense attorney
Get some one perceived to be guilty off = Become a millionaire

Why would any one believe any of these two types of people with out any actual evidence not the nicely named made up type REAL evidence?

what in ur opinion is REAL evidence? like ive stated b4 most evidence in criminal prosecutions is simply a culmination of circumstances that points to one person.

its not like were talking about an adult that went missing here who could have been killed by any number of people after a night on the town.

were talking about a two yr. old who was being taken care of by her mother who was the last person to see her alive and then lied about how she disappeared by making up some cockamamy story about some fictitious nanny that never even existed.

there is not even another plausible suspect to entertain.

so im not getting ur point as to why anyone would not believe what the prosecution has stated. the prosecution simply presented a chronological course of events that "The she devil" engaged in.

the jury obviously didnt convict but two of the jurors have already spoken stating they do not believe she was innocent.

the one juror interviewed stated "How can you punish someone if you dont know what they did". she goes on say that she did not believe the defense and does not believe she drowned in the pool.

it really just goes to show a juries ignorance cause she goes on to say that you need to know how someone killed someone and where, when, and why. that is just unbelievable! the prosecution has no idea what is in some psychopathic killers head. for a juror to make those statement makes it obvious as to why they chose not to convict.

the guy interviewing this juror brought up the fact that she had duct tape on her mouth and most would say that indicates murder. the juror goes on to say maybe it does maybe it doesn't.....

that was pretty much all I had to hear because if a human being can not come to a logical conclusion that a murder in fact took place then its obvious that these jurors are just not very bright people and there was little the prosecution could have done to get a conviction from this group of jurors absent a confession.

and the sad part is she goes on to say "Not guilt does not mean innocent". well then if she was not guilty then that only leaves one other logical conclusion.

I get what she is saying that she feels the case was not proven but that is really not true. because if it was she would not be making statements about her not being innocent. really pathetic is what it is.

bottom line is when you have a death penalty case jurors want absolute proof with the smoking gun so they can sleep better at night knowing they convicted someone who will now get the death penalty.

 

[TR Custom Parts]

She will get her justice out on the streets. Looks like she is being released next Wednesday.

 

[GNBRETT]

I think they proved she was duct taped thrown in plastic garbage bags and driven around in Casesys car for a while.

And of course dumped where the father and daughter buried their pets.

If I were a juror as soon as they threw out the penis in mouth Jr. high school scenario, and she was still living with them as an adult (fact), I would have slept through the rest of the defense presentation.

There certainly was no proof any molestation occurred just the usual OJ shotgun defense crap trying to make something stick.

I also would have made the other 11 idiots stay there a few weeks to "deliberate".

Not the one day to get out of there so quickly.

Epic jury failure, but hey one of them changed their mind AFTER the case.

exactly. its almost so obvious that she is guilty of MURDER that debating her guilt or innocence is almost comical.

and the fact still remains that if she was found guilty there isnt a single person on this forum that would think for a second that the prosecution didn't prove their case.

if we did a poll b4 the verdict came down 100% of the members would have voted that she would have been convicted of murder and rightfully so.

and anyone who says that isnt true is full of chit!

 

[L8TRH8R]

I don't think she's innocent at all, however, duct tape COULD be applied AFTER death to make it LOOK like a murder vs. an accident. She's obviously a complete idiot who cares(d) more about her social world then her baby. I'm not 100% convinced the death was a murder vs. an accidental death that a mildly retarded person tried to make look like a murder. Why did Daddy try to kill himself if they (he) knew/know nothing of the disappearance????? Seems like maybe HE KNEW what he was going to be accused of..... Just saying, reasonable doubt is there regardless of the circumstantial evidence that we all know about. Like I say, I think she's guilty, of what I'm not sure. What I'm sure of though is that she'll be lucky to live another 10 years.

 

[gnxtc2]

Brett

It looks like you taking this at a personal level. In our line of work, things like will always happen.

Unless all of us were in the court room during the trial, we are only going by what the media reports. The jury here didn't want to convict on circumstanial evidence, they wanted evidence.

How many watched "My Cousin Vinnie"? The prosecutor was trying to convict on circumsantial evidence who was proven wrong in the end with hard evidence.

Billy T.
gnxtc2@aol.com