2goldfish
Active Member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2008
- Messages
- 3,979
- Reaction score
- 52
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm not arguing all of the evidence, just pointing out where people are posting inaccurate information as fact or asserting that the State was never challenged on evidence and then in the next breath questioning why the jury didn't consider it.
circumstantial evidence is still evidence under the law
although I would have disagreed with an acquittal, at least I would have felt a better if they at least deliberated, they didn't.
You think they would have wanted to go back and review and analyze to make sure they were doing the right thing. They didn't
For example a number of the defense's arguments didn;t make sense or conflicted with another argument they made, not reasonable
So of course I don;t agree with any threats or anything like that towards the jury, but criticism, yeah I think they deserve to be criticized not only for the verdict that they came to, but also for their lack of deliberation.
Caylee deserved more
What in the defense's opening statement came in as evidence? No evidence of drowning. No evidence Caylee could open the back door to get outside. No evidence George was present when Caylee died. No evidence George ever molested Casey. No evidence Casey suffers from a specific mental disorder that would cause her to go on happily when her baby died. No evidence that George would be likely to treat his granddaughter's body with such disrespect. No evidence that George ever touched Caylee's dead body. No evidence George ever had access to Casey's car June 16 - July 15. No evidence Kronk is a "morally bankrupt person." No evidence Kronk moved the body from the woods, hid it, or put duct tape on her skull. I just can't think of anything in the opening statement that the defense was able to provide evidence for.
I would just like to hear ONE juror say they made a mistake. That will begin to restore my faith in these people. Mistakes happen, this is a biggie, but man up and say you probably made a mistake if you really feel you did.
Yet another person that doesn't seem to understand what circumstantial evidence is. You do realize that the only non-circumstantial (direct) evidence is either an eye-witness account or a confession, right? Do you realize how many murder cases have neither of those, but still result in a conviction? To imply that a case is weak because the evidence is 'only circumstantial' is so very ignorant, and I get so sick of people misunderstanding that concept.
So what did they talk about for 10+ hours, then? Do you think they sat around and talked about things other than the case?
Juries are not required to go over every piece of evidence and testimony when they are deliberating, only the things they may not be clear on. They did not need to discuss the bugs and other scientific things, unless they were not clear on it. If they had taken the time to reread all the testimony or look at all the evidence they would have been deliberating for a month.
I will repeat what I posted a few days ago somewhere, and I heard it from a well respected attorney. In 80% of trials, most jurors will have their minds made up by the end of the closing statements.
Their meals are brought to them in the jury room and they can eat while they are talking. They don't take long breaks, there is a restroom inside the jury room. It takes about 10 minutes at the most to select a foreperson. Somebody is nominated, they take a vote and it's done.
Judge Alex was asked right after the verdict what was the shortest time a jury had ever come back with a verdict and he said 4-1/2 minutes.
And to make it worse,they never asked for guidance or clarification . Did they even look at the instructions?
I get riled up,but remember HHJP would not just shrug his shoulders and say"oh well". If we suspect something,then he does ,too. I have to believe there will be some type of inquiry into what happened. It won't change the outcome but it's still worthy of investigation.
I may be in the minority, but I dont believe for an instant that anyone on the defense believes Casey is innocent. These people deal with criminals and liars all the time, they know what she is. The fact is, they dont care, she is their meal ticket (especially Jose). I mean, what are they supposed to say to the media? We dont believe her, she is guilty? You never see defense attorneys say that ,even after an acquittal. Jose knew the truth from the beginning and adjusts the lie just like Casey, only when the previous one is disproved.
A defense attorney's job is to defend his client, not help the prosecution prove their case. While this prosecution team needed all the help they could get, there's no reason why that should have come from the defense team.
A defense attorney's job is to defend his client, not help the prosecution prove their case. While this prosecution team needed all the help they could get, there's no reason why that should have come from the defense team.
Looking at the defense table just before and after the verdict, they did not look to me like they expected not-guilty and they were shocked...shocked, I tell you. Hey Baez, you saved her, now you own her! I think one reason Mason is so grumpy and snarky about others' constitutional rights to freedom of assembly and speech is that now he's got a BIG problem, one whom he probably doesn't want around his wife and other family members. Good look defense boys and girls, you're probably going to need it.
Maybe not, but a little more truth and far fewer lies might have been nice. Not accusing innocent witnesses without an iota of proof might have at least indicated the defense consisted of a few decent individuals.
oh, please educate me? and maybe keep your name calling to yourself?
and I would bet that if I was jumping up and down screaming for justice, bashing the jury, and or talking trash about the DT along with my mis-quote about evidence you wouldnt be responding to me this way?