2011.07.17 Casey Released From Jail

[LinasK]

I certainly hope that it isn't. The only reason that I was okay with the OJ verdict was because the state cheated. I have never given any weight to the computer searches in regards to Caylee, because I felt they were for G and CA. But if the state cheated then I don't even want to say, for fear of flames, what I feel about that.

Huh?????:waitasec:

 

[mentalsolstice]

Pinellas woman regrets serving on Anthony jury

http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-n...an-regrets-serving-on-anthony-jury-ar-244721/

Her boyfriend kicked her out the day after the verdict. Swarms of media have tried to get interviews with her. There has been nationwide scorn for the 12-member jury panel that cleared Anthony of first-degree murder and other felony charges in the death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee.

Maybe if she had not been so willing to yap yap about it, he would have stuck by her. I can imagine my DH of 20 years would be disgusted by me if inserted myself with her unusual behavior. It tells me she was more interested in fame than keeping her relationship intact.

 

[Cherry Ames]

I certainly hope that it isn't. The only reason that I was okay with the OJ verdict was because the state cheated.

How did they cheat?

 

[SyraKelly]

oh god I hope she does not have a case--I will freak if she wins any money!!

 

[HRCODEPINK]

Huh?????:waitasec:

Hold on, I will go find a link. If I can finish wading through all the comparisons to him and CFCA.

ETA: Here is some of it: http://www.crimemuseum.org/oj_acquittal_trial_suit
http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/nns138.htm

 

[gngr~snap]

CA's testimony told me she was covering for who she believed caused Caylee's death. Obviously, the DT (and CA) were worried about the chloroform evidence. IOW, the chloroform evidence was weak to me, but CA's perjury spoke volumes about XICA being guilty. Hope that makes sense.

<EDIT> site not linkable

Cindy was covering for KC or GA?

Bradley said he confirmed someone had used Google to conduct a search for the keyword "chloroform" on March 17, 2008. Bradley testified that other searches, conducted at Wikipedia, included "chloroform," "hand to hand combat," "inhalation," "chest trauma" and "ruptured spleen."

On March 21, 2008, someone used the computer to search for "how to make chloroform." The misspelling prompted Google to respond, "Did you mean how to make chloroform?" a result someone allegedly clicked on, according to Bradley.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...873455.html#s303160&title=Casey_Anthony_Trial

 

[scorekeeper]

Actually, she is referring to being "forced" to do interviews after the verdict. But it's interesting to read into it that she may really be speaking of her decision as a juror.

Well, that makes me feel so much better (cough). I didn't know she was forced to do interviews.........since the jurors names were never released; hmmmmm....wouldn't that mean she would have had to contact a reporter for an interview??????? What, does she think we are all ignorant and stupid????

she also said......

"I think the media helped them to determine what their thoughts are," she says. "I think the media helped to determine the case before the jury saw it."

Ford says she hopes to never again see a criminal case from the jury box.

"I should get a lifetime pass," she says.

BBM......I came to my conclusion based on the evidence submitted and all that was reviewed over and over here on WS.........

I totally agree.......she gets a lifetime pass........but Caylee didn't get the justice due her!!!

 

[Shelby1]

I saw George bought a skill saw at the Depot, I bet his summer project will be to build a deck around the killing pool. I would still love to dig up the A's backyard. Something is burried back there I can feel it.

BBM

Like what?

 

[mentalsolstice]

oooh, true!! and he wasnt accepted to the bar for years & years because of his "moral bankruptcy"! good point! FCA is in like flynn!!

I went to law school, and passed 2 bar exams. I've never seen anyone who passed the exam and then is denied membership for several years because of "character issues."

BTW, I'm not going to verify myself on this site because I no longer practice because of physical disability and therefore have let my licenses expire (bar dues are expensive). However, because of my interest in cases here, I may pay my state's special membership dues (due in Sept.), meaning I'm in good standing but not practicing.

 

[NotRocketSighence]

Good Lord! This article is just filled with delicious tidbits.


"Reporters were at her house before she even arrived home from Orlando after the six-week trial. The same was true at her mother's residence."

"I was pretty much forced to talk," she says of an interview she gave to ABC News..."

"I don't think you should have to talk about it," she says. "It wasn't my idea."


WTH?! Gee... I wonder how they got her information? They didn't get anyone else's that didn't want to be contacted. I guess they held her down and forced her talk to them AFTER she and her family were treated to an all expense trip to Disney.

Poor little put upon dear. She was the first one out there shooting off her cocky mouth all confident in her decision and now she doesn't like the blowback she's getting. Too damn bad!

Unbelieveable. Grrrr....

So where do I sign up to be forced to go on an all expenses paid holiday to Disney???

 

[HRCODEPINK]

Here is another one on OJ: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,985587,00.html

I believe that OJ hired someone to kill Nicole. I totally believe that he was just as guilty as CFCA. However, I do not believe that it would have been possible for him to do it himself. The reason that the jury came back so quickly in OJ was because there was no way they could justify him getting himself the 1800 or so yards, scaling 2 fences and getting back into the house to head out to the airport on time. He had bad knees and was older than he was in his football days. I believe that if he had also been charged with conspiracy, he would have been found guilty. But regardless, when someone cheats, they deserve to lose. It is less about protecting the guilty and more about protecting the innocent. In my 12 years of volunteer work with the IP, I worked 17 cases, 15 of which resulted in the person's conviction being overturned, or at the very least, their sentence being reduced with the possibility of a new trial. Mistakes happen in court, as we saw in CFCA's case, and not always for the good of the defendant.

I don't think that the computer searches should have ever been brought up if they weren't 100% certain of what was being said. If you don't have it without cheating, then you just don't have it. I am not willing to risk my own rights or freedoms, nor the rights of freedoms of my children for anyone. No one. And when things are hinky, they need to be checked out and appropriate punishment should be doled out. Period. Under no circumstances should the state EVER present anything in court that is not 100% truthful.

 

[grammieto5]

Oh I'll never believe that.

No way.

JMO

I wish I didn't believe it, it makes me very sad.

 

[Aedrys]

Egads! Can you imagine her getting arrested for something in Arizona and that sheriff throwing her in an outdoor prison?

That simply wouldn't do!

If she gets arrested in Arizona (if that's where she is), I know of one good AZlawyer who won't be taking her calls! :great:

 

[Nefriahaia]

BBM

Like what?

God. Only. Knows. :gasp:

 

[Kimberlyd125]

So where do I sign up to be forced to go on an all expenses paid holiday to Disney???

Me too! My last trip to Disney cost over $3,000.

I'll take a free trip!!!

 

[3doglady]

Pinellas woman regrets serving on Anthony jury

http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-n...an-regrets-serving-on-anthony-jury-ar-244721/

Her boyfriend kicked her out the day after the verdict. Swarms of media have tried to get interviews with her. There has been nationwide scorn for the 12-member jury panel that cleared Anthony of first-degree murder and other felony charges in the death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee.

She was forced to give interviews? She was forced to go to Disney with her entire family courtesy of ABC? She couldn't wait to plaster her face all over TV.
Now she's upset because she explained how clueless her verdict was.

 

[January.]

So where do I sign up to be forced to go on an all expenses paid holiday to Disney???

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[LinasK]

Here is another one on OJ: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,985587,00.html

I believe that OJ hired someone to kill Nicole. I totally believe that he was just as guilty as CFCA. However, I do not believe that it would have been possible for him to do it himself. The reason that the jury came back so quickly in OJ was because there was no way they could justify him getting himself the 1800 or so yards, scaling 2 fences and getting back into the house to head out to the airport on time. He had bad knees and was older than he was in his football days. I believe that if he had also been charged with conspiracy, he would have been found guilty. But regardless, when someone cheats, they deserve to lose. It is less about protecting the guilty and more about protecting the innocent. In my 12 years of volunteer work with the IP, I worked 17 cases, 15 of which resulted in the person's conviction being overturned, or at the very least, their sentence being reduced with the possibility of a new trial. Mistakes happen in court, as we saw in CFCA's case, and not always for the good of the defendant.

I don't think that the computer searches should have ever been brought up if they weren't 100% certain of what was being said. If you don't have it without cheating, then you just don't have it. I am not willing to risk my own rights or freedoms, nor the rights of freedoms of my children for anyone. No one. And when things are hinky, they need to be checked out and appropriate punishment should be doled out. Period. Under no circumstances should the state EVER present anything in court that is not 100% truthful.

How does this prove your statement though, that the Prosecution cheated in OJ's case???
I do believe that OJ won because the case was tried in downtown L.A., rather than Santa Monica where the crime was held, by a jury of his rich peers. Instead by a jury of mainly blacks who refused to convict because of race. Also Darden screwed up by having him try on the glove for the first time in open court- it had shrunk from so much blood loss, OJ stopped taking his arthritis meds, and mugged putting it on. Then they didn't negate Fuhrman's racism, and Ito should have recused himself because of a prior association with Cochran. Beyond that, I don't see cheating. I have been in touch with someone from the Dream Team, who confided that they all knew he was Guilty, but defended him under "moral cover".
I can buy sloppy evidence collection, but I do NOT believe it was planted!

 

[gladiatorqueen]

Maybe if she had not been so willing to yap yap about it, he would have stuck by her. I can imagine my DH of 20 years would be disgusted by me if inserted myself with her unusual behavior. It tells me she was more interested in fame than keeping her relationship intact.

My gosh. How can you even begin to make these kind of assumptions about someone you don't even know? Wow. Follks can be harsh, IMO.

 

[Cherry Ames]

Here is another one on OJ: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,985587,00.html

I believe that OJ hired someone to kill Nicole. I totally believe that he was just as guilty as CFCA. However, I do not believe that it would have been possible for him to do it himself. The reason that the jury came back so quickly in OJ was because there was no way they could justify him getting himself the 1800 or so yards, scaling 2 fences and getting back into the house to head out to the airport on time. He had bad knees and was older than he was in his football days. I believe that if he had also been charged with conspiracy, he would have been found guilty. But regardless, when someone cheats, they deserve to lose. It is less about protecting the guilty and more about protecting the innocent. In my 12 years of volunteer work with the IP, I worked 17 cases, 15 of which resulted in the person's conviction being overturned, or at the very least, their sentence being reduced with the possibility of a new trial. Mistakes happen in court, as we saw in CFCA's case, and not always for the good of the defendant.

I don't think that the computer searches should have ever been brought up if they weren't 100% certain of what was being said. If you don't have it without cheating, then you just don't have it. I am not willing to risk my own rights or freedoms, nor the rights of freedoms of my children for anyone. No one. And when things are hinky, they need to be checked out and appropriate punishment should be doled out. Period. Under no circumstances should the state EVER present anything in court that is not 100% truthful.

Your explanation doesn't make sense to me. Try reading Bugliosi's or Petrocelli's books on the case.