"G (Guilty)" vs "NG (Not Guilty)" Where do you stand?

[Brini]

If just one or two members of the jury are really stupid, and don't even look at evidence, let alone think intelligently about it, then who knows what the verdict might be?

Who knows what THAT verdict might be.

In order to find KC NG, all 12 would have to overlook all the evidence.

Otherwise, you just have a hung jury, on the one trial.

 

[Brini]

I feel the same and have not voted.

I did look at the votes just now. 78.10% of the voters think she is guilty as charged. That isn't enough for a conviction. If the jurors essentially end up thinking like the WS pollsters do right now.... Casey Anthony walks.

No... if 78% of the jurors think like the voters, it's just a mistrial.

 

[Brini]

Red Herring team:

BXXX
Geraldo (BXXX mouthpiece)
Conway (who sold his soul to the devil)
Cindy

These people are doing NOTHING but tossing out red herrings. They are doing nothing of anay significance. For one thing, i9f I were Roy Kronk, I'd be suing Baez for getting into his personnel records at his job. That is the ONLY way he could have gotten the information about the dropped kidnapping charge, since it was explunged from Kronk's record.

Waters are clear:

KC had custody of Caylee
KC had custody of the car
KC refused to report Caylee missing
Two dogs from two counties hit on the car
Decomp in the car
KC lied and misled LE from the first.

 

[Wudge]

Waters are clear:

KC had custody of Caylee
KC had custody of the car
KC refused to report Caylee missing
Two dogs from two counties hit on the car
Decomp in the car
KC lied and misled LE from the first.

Nothing you've listed reliably supports the state's murder one charge (premeditated murder) much less is dispositive of murder one.


(Friend of those who have no friend. ......... Boston Blackie)

 

[MAMABEAR]

Duct tape over baby's mouth and nose.
All the stuff on her puter that points to her dark side (the bandaid--the hanging gurl or teddy or what ever it was)
The web pages she visited of household weapons---chloroform.
Tattoo
And there are more that I can't member right now.
And what ever else the State has that they haven't released.

 

[Brini]

Nothing you've listed reliably supports the state's murder one charge (premeditated murder) much less is dispositive of murder one.


(Friend of those who have no friend. ......... Boston Blackie)

Sets up a nice case for felony murder, for one thing.

And.. who tapes up the mouth of a deceased accident victim, BTW?

 

[countzero]

Man, this is hard one for me to type.

I am going to try to keep an open mind until all the evidence is in.

Do I feel with the forensic evidence so far presented KC is quilty, YES. Do I think she acted alone. NO. Are CA/GA/LA involved, yes.

It is to what degree KC is quilty that I have issues within my brain. If it is proved beyond a shadow of doubt that KC acted alone, then in my brain she is guilty of pre-mediated murder. If the evidence comes to light in the trial that CA/GA/LA played a part in the murder, then again KC is guilty but I would want to see exactly what LE/SA present to the jury and the Judge Strickland.

And no, this doesn't contradict my previous posts. Until forensic evidence proves without a shadow of doubt that CA/GA/LA were not involved in the actual murder of Caylee which I believe to be they were, I cannot say KC acted alone. Just too many unanswered questions about the timeframe from 6-15 to the present that I want answers for.

Ok, I will now :couch: to avoid the :trout: I will probably receive now.

 

[yolorado]

Nothing you've listed reliably supports the state's murder one charge (premeditated murder) much less is dispositive of murder one.


(Friend of those who have no friend. ......... Boston Blackie)

Yeah, all those things do. Because if it wasn't murder, what the freak was it?! Parents call the paramedics and cops when their kid have an accident. They get medical assistance. The try to save their lives. They try to have them revived. They TELL the paramedics and the cops that their kid had an accident. They explain what happened. They bury their kids in cemeteries or cremate them and scatter the ashes. The guilty party on after not reporting their children's death.

After accidents, innocent parents don't duct tape their baby's mouths, tripple bag them and toss them in stinky swamps. That's what guilty people do.

This is a circumstantial case but KC is as guilty as anyone ever has been, in the history of the world.

 

[yolorado]

Casey is not innocent. Even if others killed her lets say accidentally she didn't report it at all which makes her equally guilty.

This is my big thing. If a kid goes missing and the parent doesn't report it or take affirmative action to actively assist in discovery of the child, that should be the end of it-- 25 to life right there, without the prosecution having to prove another darn thing. If the kid turns up dead after having not been reported missing by their parent, guardian or other responsible caregiver, that should get them life with no possibility of parole. Not reporting your missing child gone, not co-operating in the search should be serious life-penalty crimes in and of themselves.

It's a freaking crime that parents today apparently can 'lose' their children and then run our legal system ragged. It's shameful when you think about it. No one charged with protecting an innocent baby should just be able to say 'whoops' when that child can't be found!!

 

[grinchmaiden]

The SP case was also circumstantial and we know where he sits day after day!

 

[Wudge]

Yeah, all those things do. Because if it wasn't murder, what the freak was it?! Parents call the paramedics and cops when their kid have an accident. They get medical assistance. The try to save their lives. They try to have them revived. They TELL the paramedics and the cops that their kid had an accident. They explain what happened. They bury their kids in cemeteries or cremate them and scatter the ashes. The guilty party on after not reporting their children's death.

After accidents, innocent parents don't duct tape their baby's mouths, tripple bag them and toss them in stinky swamps. That's what guilty people do.

This is a circumstantial case but KC is as guilty as anyone ever has been, in the history of the world.

I'm fine with using circumstantial evidence to convict someone of murder one; i.e., provided it represents inculpatory evidence that has an extremely high degree of reliability.

However, you're largely assessing suspected behavior in times of stress. At best, behavior can be considered corroborating evidence, not inculpatory evidence. In other words, it's reliability is too low to be the central basis upon which someone can be convicted of first-degree murder.

Moreover. assessing behavior can cut easily both ways. It should be fairly obvious that if the state alleges Casey drove around with Caylee's body in the trunk of her car for around eleven days (it appears they will indeed claim this), that the defense will almost certainly maintain that Casey allegedly driving around with a body in the trunk of her car for that period of time works strongly against the state's notion that Caylee's death resulted from a planned and deliberated murder. And if Caylee's death was not planned and deliberated, murder one is off the table.

 

[Wudge]

Sets up a nice case for felony murder, for one thing.

And.. who tapes up the mouth of a deceased accident victim, BTW?

Obviously, prosecutors do not see see the case for felony murder that you do, because they have not charged Casey with felony murder.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Nothing you've listed reliably supports the state's murder one charge (premeditated murder) much less is dispositive of murder one.


To anyone with an iota of common sense, it 'absolutely' does. What should the standard be? Do we need 10 eye witnesses and to have the actual crime video taped from different angles before we can draw a reasonable conclusion? People like you are the reason the legal system is so flawed. You want to make it into a game by acting smarmy and clever. It's not a game, we know what she did. Here's hoping that guilty people found innocent by your reasoning move into your neighborhood. Disgusting.:razz:

 

[Horace Finklestein]

This is my big thing. If a kid goes missing and the parent doesn't report it or take affirmative action to actively assist in discovery of the child, that should be the end of it-- 25 to life right there, without the prosecution having to prove another darn thing. If the kid turns up dead after having not been reported missing by their parent, guardian or other responsible caregiver, that should get them life with no possibility of parole. Not reporting your missing child gone, not co-operating in the search should be serious life-penalty crimes in and of themselves.

It's a freaking crime that parents today apparently can 'lose' their children and then run our legal system ragged. It's shameful when you think about it. No one charged with protecting an innocent baby should just be able to say 'whoops' when that child can't be found!!

But that's where the delightful upstanding defense attorneys come in, throwing red herrings everywhere and simply making up or supporting their client's nonsense with things like "she feared for her family's safety" and "the kidnappers are being watched" and "we were afraid to go to law enforcement" then the tv-educated jurors seem to lap it up as if life were some movie.
I have no problem with someone having a zealous defense, but good lord was our system originally set up to entertain any possible hypothetical situation - and if it can't be proven false, the person walks free? The legislators have to get in on this and make some changes. Fwiw, imo,the out of state attorneys and full time "expert witnesses" must stop.

 

[Brini]

Man, this is hard one for me to type.

I am going to try to keep an open mind until all the evidence is in.

Do I feel with the forensic evidence so far presented KC is quilty, YES. Do I think she acted alone. NO. Are CA/GA/LA involved, yes.

It is to what degree KC is quilty that I have issues within my brain. If it is proved beyond a shadow of doubt that KC acted alone, then in my brain she is guilty of pre-mediated murder. If the evidence comes to light in the trial that CA/GA/LA played a part in the murder, then again KC is guilty but I would want to see exactly what LE/SA present to the jury and the Judge Strickland.

And no, this doesn't contradict my previous posts. Until forensic evidence proves without a shadow of doubt that CA/GA/LA were not involved in the actual murder of Caylee which I believe to be they were, I cannot say KC acted alone. Just too many unanswered questions about the timeframe from 6-15 to the present that I want answers for.

Ok, I will now :couch: to avoid the :trout: I will probably receive now.

That's "reasonable doubt," honey.XXXXXXOOOOOO

BTW-- You KNOW I'm your biggest fan, and you know we disagree, here.

I would not hit you with a broom, ever.. But, if there happens to be a cream pie icon..... XXXXXXXXX

 

[Brini]

But that's where the delightful upstanding defense attorneys come in, throwing red herrings everywhere and simply making up or supporting their client's nonsense with things like "she feared for her family's safety" and "the kidnappers are being watched" and "we were afraid to go to law enforcement" then the tv-educated jurors seem to lap it up as if life were some movie.
I have no problem with someone having a zealous defense, but good lord was our system originally set up to entertain any possible hypothetical situation - and if it can't be proven false, the person walks free? The legislators have to get in on this and make some changes. Fwiw, imo,the out of state attorneys and full time "expert witnesses" must stop.

I don't think the jury will be sucked in by the many convoluted and mutually contradicted "plots" that the As have come up with, Horace.

Where the rubber meets the road, the evidence will point in only one direction. As it already does.

Most people are not gonna buy the Invisinanny, the Mob took Caylee, JG Diddit, the Lineman Diddit, the BHM Diddit or any of that other Grimm's fairy tale stuff.

 

[Brini]

I'm fine with using circumstantial evidence to convict someone of murder one; i.e., provided it represents inculpatory evidence that has an extremely high degree of reliability.

However, you're largely assessing suspected behavior in times of stress. At best, behavior can be considered corroborating evidence, not inculpatory evidence. In other words, it's reliability is too low to be the central basis upon which someone can be convicted of first-degree murder.

Moreover. assessing behavior can cut easily both ways. It should be fairly obvious that if the state alleges Casey drove around with Caylee's body in the trunk of her car for around eleven days (it appears they will indeed claim this), that the defense will almost certainly maintain that Casey allegedly driving around with a body in the trunk of her car for that period of time works strongly against the state's notion that Caylee's death resulted from a planned and deliberated murder. And if Caylee's death was not planned and deliberated, murder one is off the table.

Not even, honey. The taped-up head argues for premeditation (I'm not really into the computer stuff-household weapons stuff, myself, BTW).

Not having made a plan for disposal doesn't obviate a lack of premeditation.

Moreover, in most cases wherein the killer has kept the body around, juries have not said, "Aw! That's not so bad. He was just under stress. He's prolly innocent. Maybe he just didn't notice that his wife's dead body was under the bed for a week."

Possession of the dead body IS a smoking gun, honey. Any juror will see it that way. That's substantiated by the dogs, the lab, and testimony re: the stench by the entire A family, including KC, herself.

Most jurors having children or having had children are NOT going to see that refusal to report or the partying hearty as anything but what it is: 1) guilty knowledge (refusal to report), and 2) a celebration of personal freedom, unencumbered by a child (partying non-stop).

Then, there is also no innocent explanation for KC and the As lies, obfuscations, and attempts at derailing the investigation. An innocent mother and family would do anything to help LE find a missing baby.

You can argue inculpatory and exculpatory until pigs fly. The jurors won't overlook the obvious. She killed her kid. And, her behavior is crucial evidence, as is the behavior of the perp in any other case.

Or, to put it in another context, the guy who has the money from the bank heist in his trunk is prolly the thief.

 

[Brini]

Obviously, prosecutors do not see see the case for felony murder that you do, because they have not charged Casey with felony murder.

Well, she IS up for Murder One, though. WITH the DP back on the table.

 

[Brini]

Nothing you've listed reliably supports the state's murder one charge (premeditated murder) much less is dispositive of murder one.


To anyone with an iota of common sense, it 'absolutely' does. What should the standard be? Do we need 10 eye witnesses and to have the actual crime video taped from different angles before we can draw a reasonable conclusion? People like you are the reason the legal system is so flawed. You want to make it into a game by acting smarmy and clever. It's not a game, we know what she did. Here's hoping that guilty people found innocent by your reasoning move into your neighborhood. Disgusting.:razz:

Honey, that's just one opinion.

You and I both know that most murderers (most CRIMINALS, in fact) are convicted on circumstantial evidence. (Scott Peterson comes to mind) And, in this case, we have a mountain of it.

All that's needed here is a nice, average jury.

 

[Wudge]

SNIP

What should the standard be?

SNIP

People like you are the reason the legal system is so flawed. You want to make it into a game by acting smarmy and clever. It's not a game, we know what she did.

SNIP

Our standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", which is an extremely high hurdle. To clear that hurdle requires the reliability of major evidence to be at least equally high. I don't see that reliability attached to any such evidence in this case.

Moreover, based on my experience assessing the relevance, materiality, competence and reliability of evidence, my call has long been that the evidence does not support murder one in this case.

I'm not gaming anything. It should be clear that I see and measure evidence much differently than you do. And if you or one of yours were ever charged with a felony and facing a criminal trial based on weak circumstantial evidence, I highly suspect that you would consider my assessment more favorably. I also suspect that it would not bother you one iota if your jury was composed of Wudge clones.

FWIW