I don't really know how to explain this--we all agree that Baez's fairy tale was ridiculous, and no one in their right mind would even consider it as reasonable doubt. It apparently DID raise a reasonable doubt in the jurors' minds, because they acquitted FCA of all charges despite the mountains of circumstantial evidence against her. Even if they thought they had to have the exact cause of death to find her guilty, they would need to have an alternative theory as to what could have happened. There was certainly no doubt that Caylee was dead and discarded in a swamp. As I said, the jurors were half-wits.
Mistakes made that led to Casey being aquitted...
- Thread starter Mrs G Norris
- Start date
New Posts
-
Phil Donahue, talk show host pioneer, dies at 88
- Latest: ilovewings
LetThemEatCake
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2016
- Messages
- 260
- Reaction score
- 17
No it did not raise reasonable doubt. It raised A DOUBT which is entirely different and we need incredibly clear about this, this case cannot be discussed further in a productive way nor can such a horrific verdict be avoided again unless we are all crystal clear on this. Jose Baez DID NOT RAISE REASONABLE DOUBT. If I go into a courtroom and argue that ALIENS abducted Casey and murdered her and dumped her in the woods, and the jury believes that, that is not raising reasonable doubt because my argument is a) unreasonable b) unsupported by evidence and c) completely impossible given the existing facts and evidence. If the jury comes back with a not guilty verdict, the argument may have raised A DOUBT about the existence of Aliens and their involvement in the case, and they may have acquitted based on that fact but is it a reasonable doubt in regards to the case?? No. Did the jury follow the reasonable doubt instruction?? No. As a matter of fact, Judge Perry should have annulled the verdict and the trial if that were possible because the decision was not based on reason. This is of paramount importance and this is something that apparently not even judges understand because they don't speak of it. Not once have I heard Jeff Ashton say this either, and that is why this keeps happening and that is exactly what happened during the OJ trial. The defense DID NOT RAISE REASONABLE DOUBT. They raised DOUBTS about the LAPD and their competency however such doubts were not pertinent to the case and did not invalidate the evidence. The jurors, being the mental defectives that they were, felt they had to acquit because they had some doubts about aspects of the case, but you don't acquit based on doubts, you acquit based on REASONABLE DOUBTS and this did not exist in the OJ trial and they did not exist in the Anthony trial.::::.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................So to be clear: REASONABLE AND UNREASONABLE have clear definitions in the dictionary, they are not based on personal opinion or experience, and NO REASONABLE DOUBT WAS RAISED IN THE ANTHONY TRIAL BECAUSE WHATEVER DOUBT THE DEFENSE COULD HAVE RAISED, DID NOT INVALIDATE THE OVERWHELMING PHYSICAL AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF GUILT, as a matter of fact, Jose Baez arguments were ANATHEMA to the irrefutable evidence. In other words, THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT REFUTED, therefore it is impossible for any reasonable doubt to have been risen at the trial, and that is the irrefutable fact.
LetThemEatCake
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2016
- Messages
- 260
- Reaction score
- 17
But that is not reasonable doubt. There is irrefutable evidence that George WAS NOT with Caylee at the time of her death. This is a fact. People cannot be at two places at the same time. This is ALSO A FACT. So the argument that George was somehow involved in Caylee's death is an UNREASONABLE ARGUMENT, it's not physically possible, it is not a sound and logical argument so if such an argument caused doubts in a juror's mind, they were UNREASONABLE AND ILLOGICAL DOUBTS. So even if those nonsensical doubts were factored into a verdict, you still can't say reasonable doubt was raised in court because no reasonable alternative to the existing and irrefutable facts of the case was argued in court. So where is this reasonable doubt argument coming from??
heidisams
Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2011
- Messages
- 743
- Reaction score
- 41
The defense team's version of events doesn't match the evidence.... the jury just believed them, they didn't walk through the evidence or they would've realized all the stumbling blocks in the defense fantasy.... Like whether fca's activities during the day on the 16th matched the drowning theory, the state submitted her computer activity/cell pings so the jury would have them avaialble during delibrations...But they didn't care... And they didn't care that the defense provided no explanation how she ended up in the swamp in the condition she was found in.. etc, etc, etc... Imo, the acquittal was due to a lazy, uninterested jury, not a great defense...
All jmo.
All jmo.
LetThemEatCake
Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2016
- Messages
- 260
- Reaction score
- 17
How pathetic is George Anthony? http://crimefeed.com/2017/04/29491/...campaign=Investigation+Discovery&sf69992840=1
It's coming from the jurors, who said after the trial that THEY didn't think the evidence was sufficient to convince them beyond a reasonable doubt that FCA was guilty of anything. Your statements are all true, and we all agree with them. Either the jurors were lying or they just didn't understand the concept of reasonable doubt.
RANCH
United we stand, divided we fall.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 18,078
- Reaction score
- 37,802
BBM
Can you refresh my memory to the testimony that showed George "did it"? I remember Baez making that claim but I don't recall him calling any witness's that show George "did it."
Just trying to understand what you're basing your opinion on. Thanks.
I don't agree with Wendy101 that the story made perfect sense, I felt it didn't make any sense. But it appears the jury bought it enough to raise reasonable doubt. The only reason I said the defense did a great job is because they turned the trial into a circus. First, with their disgusting lie of accidental drowning, sexual abuse, and a loving grandfather tossing his granddaughter's body in a swamp. Then, their nasty attacks on George, their ridiculous, time-wasting witnesses, Baez's ranting and yelling, and their constant motions that caused endless delays (don't think that wasn't deliberate, they knew there was a juror who had a pre-paid cruise), and then their rousing emotional closing statement about reasonable doubt. I think their main goal was to keep FCA off of death row, and get a lesser verdict, by dazing and confusing at least one of the jury members. Imagine their surprise when it worked on all twelve! So, just to clarify-I don't think the defense did a great job in terms of presenting good evidence, or refuting the prosecution's evidence, they just threw the everything but the kitchen sink at the jury and hoped some of it would stick-and it worked. I think they were all sleazy, dishonorable, and immoral. But legally, they did a good job because they won an unwinnable case.
My eyes almost got stuck in the back of my head during the defense closing arguments.
Especially when Baez said that "the truth stops here."
I think they did a horrible job.
IMO, Baez had a mole on Casey's jury and he put another one on Aaron Hernandez's jury. He did what he always does, cheat.
He just isn't a good lawyer and no one is this lucky.
RANCH
United we stand, divided we fall.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 18,078
- Reaction score
- 37,802
Jose Baez and Cheney Mason didn't raise reasonable doubt for me when I watched the trial. I kept waiting for them to bring a witness that would support the claims made in the defenses opening statement.
I never saw it.
Cheney Mason and Dorothy Simms did the job they were supposed to do.
Baez tried to tamper with witnesses, produce false documents (that would make it appear that Suburban Drive was searched back in August) and a strong case can be made that he subporned perjury from Cindy Anthony during the trial.
He also had a bar complaint filed against him after Dominic Casey told Judge Strickland that Baez had directed him to search the area Caylee was later found and told him that if he found Caylee, he was to walk away and call Baez prior to calling Law Enforcement.
Dominic Casey is a nut, but he's been consistent with this. He was also caught on camera searching Suburban near where Caylee was found in November 2008.
The jury .. not me personally,,, defence was able to get them to think George did it
RANCH
United we stand, divided we fall.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 18,078
- Reaction score
- 37,802
I'm confused. You said IMO which means in my opinion.
RANCH
United we stand, divided we fall.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2008
- Messages
- 18,078
- Reaction score
- 37,802
Okay. Thanks.
I agree. I don't think any prosecutor will underestimate Baez again. Or they shouldn't. The fact he got an acquittal for Aaron Hernandez on 2 murders is......something else. Maybe Aaron should have used him in his first trial.
Sent from my SM-J700T using Tapatalk