RIP Common Sense

[Meri]

Let me just add to my above post that I'm happy with this verdict ... now. It took me a while to get here, but I can see now that Casey is going to suffer way more being out of prison than had she spent her life there. It's already starting and it's not ever going to get any better for her. That makes me pretty darn happy.

 

[wonderllama]

A child was murdered and her mother who clearly killed her walked because the jury was easily misled by the killer, her family lying on the stand to get her off, and her defense attorneys who knew full well how to play the jury.

I think you'll find that THAT is exactly my point.

It's not about common sense...it's about playing the legal game.
And until there's a better system in place, we have to accept that sometimes the guilty go free.

 

[KoldKase]

Just to pick a bit out of your post again, sorry

It does make it reasonable doubt if the prosecution can't dismiss it.
And simply put, they couldn't.
And why couldn't they?
Cos they had never considered it to be an option!

A smart prosecution covers its butt.

There's the doubt...."Oh, maybe he DID have something to do with it...they can't prove he didn't".

We may all be suffering from knowing too much about the case rather than approaching it from a layperson's position.

Excuse me...did you just say the prosecution could not prove George DIDN'T do it?

That's not logical. No one can prove a negative. Prove to me aliens don't exist!

The prosecution proved Casey DID it. The defense offered NOTHING but LIES created by none other than the woman who was shown on videotape LYING to police endlessly, to her family endlessly, TO EVERYONE all the time. And Casey never even had to take the stand to tell those lies herself.

She told those lies through her attorneys, and guess what? THAT'S NOT EVIDENCE. The judge instructed the jury that what the attorneys said is NOT evidence. Witness testimony, physical evidence--that's all the jury was legally allowed to consider. What Baez said, which he offered NO EVIDENCE to back up, IS NOT EVIDENCE.

He can say George, Cindy, Lee, and the Russian army molested Casey: NOT EVIDENCE until someone testifies under oath they saw it, heard it, smelt it...something. Baez had NOTHING. Not even Casey!

Many a judge would not have let Baez even make that argument in opening statement because he offered NOTHING in discovery other than my client says it. Since the prosecution can't force Casey to testify, they can't question her until she takes the stand...and she had until the end of the defense case to decide that. We all knew she would never get on that stand. The defense saw the weakness of the prosecution there because the judge let Baez tell Casey's lies FOR HER...without ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE to back her up.

Not even Cindy or Lee was asked about George committing the murder, being at the home that day, molesting Casey, if they saw George do it, nothing.

That's because they would have said no.

They weren't asked by the defense about any molestation, either, were they? That's because the jury would have heard them say NO.

So the defense just relied on LIES LIES AND MORE LIES to get that child killer off, and the jury did not even consider that there was not one piece of evidence presented that George had anything to do with the murder of Caylee. They said, oh, well! George MIGHT have had something to do with it, because Baez said so. All REAL evidence to the contrary: Not guilty!

So I repeat: just because Baez said it does not make it evidence. Scientific testing proving the body was in the trunk of the car only Casey had; witness testimony; Casey's behavior for a month after the disappearance, the lies, hiding the body long enough for it to decompose; the evidence on the body--DUCT TAPE on a baby's mouth/face, that's how she died, because as the M.E. Dr. G pointed out, why duct tape a (dead) child? Then Caylee was thrown to the wild like trash by the mother who did not love her baby--that's solid evidence.

It all leads to Casey, beyond any doubt; not to George, who had no evidence presented he was involved at all. NONE.

The one and only person who so much as mentioned accidental drowning--ADMITTED LIAR CASEY, through her lawyers no less, not even under oath and being cross-examined by the prosecution! But the jury didn't care or couldn't understand that Casey wasn't testifying under the rules of the court, her attorney was by proxy! Which means there was NO evidence at all whatsoever the child drowned. Why duct tape the mouth of a drowned child?

And that, my friend, is common sense. Not giving credence to the unsupported allegations made by a proven liar through her lawyer is not only common sense, it's the law.

In this case, the law was thwarted by a group of 12 people who had no common sense and weren't too smart, either.

So I've had my say and that's all I got. Peace. eace:

 

[wonderllama]

No, I'm saying this....


Prosecution said "she did it"
Defence said "George did it"

Prosecution couldn't prove George didn't do it, and in doing so couldn't prove Casey DID do it.

I know about the case, I may be in Australia but I still watched every day of the trial (while working *cough*). I saw what was said and what wasn't said.

I'm unsure how you aren't getting my point with this.

The prosecution DIDN'T prove she did it.
The proved she COULD have done it.
But the defence in saying George could have done it, or it could have been an accident exploited the weakness in the prosecution case. That weakness being that Casey was the only suspect.



Just to add something extra - how exactly do you think it was proven by the prosecution that Casey did it, cos I'm pretty sure that never happened. I certainly recall watching weeks of HOW she might have done it however...

*******
pardon my editing, it went wacky so I had to rearrange....

 

[KoldKase]

Let me just add to my above post that I'm happy with this verdict ... now. It took me a while to get here, but I can see now that Casey is going to suffer way more being out of prison than had she spent her life there. It's already starting and it's not ever going to get any better for her. That makes me pretty darn happy.

But our justice system is supposed to protect citizens from criminals like Casey, and it was an epic fail.

She will have more victims. She's a true predator. We haven't heard the last of the crimes of Casey Anthony.

 

[KoldKase]

No, I'm saying this....


Prosecution said "she did it"
Defence said "George did it"

Prosecution couldn't prove George didn't do it, and in doing so couldn't prove Casey DID do it.

I know about the case, I may be in Australia but I still watched every day of the trial (while working *cough*). I saw what was said and what wasn't said.

I'm unsure how you aren't getting my point with this.

The prosecution DIDN'T prove she did it.
The proved she COULD have done it.
But the defence in saying George could have done it, or it could have been an accident exploited the weakness in the prosecution case. That weakness being that Casey was the only suspect.



Just to add something extra - how exactly do you think it was proven by the prosecution that Casey did it, cos I'm pretty sure that never happened. I certainly recall watching weeks of HOW she might have done it however...

*******
pardon my editing, it went wacky so I had to rearrange....

Maybe this is where you're confused:

No, the defense did not say George did it. They said George molested Casey. They said he found the drowned baby in the pool and blamed Casey for negligence. Also they never offered any evidence that any of this was true.

Never did they say George did it. In fact, they never even said what mean old George and poor victimized Casey did with the body, who put it in the woods, etc. They only attacked the innocent man who found it, confusing the jury--which was obviously really easy to do.

So for the jurors to decide George could have done it means they based their decision on lies told by Casey through Baez, but creatively added to them! The defense said the child drowned, though they offered NO EVIDENCE of that other than pictures of Cindy on a ladder with her and her standing at the glass door to the backyard. So how is that evidence George killed the child?

I have no doubt the prosecution proved Casey murdered Caylee: DUCT TAPE ON MOUTH, decomposing body in her trunk, dumped in woods while Casey partied like a grieving mom and avoided getting caught, lied, lied, and lied some more, sending the world to an innocent woman's door claiming she was a child kidnapper. How the jury could fantasize that Casey Anthony is anything but 100% guilty is beyond me.

But I'd bet a lot that it had something to do with those double DDs she was shoving at the jury foreman.

If you believe differently, we'll just agree to disagree.

 

[wonderllama]

You are right of course, they didn't say George did it, they said Caylee drowned and George helped Casey cover it up. The point being, not one bit of evidence presented was able to discount this as a possibility and so she wasn't convicted.

And once again, just for the record...I believe she did it.
My posts here aren't trying to deny her guilt, they are an attempt to say that it isn't common sense that is lacking, it was a clear cut case without any doubt that was lacking and for us to all get our panties in a twist because of it doesn't help.

You may not agree with the system, but tell me a better version of Law and the Justice System as a whole and I'll give you a squillion dollars.

$h!t happens sometimes.
It happened to Caylee and it then happened in the Court Room.
It's no fault of common sense, it's a reflection of our system - The Best System in the World!


I can see how the likes of Roy et al sometimes feel in these forums when everyone is against them. People need to take a step back, not get so emotional and argue the point without taking on the emotion personally.

 

[Tessa2009]

No, I'm saying this....


Prosecution said "she did it"
Defence said "George did it"

Prosecution couldn't prove George didn't do it, and in doing so couldn't prove Casey DID do it.

George was NOT on trial. George was NOT indicted for murder of his grandchild.

The LAST person with the child was Casey, the next time we see her is in a swamp, in two trash bags and a laundry bag skeletonized. Evidence showed high amounts of chloroform in the trunk of Casey's car, duct tape on the skull. COMMON SENSE says Casey murdered her daughter - it is NOT the prosecution's job to show which was the murder weapon in a circumstantial case. Common sense was supposed to do that for them. These jurors wanted a video of the murder. I have heard and read MOST of everyone's excuse or theory on why the jury "got this verdict right", there has NOT been ONE that has made me say "Ahhhh, well, that makes sense." Common sense was NOT part of the jury - Of course, this is my opinion only.

 

[KoldKase]

You are right of course, they didn't say George did it, they said Caylee drowned and George helped Casey cover it up. The point being, not one bit of evidence presented was able to discount this as a possibility and so she wasn't convicted.

And once again, just for the record...I believe she did it.
My posts here aren't trying to deny her guilt, they are an attempt to say that it isn't common sense that is lacking, it was a clear cut case without any doubt that was lacking and for us to all get our panties in a twist because of it doesn't help.

You may not agree with the system, but tell me a better version of Law and the Justice System as a whole and I'll give you a squillion dollars.

$h!t happens sometimes.
It happened to Caylee and it then happened in the Court Room.
It's no fault of common sense, it's a reflection of our system - The Best System in the World!


I can see how the likes of Roy et al sometimes feel in these forums when everyone is against them. People need to take a step back, not get so emotional and argue the point without taking on the emotion personally.

I bet your pardon. I thought I was respectful. I wasn't taking it personally, either.

If you felt I was, then again I beg your pardon.

 

[Roy23]

I bet your pardon. I thought I was respectful. I wasn't taking it personally, either.

If you felt I was, then again I beg your pardon.

KK,

Boy do I feel your pain on the Casey Anthony deal. First of all, I am gonna comment because maybe I can help. I think you and Wonderlama are both right in a way. Casey was guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt in my mind. And I loved the Prosecution team. I think they did as good of job as I have ever seen. But they made one major major mistake. They overcharged the case.

I would have given her the needle. No doubt. But on a jury you have to follow the rules. The evidence presented was for a Capital murder case that centered around motive and premediatated murder. That was a large mistake. Although I think they proved a murder, premeditation was a large reach when you consider other aspects of the case. I do believe she planned it but not one person would say she is a bad mother and her family was not gonna be the lynchpin that got her that needle. Turn the situation around as if it was your kid.

Had the evidence been centered around Manslaughter, she would be in jail.

 

[KoldKase]

KK,

Boy do I feel your pain on the Casey Anthony deal. First of all, I am gonna comment because maybe I can help. I think you and Wonderlama are both right in a way. Casey was guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt in my mind. And I loved the Prosecution team. I think they did as good of job as I have ever seen. But they made one major major mistake. They overcharged the case.

I would have given her the needle. No doubt. But on a jury you have to follow the rules. The evidence presented was for a Capital murder case that centered around motive and premediatated murder. That was a large mistake. Although I think they proved a murder, premeditation was a large reach when you consider other aspects of the case. I do believe she planned it but not one person would say she is a bad mother and her family was not gonna be the lynchpin that got her that needle. Turn the situation around as if it was your kid.

Had the evidence been centered around Manslaughter, she would be in jail.

I agree with you. While I believe the prosecution proved Casey was responsible for that duct tape on Caylee's mouth and was the one searching for recipes for chloroform, I don't believe they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she therefore intended to murder the child. To subdue her, perhaps, maybe even to punish, possibly to murder; but there is room for doubt on that count which I can see.

Personally, I think she meant to kill her and with a vengence. JMO

Perhaps the prosecution felt that the searches for other kinds of death by unnatural means was that proof. I think Cindy Anthony diverted attention from that when she perjured herself saying she made the searches. The prosecution then spent so much time rebutting that, the original testimony got lost, I believe.

There is no doubt this was a technically challenging case for the jury. The science, the computer technical aspects, the medical testimony--all very sophisticated. The prosecution also went out on a limb with some of it, trying to make case law, which in fact they did. There were issues that no doubt would have ended up being heard on appeal, had the verdict been guilty on any of the murder charges.

Well, it's done. Until she does it again. And she will; next time, she'll be much better at it, too.

 

[Roy23]

I agree with you. While I believe the prosecution proved Casey was responsible for that duct tape on Caylee's mouth and was the one searching for recipes for chloroform, I don't believe they proved beyond a reasonable doubt that she therefore intended to murder the child. To subdue her, perhaps, maybe even to punish, possibly to murder; but there is room for doubt on that count which I can see.

Personally, I think she meant to kill her and with a vengence. JMO

Perhaps the prosecution felt that the searches for other kinds of death by unnatural means was that proof. I think Cindy Anthony diverted attention from that when she perjured herself saying she made the searches. The prosecution then spent so much time rebutting that, the original testimony got lost, I believe.

There is no doubt this was a technically challenging case for the jury. The science, the computer technical aspects, the medical testimony--all very sophisticated. The prosecution also went out on a limb with some of it, trying to make case law, which in fact they did. There were issues that no doubt would have ended up being heard on appeal, had the verdict been guilty on any of the murder charges.

Well, it's done. Until she does it again. And she will; next time, she'll be much better at it, too.

I think common sense should have prevailed. You have seen Dave's take on it. Just a dumb jury. But you are right it was a tough case technically on Capital One Murder. But Dave and many RDI's need to stare the Henry Lee's and Dr. Warner Spitz's in the face before quoting them on any case. Lee did not testify in Casey Anthony case but he at one time was going to. Dr. Spitz is a scum bag for what he did.

 

[KoldKase]

I think common sense should have prevailed. You have seen Dave's take on it. Just a dumb jury. But you are right it was a tough case technically on Capital One Murder. But Dave and many RDI's need to stare the Henry Lee's and Dr. Warner Spitz's in the face before quoting them on any case. Lee did not testify in Casey Anthony case but he at one time was going to. Dr. Spitz is a scum bag for what he did.

I have to admit Dr. Spitz was as big a disappointment as anyone I've ever seen testify in any case. Either he's aged beyond being able to speak with any credibility or expertise, or he always was this bad.

But to speak to Super Dave's original complaint on this thread, I actually heard Dr. Spitz's testimony repeated ad nauseam by the talking heads on TV, as if it were worth repeating, much less proof of anything but that the man has lost it professionally! :waitasec:

I do well know how easily the experts are bought by whichever side is paying the fees. O.J.'s trial made that clear. It's one of the huge flaws in our system now: battle of the experts. Casey Anthony's experts were so weak as to be entirely ineffective, I thought. Guess the jury had no problem with them, but I wonder if this jury had the ability or will to evaluate the actual testimony of the experts.

The Ramsey case, on the other hand, has never had the evidence tested under oath in a trial in court, with a judge/jury. We haven't seen it in full, only in selective and controlled presentations. So this is why in the Ramsey case I view the evidence for myself, compare it to other independent evidence from cases I study which have nothing to do with the Ramsey case. Then I compare what I've learned with the opinions of the experts, some of whom are commenting on the Ramsey case, and decide for myself what I can best determine to be the truth.

That's the best I can do, and I admit it's useless and moot. I need to get a life. :waiting:

Soon.... :desert:

I try, but it's all Tricia's fault; she won't let me out. :behindbar When I ask for a reprieve -->> :denied:

So here I am. There won't be a trial; no one is ever going to be proven right or wrong, or even have a verdict to debate. We'll just have to be satisfied duking it out here. :bigfight:

 

[wonderllama]

I think common sense should have prevailed. You have seen Dave's take on it. Just a dumb jury. But you are right it was a tough case technically on Capital One Murder. But Dave and many RDI's need to stare the Henry Lee's and Dr. Warner Spitz's in the face before quoting them on any case. Lee did not testify in Casey Anthony case but he at one time was going to. Dr. Spitz is a scum bag for what he did.

I really do think it is unfair to call the jury dumb.
Because we don't agree with the decision, doesn't make it dumb.

This is the part that you guys are all missing...this is our system.
There's a 50/50 chance you'll get the result you support, irrespective of the popular view, public opinion or as we have seen, the evidence presented.

If the Ramsey case got to court and they were found not guilty, it wouldn't be because they were necessarily not guilty, it would be exactly the same as this....there is doubt and a defence team would have found a way to introduce and exploit it.

We're all arguing over different things here, but I think we disrespect ourselves by ranting and saying the jury was dumb.

 

[rossva]

You can draw the conclusion Casey Anthony is/was a liar and not mother of the year. Not that she is/was a murderer.

Interesting (from wikipedia) The concept of common sense is a long-standing term, based on human experience and people's individual perceptions. Thus, common sense is different from person to person – common sense is not common.


"Common sense is not so common."
* Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique (1764)

I guess the apparent lack of common sense is not a current problem.

Let's be honest, Chrishope. You talk about verdicts I "don't like," but the way I see it, if a jury can't interpret Casey waiting 30 days to report Caylee missing and lying repeatedly, what conclusion am I SUPPOSED to draw?!

 

[oceanblueeyes]

KK,

Boy do I feel your pain on the Casey Anthony deal. First of all, I am gonna comment because maybe I can help. I think you and Wonderlama are both right in a way. Casey was guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt in my mind. And I loved the Prosecution team. I think they did as good of job as I have ever seen. But they made one major major mistake. They overcharged the case.

I would have given her the needle. No doubt. But on a jury you have to follow the rules. The evidence presented was for a Capital murder case that centered around motive and premeditated murder. That was a large mistake. Although I think they proved a murder, premeditation was a large reach when you consider other aspects of the case. I do believe she planned it but not one person would say she is a bad mother and her family was not gonna be the lynchpin that got her that needle. Turn the situation around as if it was your kid.

Had the evidence been centered around Manslaughter, she would be in jail.

I do not think they overcharged the case at all. Anytime a prosecutor has a small dead child found thrown away and hidden with duct tape across their skull they would be remiss if they didn't go for the top charge.

Susan Smith was said to be a 'good mother' too yet her two boys wound up dead at the bottom of a lake. Thank goodness her jury judged her solely on the murderous acts she committed and not her past history with her two boys.

The Anthony jury dismissed EVERYTHING. They would not have considered manslaughter either, imo. They didn't even accept aggravated child abuse. It wasnt that the case was overcharged. It was because Casey Anthony was lucky enough to draw these particular 12 people to sit on her case. Ones who held the state hostage and overburdened them. Ones who had no clue how to deliberate the evidence and link it up. No prosecutor in this country could have achieved what this jury demanded they prove, imo. They wanted a camera's view from beginning to end.

I don't think the Ramsey case will ever be solved which isn't unheard of with around 36-33% of homicide cases that are never solved due to lack of evidence.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

You can draw the conclusion Casey Anthony is/was a liar and not mother of the year. Not that she is/was a murderer.

Interesting (from wikipedia) The concept of common sense is a long-standing term, based on human experience and people's individual perceptions. Thus, common sense is different from person to person – common sense is not common.


"Common sense is not so common."
* Voltaire, Dictionnaire Philosophique (1764)

I guess the apparent lack of common sense is not a current problem.

Of course we (the general public) can come to our own conclusions. They don't have to be mutually exclusive with the 12 people that sat on her case.

IMO, she murdered her daughter and the evidence was there to prove it.

 

[kline]

You know, folks, listening to Levi Page the other night really brought home to me just how little common sense is used in this case by pro-Ramsey partisans, just as the Casey Anthony verdict showed just how widespread the problem is in America.

And I know that there are some out there who will criticize me for saying this. They'll roll their eyes and say, in their usual, infuriatingly condescending manner, that we don't convict on "common sense."

Well, to that, let me say this: maybe we SHOULDN'T convict on common sense, but as far as I'm concerned, convicting a child-killer on common sense is a DAMN sight better than acquitting a child killer because of the LACK of it!

Holler if ya hear me!

Dave I think what your seeing is just another strain of a disturbing trend in this country when it comes to any kind of discourse.
There was a time not too long ago when two factions might have differing points of view or opinion but the back and forth was bound by a touch stone reference point of objective reailty.
That unfortunately seems to have gone by the wayside.
Now if you want to believe badly enough that the moon is made of blue cheese you will undoubtebly be able to find weblinks to cite to support you and you can cast doubt as to the legitimatcy of any evidence to the contrary as conspiracy.
That makes your 'opinion'as 'valid' as any other point of view.
As has been said nowdays people dont just think that they are entitled to their own opinions but to their own facts as well(which they can pull out of their you-know-whats at will.)
It seems now that the Truth of any situation has become 'relative' to many folks.
Facts now are opinion which anyone is free to discard if it doesnt line up with what they desperately want to think and any and every opinion must be regarded as valid as any other.
When this moves beyond the realm of commentary and debate into our Courts of Law and our Governing bodies as it has we should be worried.

 

[Rlaub44]

I really do think it is unfair to call the jury dumb.
Because we don't agree with the decision, doesn't make it dumb.

This is the part that you guys are all missing...this is our system.
There's a 50/50 chance you'll get the result you support, irrespective of the popular view, public opinion or as we have seen, the evidence presented.

If the Ramsey case got to court and they were found not guilty, it wouldn't be because they were necessarily not guilty, it would be exactly the same as this....there is doubt and a defence team would have found a way to introduce and exploit it.

We're all arguing over different things here, but I think we disrespect ourselves by ranting and saying the jury was dumb.

BBM

First, I admire how we can have this discussion and remain respectful. But the part I bolded has been on my mind since the Anthony verdict, and probably even before.

Our system is old, and for the most part, has remained pretty much the same since the founding of our country. But could the founding fathers have foreseen such facets as jury consultants, who game the system to try to place a panel who will lean toward their side? That is far from the initial goal of a jury of one's peers. Did the framers intend for attorneys to ruin the lives of innocent people like Roy Kronk in an attempt to "defend" their client?

I know that our justice system gets it right most of the time, but situations like this case point out exactly how we have strayed from the ideals our ancestors looked for. They wanted everyone to have a fair trial, without providing advantages to those who were well-connected, famous, wealthy, etc. I worry that justice has become secondary to which side can push the envelope farther in the effort to win at all costs.

 

[indicat]

I'll ignore that cheap shot and give you an answer.



Where would you like me to start?

The election of obviously unqualified politicians to high office? Texting while driving? Flash mobs? Nigerian e-mail scams? The list seems endless.

In my dad's day, the guys from Jackass would be derided as freaks. Now, they're actually admired. In my dad's day, people who want to starve themselves or mutilate themselves out of some sexual perversity would be viewed as freaks. Now, thanks to the internet, they find each other to convince themselves that they're not alone and society is too narrow-minded.

As for the reasons, they are wide and varied:

--the degeneration of our educational system, due to massive government interference;

--the overreliance on technology and nanny gov't eliminating the need for thinking;

--the way our society encourages mediocrity;

--but mostly because concepts like right and wrong are not clear anymore, washed away by a flood of relativism.

Let's be honest, Chrishope. You talk about verdicts I "don't like," but the way I see it, if a jury can't interpret Casey waiting 30 days to report Caylee missing and lying repeatedly, what conclusion am I SUPPOSED to draw?!

I feel the exact same way! :tyou: