The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?

[RR0004]

Well, being logical here, the FBI aren't personally connected to this case. The FBI isn't known for trying to find ways to charge a person that was found "Not Guilty" by 12 people on a jury, with another crime because the public doesn't agree with the verdict. That is kind of like revenge, and the FBI's doesn't operate that way. The FBI has bigger fish to fry.

Really? If the government isn't happy with a verdict they try every which way from Sunday to get a verdict. The FBI is an arm of the government...it's ultimately up to the Federal prosecutor to take on a case. If they want to...if they have been approached by the State...they most certainly will try to get a conviction on a crime related to the original. If there isn't any charge they can connect to the original, then they aren't given the opportunity to pursue it criminally. I would imagine in the government's eyes it's not viewed as revenge, but rather justice.

 

[NotRocketSighence]

You mean disregard scientifc evidence and treat hyperbole and unproven claims as evidence?

No. I meant what I wrote in my original post. We can agree to disagree but you don't get to rewrite my words to try to support your view

 

[Sustained]

Baez was talking about transfer, yes. But, how would a hair get on pliers? I mean, IMO that's a pretty big leap.

Not as big a leap as the DT opening statement of a drowning and sexual abuse ...

 

[RR0004]

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1391241.html


Ayers was eventually indicted for two felonies in state court:  murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.   A jury acquitted him of both felony charges but convicted him of a reduced misdemeanor weapons possession charge.   After receiving permission from the Department of Justice, the government brought this successive federal prosecution based on Ayers's weapon possession and his status as a convicted felon.  

 

[RR0004]

Baez was talking about transfer, yes. But, how would a hair get on pliers? I mean, IMO that's a pretty big leap.

Leaps? Penis- mouth=dead baby-accidental drowning comes to mind. Why would there be a hair on pliers? Why would there be a hair in Casey's trunk (along with decomp., chloroform, etc.)?
JMHO

 

[Sustained]

*respectfully snipped*

I didn't say the jury watched 3 years worth. I said I did. If they didn't (and we can't know if they did or didn't) they missed the media sensationalism. What they were supposed to base their verdict on was ONLY the evidence presented in court.

Yep, that was what they were supposed to do ... but alas they didn't. Based on the evidence presented in court and to the exclusion of all others, FCA was responsible for the death of her child. Period ...

This jury was caught up in who said "Good Morning" to them, whether the penalty was appropriate for the crime, and whether they would get the questions of Why,How,When, & Where answered for them.

 

[RR0004]

Unless you're a member of the investigative process, it truly isn't anyone's business and it's a violation of the accused civil rights. Just because someone suspects child abuse doesn't make it so, and to personally involve yourself in those cases when you're not suppose to be involved could risk your job and harassment charges.

To me, it's just easier to report and let the people who know what they're doing handle it. If I'm wrong, great news! If I'm not wrong, great news that it was stopped when it was. But, either way, none of my business.

As a first reporter you are the one to provide information...and if that child is in your care for x number of hours a day I can't possibly see how you can separate yourself and find it is no longer your business...but that's just me. And, yes...there is a follow-up investigation...and additional questioning...so it's not just "report" and "see ya". Maybe in your line of work it is...but NOT mine. If someone comes into your office or place of business and you see repeated instances of abuse, you are responsible for reporting that as well...and NO it's not considered harassment.

 

[HatesSociopaths]

Leaps? Penis- mouth=dead baby-accidental drowning comes to mind. Why would there be a hair on pliers? Why would there be a hair in Casey's trunk (along with decomp., chloroform, etc.)?
JMHO

Speaking of the Peterson trial, I watched the documentary in full tonight and recommend it. The jury gives a play by play of what was going through their minds during the trial. The key point in that trial was Amber Frye. The motive then became clear to the jury, and they became disgusted with Peterson. Even Petersons mother lied on the stand for her son, similar to CA. In the FCA trial, had the Anthonys told the truth about the arguments and maternal shortcomings of FCA, the motive could have been much more clear.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkUoJ-zTkzc&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]‪The Scott Peterson Trial P 1‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[RR0004]

You are right on the hurricane. It most likely destroyed valuable evidence, but we will never know. You can't convict someone on what you think would have or should have been there before the hurricane. You have to have evidence.
The defense doesn't have to prove not one thing. They don't even have to present a case. The burden is on the state to present the evidence to uphold the charges that they have brought to the table of the accused.

The fact that a child was left triple bagged rotting in the woods IS evidence.

 

[Schu7]

The fact that a child was left triple bagged rotting in the woods IS evidence.

Oh I hate to point this out. But most respectfully here. The garage bags are evidence after the fact of death. They had no connecting evidence on the bags to a specific person. The bags do not have any specific evidence of murder or a cause of death. So their value in Caylee's death legally is nothing.

Unlike the duck tape. Or the chloroform in the needle.

 

[RR0004]

I don't see evidence that Casey wanted her child dead, she didn't love her child, and that the A's were the main caretakers of the child. Seriously, if I were to believe they were Caylee's main caretakers, then I would have to believe they could have been legally responsible for her. But, we know that wasn't the case. They were the main providers, but not the main caretakers. IMO, the jury didn't get confused on this. But, by GA's own testimony, he would be Caylee's caretaker in the mornings while Casey was getting ready for work. If Caylee died at that time, then GA would've been responsible. It's like if your child is injured in Daycare, they're responsible not you. But, I don't believe GA took care of Caylee in the morning, his testimony sounded scripted on what a "normal grandfather" would do with his grandchild. But that's just MOO.



Respectfully, if the hurricane destroyed any and all evidence related to this crime, how can you possibly believe the duct tape was originally over the nose/mouth? You can't have both IMO. Either the hurricane didn't destroy everything and would've left behind some evidence, or the hurricane did destroy everything and mangled the crime scene so what it was when discovered is certainly different then what it originally was.


Casey did not bury her pets there. Kiomarie (and another girl from the block) buried their pets there with the heart stickers and the works. Casey was present for 1, maybe 2 childhood burials. Read the Kiomarie story, it's very informative. Casey did not apply heart stickers to dead animals, did not wrap them in bags, did not do any of it. For one pet they made cards (I believe) with hearts on them to show their love and honor for this pet that passed.



The DT has no obligation to prove their case, none whatsoever. That is the way our justice system works, and that's been teh way the justice system has operated for many many years. I don't understand why our country was fine with our justice system in the past, but now that the system didn't do what they wanted it to do, it's faulty, etc. IMO, the jury didn't have to believe a single word JB said, all they needed was enough evidence in their mind to convict, and they just didn't have that. They believed she was innocent in the beginning on the trial and the prosecution didn't show them enough for them to "tip the scale". It is what it is. And, just because the DT threw out another story that could've happened doesn't necessarily mean the jury bought that story (although I did.).

Did you see the condition of the duct tape...the clothes...the blanket? That's what happens after exposure to the elements...dna degrades...period. Was the duct tape attached to a hair mass? Do you think it blew through the wind and affixed itself to Caylee's mandible or do you believe like Spitz that someone came along and put it there? The jury IMO found unreasonable explanations to this evidence. The evidence left as it was by the storm may not explain the cause of death...but it does explain the manner. What I don't get, did the jury really think they were smarter than Dr. G.? That just floors me.

 

[RR0004]

Oh I hate to point this out. But most respectfully here. The garage bags are evidence after the fact of death. They had no connecting evidence on the bags to a specific person. The bags do not have any specific evidence of murder or a cause of death. So their value in Caylee's death legally is nothing.

Unlike the duck tape. Or the chloroform in the needle.

I'm not talking about the bags, but how she was unceremoniously dumped in the woods. Evidence of consciousness of guilt, IMO.
But thanks for pointing that out.

 

[erinleigh]

it was my understanding that the FBI was brought into the case. we heard their testimony. so..it wouldnt be revenge if they chose to pursue charges. they spent time and money investigating a "drowning" vs a missing persons case.

 

[Aedrys]

You are right on the hurricane. It most likely destroyed valuable evidence, but we will never know. You can't convict someone on what you think would have or should have been there before the hurricane. You have to have evidence.
The defense doesn't have to prove not one thing. They don't even have to present a case. The burden is on the state to present the evidence to uphold the charges that they have brought to the table of the accused.

This also isn't a CSI world where every case is going to have direct evidence of the person who committed the crime. The prosecution shouldn't have to baby step a jury during trial. There's thing call using common sense, using logic, and putting two and two together. People can put a puzzle together without the box top to show them what the puzzle will look like. Yes, it's harder and will take more time, but it doesn't mean that without that boxtop that people will never know what the puzzle will look like. Heck, even with missing pieces people can still tell what the puzzle looks like. Just because there's no AHA evidence doesn't mean a jury can't convict someone. It's why these cases are CIRCUMSTANTIAL. And it's why other people get convicted most of the time. This was a case where people got upset there wasn't AHA evidence that couldn't possibly be there, so therefore she got acquitted? God forbid they take the time to put it together themselves. No, apparently it was way too hard for them to do that. But you're right, they can't speculate on what could be. They also can't throw out everything because of what they don't have either. It's called using imagination, it's called going over evidence with a fine tooth comb, asking questions, and seriously considering the evidence because that is the JOB of the jury. I could respect them if they had done that and still came to the same conclusion. Instead, they didn't do that at all, and I have no respect for them. Instead, this jury went on summer vacation and couldn't give a damn about a murdered two year old or Casey Anthony for that matter. All they cared about was themselves and getting back their lives as quickly as possible.

And you're right. The defense doesn't have to prove everything. That doesn't mean the jury is required to swallow the defense's BS hook, line, and sinker. The jury should used common sense and logic to see that Baez's story was a story. Just because they're told something doesn't mean they have to blindly believe it. That's not justice. Also, ignorance and making up stories is not vigorously defending a client. Casey should thank her lucky stars that this actually worked. In most cases, it wouldn't have. In most cases, the defense actually does it job when it doesn't have to because THAT is vigorously defending a client, not being inept, unethical, and egotistical. Baez is NOT representative of hard working defense attorneys out there, and he doesn't get to be a good defense lawyer just because he won. I bet he'll never win again. He better enjoy this while he can.

 

[RR0004]

it was my understanding that the FBI was brought into the case. we heard their testimony. so..it wouldnt be revenge if they chose to pursue charges. they spent time and money investigating a "drowning" vs a missing persons case.

I think it was the other way around. oxoxox

 

[erinleigh]

I think it was the other way around. oxoxox

yes. thank u. its been a long week:crazy:

 

[RR0004]

I never came across that information. From what I understood, LE went to her house, she wasn't home... left some sort of message they'd like to talk to her. Her and her sister showed up and media was all over the place asking her questions, etc. She was trying to avoid them. You could tell she did not want this story to get out there.

Then I guess her sister shouldn't have leaked it...

http://www.wftv.com/news/22825765/detail.html

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/22873305/detail.html

If you have information as to how LE found this out, I'd like to read it. I do know RC told them that she didn't have an affair. Why does everybody who lies in this case get a pass?

 

[RR0004]

And that was my response, county hospitals will not provide tylenol to you if your child has a low-grade temp.

That's not really how it came across to me...but thanks for clarifying why parents would hide a child's death. I'm still not buying it.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Really? If the government isn't happy with a verdict they try every which way from Sunday to get a verdict. The FBI is an arm of the government...it's ultimately up to the Federal prosecutor to take on a case. If they want to...if they have been approached by the State...they most certainly will try to get a conviction on a crime related to the original. If there isn't any charge they can connect to the original, then they aren't given the opportunity to pursue it criminally. I would imagine in the government's eyes it's not viewed as revenge, but rather justice.

That's how LE got Al Capone...it was for taxes which were probably the least of his offenses.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

No. I meant what I wrote in my original post. We can agree to disagree but you don't get to rewrite my words to try to support your view

They did disregard evidence and treat nonsense as evidence, regardless of what anyone posted.