2011.07.17 Casey Released From Jail

[uvamerica]

Yet, apparently it's been okay to insult her (and the other jury members) intelligence since the verdict.

http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-n...1/?referer=None&shorturl=http://tbo.ly/pWrRl8
For the woman who in May hadn't even heard about the case when it took two weeks to seat a jury from Pinellas County, it has been an eye-opening experience.



If she had it her way, Ford says, she would not have given that interview – in which she returned to Orlando for a chat with a network reporter.

"I don't think you should have to talk about it," she says. "It wasn't my idea. It certainly wasn't what I wanted. I just wanted my freedom. If that is what I had to do, so be it."
:waitasec:

 

[JSR]

Insulting isn't it? Imagine how the jurors feel when people say that the jury members are stupid or lazy or just let the foreman dictate their thoughts for them.



It only took the SP jury 12 hours to come to their verdict.

With all due respect it took several days of deliberation for the SP jurors to come up with their verdict and there was far far I mean far less scientific evidence than there was in this case. There were 91 witnesses, I believe, And over 300 exhibits. And the SP jurors asked for read backs and asked questions of the just. We got no requests from this jury.

I thought it was too quick of a verdict, regardless of what the verdict was. As much evidence as there was in this case it should have taken them longer, even if it was guilty.

Problem was they didn't care and just wanted to be done and free with jury duty. To go swim in pretty pools none the less.

 

[Chilly Willy]

Once again, regardless of the disagreements over the article, or the fact that regardless of what that particular article was and the questions surrounding the situation and my personal belief that he did plant evidence, which really has nothing to do with that article in particular (my kids were up and fighting and I wasn't able to check everything out before I posted it about OJ, my apologies), do you or anyone else on this board believe that it is okay for the state to present evidence in a court of law that anyone down the line knew was not 100% truthful?

ETA:That is what started this all in the first place. The allegation that LE knew that the evidence they were presenting on the searches was not truthful.

Of course it's not okay for the state to knowingly present false evidence. I did not see that happen in the Casey Anthony case and definitely did not see it in the OJ case. I think the report about searching "How to make Chloroform" was misinterpreted but I don't think it was an intentional lie. People, even DAs, can make mistakes. In this case, it's a moot point anyway because Casey was found innocent of the charges pertaining to the chloroform use.

 

[Tiki]

Who cares where she is now ? The bad penny will turn up soon enough ....

"The cat came back
she wouldn't stay away"

if you could use a chuckle.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kj1Fsf9a2U"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Kj1Fsf9a2U[/ame]



.

 

[SyraKelly]

Of course it's not okay for the state to knowingly present false evidence. I did not see that happen in the Casey Anthony case and definitely did not see it in the OJ case. I think the report about searching "How to make Chloroform" was misinterpreted but I don't think it was an intentional lie. People, even DAs, can make mistakes. In this case, it's a moot point anyway because Casey was found innocent of the charges pertaining to the chloroform use.

BUT,if she had been found guilty,RH AND HINKYMETER seem to think it would have been a reversal and KC could have sued.you will have to read the hinkymeter story to understand what I am trying to say..

 

[jeepgirlva]

http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-n...1/?referer=None&shorturl=http://tbo.ly/pWrRl8
For the woman who in May hadn't even heard about the case when it took two weeks to seat a jury from Pinellas County, it has been an eye-opening experience.



If she had it her way, Ford says, she would not have given that interview – in which she returned to Orlando for a chat with a network reporter.

"I don't think you should have to talk about it," she says. "It wasn't my idea. It certainly wasn't what I wanted. I just wanted my freedom. If that is what I had to do, so be it."
:waitasec:

It's called NO Comment... I think she protest too much...

 

[HRCODEPINK]

Of course it's not okay for the state to knowingly present false evidence. I did not see that happen in the Casey Anthony case and definitely did not see it in the OJ case. I think the report about searching "How to make Chloroform" was misinterpreted but I don't think it was an intentional lie. People, even DAs, can make mistakes. In this case, it's a moot point anyway because Casey was found innocent of the charges pertaining to the chloroform use.

It is not a moot point to me. The article alleges that there were people down the line who knew that it was not true. The defense was able to bring up the fact that it was not true and then the state did not address it. If it is true that someone (and from my understanding of the article, there is no mention of JA or LDB knowing and I do not blame them, unless I were to find out that they did know) knew that what they were presenting was not 100% true.

It is my opinion that it was damaging to the state. When it happened, I really hoped that they would have addressed it. Maybe, if what is stated in the article is true, things would have gone differently if the state was not made to look like it wasn't true. And I believe that regardless of the outcome, if the article is correct and someone down the line knew that what they were presenting was not true, someone should be held accountable.

ETA: Who knows if the person who did know wouldn't do this again, causing an innocent person to suffer, or another guilty person to walk the streets. And the HM article in the blog post by RH alleges that they did know BEFORE trial. It doesn't say that JA or LDB knew, but it says that someone did. Oh, and in OJ, MF did end up taking a plea bargain for perjury and is now a convicted felon. http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case63.htm

 

[GiantPickle]

With alll due respect, the Jurors didn't spend just 11 hours deciding Casey's fate. They also were in court virtually 7 days a week, 8+ hours a day, for six weeks learning the case. Each one of those minutes should be included in the deliberation time.

No it shouldnt...they were not to discuss the case or form any opinions until it was handed to them to deliberate.

 

[jeepgirlva]

I can see it now.......

ICA's story will be that she has always had memory lapses........
Her childhood memory came back a little at a time while in jail.......
She suddenly remembered (6 weeks) before the start of the trial that her
father and brother abused her...........
She also suddenly remembered that Caylee drowned in the pool and during a memory lapse, she did to Caylee what they always did with their pets
And this was probably all done with some "junk science" type of hypnosis....

But not by a chemist!!!

I am sure she is learning her script right now and having a full makeover....

 

[JSR]

I think it would have helped if they had paid attention and taken notes. Whenever they speak, they don't seem to have a clue what the evidence was, what the charges were, what reasonable doubt is, or what they were supposed to base their decision on. JF said she thought KC would get the DP if found guilty of any of the charges. :waitasec:

My GOD can someone truly believe that someone can be executed for manslaughter??

Unbelievable.

Can people really know so little about the justice system.

Jennifer Ford is something else......

 

[JSR]

No it shouldnt...they were not to discuss the case or form any opinions until it was handed to them to deliberate.

I'm pretty sure they didn't listen to that rule any more than they did the other instructions.

 

[weedemout]

You know....Quite frankly I was worried in the beginning when news reports were saying only one or two of the jurors were taking notes. Call me anal, but sometimes I take notes when someone is suggesting something to me. I can't imagine not taking notes during a murder trial.

 

[MissJames]

It's called NO Comment... I think she protest too much...

Funny how most of the other jurors have been able to keep quiet,isn't it? Didn't she have to speak to a media person AGAIN,to make this statement :waitasec:

 

[uvamerica]

It's called NO Comment... I think she protest too much...

(snipped)http://www2.tbo.com/news/breaking-n...1/?referer=None&shorturl=http://tbo.ly/pWrRl8


"I don't think you should have to talk about it," she says. "It wasn't my idea. It certainly wasn't what I wanted. I just wanted my freedom. If that is what I had to do, so be it."


Just what does she mean in this quote ? "I just wanted my freedom". does she mean the verdict ? because their verdict allowed them to leave earlier? Because "no comment" would have sufficed, no one can force anyone to do an interview. JMO

 

[kelian36]

My GOD can someone truly believe that someone can be executed for manslaughter??

Unbelievable.

Can people really know so little about the justice system.

Jennifer Ford is something else......

She IS something else......:banghead:

 

[SyraKelly]

I am sure she is learning her script right now and having a full makeover....

in the middle of coming out of CASEY'S WORLD TO!LOL

 

[Justin Tyme]

Where's Waldo? I meant Cra-zy Amphony? Who wants to bet that she's no holed up somewhere playing on the computer reading all about herself?

 

[scorekeeper]

BUT,if she had been found guilty,RH AND HINKYMETER seem to think it would have been a reversal and KC could have sued.you will have to read the hinkymeter story to understand what I am trying to say..

■In October of 2010, Mr. Bradley was deposed with both state and defense counsel present. As he states in his release, “My line of questioning was completely restricted to my actions from December 2009. At NO time was I ever asked to ‘analyze’ or ‘investigate’ the history data or form any opinions. At NO time in the future was I also asked to analyze or investigate the history file. My sole purpose was to provide a ‘decoding function’ for the investigators.”

From the article.......was deposed by both state and defense......for some reason they both only questioned him about December 2009........wouldn't both sides be responsible for the witnesses credibility????

I don't truly believe that a reversal would have occur only because of the tight reins the honorable judge had during the whole trial and pre-trial....

but the article is an interesting read.....

It would be nice to see an article on how an attorney should back up their opening statements and not use smoke and mirrors as a line of defense...

 

[SyraKelly]

Do you think she knows about WS?

 

[Aedrys]

BUT,if she had been found guilty,RH AND HINKYMETER seem to think it would have been a reversal and KC could have sued.you will have to read the hinkymeter story to understand what I am trying to say..

I think it was meant more as a "maybe" than a "definite". The chloroform searches were NOT the linchpin of this case. I didn't even know about it until the trial like everyone else, and I had long thought Casey had killed her child before I knew about it. It's a possible issue. But I highly doubt it alone would have caused an reversal in the event she was convicted. From what our lawyers here have said, it would have to be integral to the case so much that without it, a different conclusion would have been made by the jury. I don't think the chloroform site visits would have completely unraveled this case. Make it more damning, yes. But without it, a definite cause for reversal? I don't think so.

It wasn't misconduct on the state either. Obviously, it was a mistake on their part, but not misconduct. They didn't intentionally use it knowing it wasn't true. I respect them too much to believe that they cheated in this trial. The only people who cheated and won were the defense, the defendant, and her family. Anyway, it sounds like someone knew it wasn't true, but it wasn't the DA's office. They aren't psychic. They rely on LE and other entities to get their evidence for them. If it was wrong, maybe the maker of the software should have directly contacted the DA's office instead of acting like they should have been asked about it. Not everyone is computer literate enough to understand why the results were wrong. I am still confused on it myself, and my programmer/IT husband would probably have to explain it to me. What I mean is that I think the DA thought what they had was correct and therefore, didn't know to ask about it and find out it was wrong.

I usually agree with Hinky articles, but this one is a bit over the top for me. This case would not have crumbled into dust just because the chloroform site vists weren't correct. It still looks bad that she went there one time. She never should have gone to it at all in my book. And if wasn't true, then why the F did Cindy get on the stand and try to cover for Casey for it? Why did the defense not point out the problem with the dang program? What I'm saying is even the defense thought it was true even if it wasn't.

And she wasn't found guilty, so MOOT POINT anyway! Sheesh.