I'll put in a vote for it.....lolScotch!!! (Oh wait - that wasn't one of the choices. )
This message board permanently closed on June 30th, 2020 at 4PM EDT and is no longer accepting new members.
I'll put in a vote for it.....lolScotch!!! (Oh wait - that wasn't one of the choices. )
Good plan, it'll water the ice cream down, that's healthy isn't it?
I guess the moral of this is, you don't want me on a jury. I felt there was plenty of evidence and I would've hung her. Beyond a reasonable doubt.I won't watch...I remember all too well the case when it was all over the news. With that said, while I always thought she did it....there was just not any hard evidence that she did and in that respect......our justice system actually worked (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt).
I guess the moral of this is, you don't want me on a jury. I felt there was plenty of evidence and I would've hung her. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
Are George and Cindy still together? I was honestly taken aback a bit on Cindy's appearance. I didn't even recognize her. I got distracted, looked up and this woman is talking and I'm thinking, "who is this?" and had to back the recording up to see the identifier.
I'm sure this was all so devastating for the whole family. Knowing you raised a sociopathic killer and she killed your beloved granddaughter and then blamed you for all of it.
I wouldn't have had one once of trouble convicting her. And by all the documentaries I've watched, the majority of trials are conducted with circumstantial evidence alone, not all this CSI DNA crap. Apparently nowadays, as I stated in the Jon Benet thread, juries want that DNA. And yes, I would prefer to have it to. But, sometimes you don't need all of that to put two and two together.Such an overwhelming body of evidence against her, unfortunately most of being circumstantial, but it still seems like enough you could have at least convicted her on conspiracy to commit murder. The prosecution was unable to prove definitively even how the child died and that's always a bad thing if you can't prove how a person was killed. If you can show how someone is killed, then the jury has to look at the suspect and imagine that person killing the child in that manner. When there isn't a method of death, it's difficult for a jury to make that connection which makes it real in the mind of some jurors. Juries are weird, it's supposed to be all about the facts of a case but emotion comes into it quite a bit and some jurors are unable to put that aside.
I wouldn't have had one once of trouble convicting her. And by all the documentaries I've watched, the majority of trials are conducted with circumstantial evidence alone, not all this CSI DNA crap. Apparently nowadays, as I stated in the Jon Benet thread, juries want that DNA. And yes, I would prefer to have it to. But, sometimes you don't need all of that to put two and two together.
On the flip side of this, many innocent people are put in jail every year on faulty circumstantial evidence. But in this case, I would have felt very confident locking her up. I wouldn't have lost one minute of sleep about it.
Exactly. And then her lack of concern or urgency to get her baby back (because she knew she was dead so no need to worry about anyone but your butt going to jail), the lies about the nanny, the job, the dog hitting on decompensation in the car -- she was one piece of work.Even though much of the case was circumstantial, I would have had no trouble with a guilty verdict. The fact that she didn't report her baby missing for 30 days is all I would have needed for a guilty verdict. There is no explanation for that except guilt.
31 days is a helluva lot of time to come up with a story. It wasn't even that good of one, being as the people she listed as her employers and supervisors weren't even real. You'd have thought she would have came up with something a bit more plausible given that much time to consider the matter.Exactly. And then her lack of concern or urgency to get her baby back (because she knew she was dead so no need to worry about anyone but your butt going to jail), the lies about the nanny, the job, the dog hitting on decompensation in the car -- she was one piece of work.
Such an overwhelming body of evidence against her, unfortunately most of being circumstantial, but it still seems like enough you could have at least convicted her on conspiracy to commit murder. The prosecution was unable to prove definitively even how the child died and that's always a bad thing if you can't prove how a person was killed. If you can show how someone is killed, then the jury has to look at the suspect and imagine that person killing the child in that manner. When there isn't a method of death, it's difficult for a jury to make that connection which makes it real in the mind of some jurors. Juries are weird, it's supposed to be all about the facts of a case but emotion comes into it quite a bit and some jurors are unable to put that aside.
Exactly....I've attended several trials where the outcome has us thinking "WTF are the jurors discussing in quarters, because it sure as hell can't be the case." And, there were a few where the suspect got exactly what he/she deserved, but those were rare.Honestly, I'm not a big fan of jury trials...but then again..what is the alternative? Unfortunately, for every jury that gets it right...there are 10 other who are completely wrong. Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman are clearly cases in which the accused, should be rotting in prison...but for whatever reason the jury in both cases were filled with idiots.
Even if one does not think that Casey killed the girl, what rationale, sane person, does not report their 2 year-old child missing for 31 days. At the very least she was complacent in the child's death..and should have gotten at least 5-10 years.
The trial lasted six weeks, from May to July 2011. The prosecution sought the death penalty and alleged Casey wished to free herself from parental responsibilities and murdered her daughter by administering chloroform and applying duct tape. The defense team, led by Jose Baez, countered that the child had drowned accidentally in the family's swimming pool on June 16, 2008, and that George Anthony disposed of the body. The defense contended that Casey lied about this and other issues because of a dysfunctional upbringing, which they said included sexual abuse by her father. The defense did not present evidence as to how Caylee died, nor evidence that Casey was sexually abused as a child, but challenged every piece of the prosecution's evidence, calling much of it "fantasy forensics."
Taken from Death of Caylee Anthony - Wikipedia
Exactly....I've attended several trials where the outcome has us thinking "WTF are the jurors discussing in quarters, because it sure as hell can't be the case." And, there were a few where the suspect got exactly what he/she deserved, but those were rare.
Honestly, I'm not a big fan of jury trials...but then again..what is the alternative?
A defense attorney once told me he'd rather have an entire jury comprised of people with an 8th grade education than college graduates....true story.The judge can make the decision. I'm not sure but I think France does it with just the judge.
If I ever get selected as a juror in a big case, I'm going to be insulted because they must think I'm an idiot.
The judge can make the decision. I'm not sure but I think France does it with just the judge.
If I ever get selected as a juror in a big case, I'm going to be insulted because they must think I'm an idiot.