Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
i disagree some, this nany got bad end of this casey anthony charge with her about kidnapping caylee.
there was no missing caylee for 31 days. caylee died june 16,2008.
case should be resolved as soon as possible.
Casey Anthony: Judge says attorneys have to wait until October to depose Casey Anthony in defamation case
Judge sets deposition date for Oct. 8.
The attorneys suing Casey Anthony for defamation will have to wait until October to question her under oath, an Orange County judge ruled Friday.
Anthony — who will be released from jail Sunday — was scheduled to be deposed Tuesday at the downtown Orlando office of the Morgan & Morgan law firm.
But the Morgan & Morgan attorneys representing Zenaida Fernandez-Gonzalez, the Kissimmee woman who claims Anthony ruined her reputation, are so concerned Anthony wouldn't show up to the deposition that they filed an emergency motion asking a judge to compel her to appear.
The issue was supposed to be discussed at a hearing Friday morning before Judge Jose Rodriguez, but the proceedings ended abruptly after the lawyers and judge met privately, and then Rodriguez announced he was removing himself from the case.
Soon after, the case was transferred to Judge Lisa Munyon, who heard brief arguments from the attorneys at an afternoon hearing, held in a small conference room.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/caylee-anthony/os-casey-anthony-zenaida-hearing-20110715,0,2345306.story
Roy Kronk sues Leonard Padilla
Scorned lover awaits trial in arson, attempted murder
Extreme makeovers now the norm for restaurants, stores
Bullrun Rally driver in Audi arrested after turnpike crash
U.S. Labor Department probes Florida workforce contracts
Updated: 10:09 p.m.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/caylee-anthony/os-roy-kronk-sues-leonard-padilla-20110715,0,295261.story
some wonder how casey marie anthony wll look when released sunday.
how many different mask will she have?
media building up bigtime all week on her release.
media acting like they do not want her back on the streets.
this is very serious in this town. people seem to have casey marie anthony number.
may goto where baez is born.
CBSNews Report: #CaseyAnthony Juror quit job and left town for fear of her life http://bit.ly/njS90b
Sheriff Demings RPT: We will not be providing any elaborate security or protection for #CaseyAnthony. #HLN
Sheriff Demings RPT: We will not be providing any elaborate security or protection for #CaseyAnthony. #HLN
Demings: jail has responsibility for her safety/security. Once free, all we could do is facilitate that departure.
Demings: unless there is a credible threat to #caseyanthony, we won't be responsible for her.
Sheriff Demings RPT: Once #CaseyAnthony becomes a free citizen we will only facilitate a safe departure we do not pick up security of her.
No perjury charges against Cindy Anthony, State Attorney's Office says http://thesent.nl/raPlyT
what sheriff have to say?
Live video: Florida sheriff discusses Casey Anthony case on.msnbc.com/ojf77y
nancy grace gets heat from defense attorney's. did she go too far with tot mom?
maybe fire breathing dragon appears when casey is released sunday.
7-17-11.
80% of the american people say casey marie anthony beat the justice system with
with aledged inside tampering jurors.
court area , city area is hot with chat; GOP leader cites Casey Anthony in Somali terror case
http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=casey+anthony+trial&btnmeta_news_search=Search+News
Los Angeles Times - James Oliphant - ?1 hour ago?
The top Republican in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, says the Casey Anthony trial is proof that American courts aren't proper venues for trials of suspected terrorists. "We found with the Caylee Anthony case how ...
McConnell On Casey Anthony Trial: It Means Terrorists Could Win TPMMuckraker McConnell: Tot mom shows difficulty of terrorist trials in court The Hill (blog) Mitch McConnell Drafts Casey Anthony Into the War on Terror Human Rights First
a new video that was underseal may get to be seen from orlando, florida or one of the news media outlets.
casey marie anthony reactions when the body of caylee marie anthony was found. 12-8-2008.
hi and to all...caylee marie anthony will not be forgotten and not forgotten here.
#CaseyAnthony saga? Spread the word about Caylee's Law. Sign petition here: http://bit.ly/qC2iOA
OT The 20 Biggest Trials Of The Past 20 Years http://read.bi/mQYspP
so july 17 , 2011 is her released date is set now.
what about the meter reader?
some interviews from both sides last couple days. all say it is sad and cause is drowning.
i find it hard due to chloroform presents.
car thought...by both george and cindy smells like dead body was in this car.
This is a show I'll watch whenever it happens to come on, I've learned some interesting stuff from it.
http://investigation.discovery.com/tv/most-evil/most-evil.html
i placed in our ibox. got more please addressed them here.
Your quite welcome Mick, I'm glad you enjoyed it.
released date changed to july 18, 2011.
#CaseyAnthony future? http://yfrog.com/khgb0nj
#CaseyAnthony was given credit for 1,043 days.
#CaseyAnthony must pay $4,618 in fines. She will pay $20/mthly starting July 15.
Casey Anthony getting out jail on July 13. Wednesday
hmmm, DEVIL'S ADVOCATE?
time and service for Casey Marie Anthony to be released july 13, 2011.
Csaey model prisoner said by controllers.
hi My2cnets , thank you for this message. wow that takes lot to admit.
re;
My2Cents Share Wednesday, July 06, 2011 11:41:01 AM
Re: None Post # of 256
Marcia Clark: Casey Anthony verdict, worse than O.J.!
By Marcia Clark | The Daily Beast – Tue, Jul 5, 2011
http://news.yahoo.com/worse-o-j-231200719.html
While the stunning Casey Anthony acquittal defied logic, O.J. Simpson prosecutor Marcia Clark details how juries often delude themselves—and why this verdict trumps even her case.
Sick, shaken, in disbelief. As I listened to the verdicts in the Casey Anthony case, acquitting her of the homicide of her baby girl, I relived what I felt back when court clerk Deirdre Robertson read the verdicts in the Simpson case.
But this case is different. The verdict far more shocking. Why?
Because Casey Anthony was no celebrity. She never wowed the nation with her athletic prowess, shilled in countless car commercials, or entertained in film comedies. There were no racial issues, no violent Rodney King citywide riot just two years earlier.
Because of those factors, many predicted from the very start in the Simpson case—in fact, long before we even began to pick a jury—that it would be impossible to secure a conviction.
There was no such foreshadowing here, and few who predicted that a jury might completely acquit Casey Anthony of the killing of her daughter.
The trial itself, despite bumps and turns, never introduced any unexpected bombshells that blew up in the prosecution’s face (à la detective Mark Fuhrman’s racially charged interview tapes with a novelist). All things considered, it went pretty smoothly. Judge Belvin Perry was fantastic—a model of even-tempered, no-nonsense control who kept the flow of evidence orderly and succinct, and who never let the lawyers run amok. He even jailed and fined a spectator for acting up in court.
So there was no racist cop, no questions about evidence collection, and no endless cross-examination on irrelevancies like Columbian necklaces and drug cartels. And while there was significant media coverage before the trial, it didn’t come close to the storm that permeated the Simpson case for months prior to jury selection.
Gallery: The Trial's Photo Evidence
As a matter of fact, the coverage we did see of the Casey Anthony case leaned heavily in favor of conviction. The photographs of a half-clothed Casey dancing in a Hot Body contest days after her daughter died, getting tattooed with the words “La Bella Vida” (Beautiful Life), Casey’s apparent celebration of freedom now that her baby was dead, the videotape of her spitting fury at her parents while in custody, and most important, her endless lies for a solid month about what had happened to her daughter.
Those lies were—most people agreed (myself included)—the proverbial noose around her neck. What mother sees that her child has drowned in the pool and not only fails to call 911, but then duct tapes her mouth and nose, hides the body in the trunk for days, and then dumps it in the woods? And then goes out to party and lies for a whopping 31 days about where the baby is? Who but a killer mother does that?
The defense had to come up with a plausible reason for that behavior. One that would persuade the jury that the death was accidental. One that would show the lies were not evidence that Casey was a psychopathic killer but would instead show that they were merely the irrational behavior of a troubled but ultimately innocent mother.
And so her lawyer, Jose Baez, came up with a shocker—the twist that ensured this case a primetime spot on cable, and occasionally network, television: He claimed that Casey Anthony’s despicably callous behavior in the wake of her baby’s death could be explained by the fact that she’d been molested by both her father and her brother.
I’m not so sure the logic follows. Even if it did, I never saw one shred of proof to back up the claim. Zilch.
We got a bit of innuendo in one brief reference to the fact that the FBI gave paternity tests to both brother and father—the intended point being that Casey had made the molestation claims early on. But with no evidence as to when those tests were performed, the intended implication was all but lost. Certainly, it was too weak to support Baez’s claim.
In the end, after all the incendiary bluster of his opening statement, Baez never even tried to sell that story in any real way. (And there was a chance he could have: If the judge allows it, an attorney can put on a psychologist to give a general discussion of child abuse accommodation syndrome, even if he doesn’t claim the defendant on trial suffers from the syndrome.)
Nor did the defense make any serious inroads on the prosecution’s physical evidence.
"After the verdict was read in the Simpson case, as the jury was leaving, one of them, I was later told, said: “We think he probably did it. We just didn’t think they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.”
But then again, it didn’t need to. Because this case wasn’t really about the physical evidence. Caylee’s body was too decomposed to offer much information. Cause of death was undetermined. All the coroner could say was that it was a homicide, but that conclusion wasn’t based on science so much as logic:
The body was found wrapped in plastic bags and dumped in the woods. In fact, the most compelling aspect of the medical examiner’s testimony (who was, by the way, a great witness) was not medical but merely logical: that when a baby drowns—and she said that’s a common cause of death for babies—the mother or father calls 911 every single time; and if the baby had merely died accidentally, then why put duct tape over the baby’s face?
So it was a circumstantial case. Most cases are. But the circumstances were compelling. Maybe not sufficient to prove premeditated murder—and I never believed the jury would approve the death penalty—but certainly enough to find Casey Anthony guilty of manslaughter at the very least.
Why didn’t they? My guess, since I’m writing this before the inevitable juror cameos, is that the jury didn’t necessarily believe Casey was innocent but weren’t convinced enough of her guilt to bring in a conviction. The thinking goes something like this:
Sure, Casey’s behavior after her daughter's death looks bad—dancing, partying, lying—but that doesn’t mean she killed the baby. Sure, that duct tape was weird, but that could’ve been done after the baby was already dead—no way to know who or when that tape was put on the baby’s face. Sure, the chloroform computer search seems damning, but that may not even have been done by Casey (her mom took the fall for that one).
And so, every bit of evidence presented by the prosecution could’ve been tinged with doubt. At the end of the day, the jury might have found that they just couldn’t convict her based on evidence that was reconcilable with an innocent explanation—even if the weight of logic favored the guilty one.
Jury instructions are so numerous and complex, it’s a wonder jurors ever wade through them. And so it should come as no surprise that they can sometimes get stuck along the way. The instruction on circumstantial evidence is confusing even to lawyers. And reasonable doubt? That’s the hardest, most elusive one of all. And I think it’s where even the most fair-minded jurors can get derailed.
How? By confusing reasonable doubt with a reason to doubt. Some believe that thinking was in play in the Simpson case. After the verdict was read in the Simpson case, as the jury was leaving, one of them, I was later told, said:
“We think he probably did it. We just didn’t think they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.” In every case, a defense attorney will do his or her best to give the jury a reason to doubt.
"Some other dude did it," or "some other dude threatened him." But those reasons don’t necessarily equate with a reasonable doubt. A reason does not equal reasonable. Sometimes, that distinction can get lost.
In Scotland, they have three verdicts: guilty, not guilty, and not proven. It’s one way of showing that even if the jury didn’t believe the evidence amounted to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it didn’t find the defendant innocent either. There’s a difference. And maybe that’s what today’s not-guilty verdict really meant. Not innocent. Just not proven. The jurors will eventually speak out and tell us.
Meanwhile, although I must accept their verdict, I don’t have to agree with it. Because I did follow this case, and I have to be honest: If I’d been in that jury room, the vote would’ve been 11 to 1. Forever.
Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.
Marcia Clark, the former L.A. district attorney who prosecuted the O.J. Simpson murder case, has since served a regular legal television commentator. She has written a bestselling book, Without a Doubt, and served as a columnist for Justice Magazine. Her debut crime novel will be published by Little, Brown in April of 2011.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
http://www.thedailybeast.com
Trial resumes for sentencing today
Barbara Walters to sit down with Jose Baez
Casey Anthony's lawyer Jose Baez is opening up, and the first person he's turning to is Barbara Walters. In an hour-long “Nightline” special
http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/06/barbara-walters-to-sit-down-with-jose-baez/
Marcia Clark: Casey Anthony verdict, worse than O.J.!
By Marcia Clark | The Daily Beast – Tue, Jul 5, 2011
http://news.yahoo.com/worse-o-j-231200719.html
While the stunning Casey Anthony acquittal defied logic, O.J. Simpson prosecutor Marcia Clark details how juries often delude themselves—and why this verdict trumps even her case.
Sick, shaken, in disbelief. As I listened to the verdicts in the Casey Anthony case, acquitting her of the homicide of her baby girl, I relived what I felt back when court clerk Deirdre Robertson read the verdicts in the Simpson case.
But this case is different. The verdict far more shocking. Why?
Because Casey Anthony was no celebrity. She never wowed the nation with her athletic prowess, shilled in countless car commercials, or entertained in film comedies. There were no racial issues, no violent Rodney King citywide riot just two years earlier.
Because of those factors, many predicted from the very start in the Simpson case—in fact, long before we even began to pick a jury—that it would be impossible to secure a conviction.
There was no such foreshadowing here, and few who predicted that a jury might completely acquit Casey Anthony of the killing of her daughter.
The trial itself, despite bumps and turns, never introduced any unexpected bombshells that blew up in the prosecution’s face (à la detective Mark Fuhrman’s racially charged interview tapes with a novelist). All things considered, it went pretty smoothly. Judge Belvin Perry was fantastic—a model of even-tempered, no-nonsense control who kept the flow of evidence orderly and succinct, and who never let the lawyers run amok. He even jailed and fined a spectator for acting up in court.
So there was no racist cop, no questions about evidence collection, and no endless cross-examination on irrelevancies like Columbian necklaces and drug cartels. And while there was significant media coverage before the trial, it didn’t come close to the storm that permeated the Simpson case for months prior to jury selection.
Gallery: The Trial's Photo Evidence
As a matter of fact, the coverage we did see of the Casey Anthony case leaned heavily in favor of conviction. The photographs of a half-clothed Casey dancing in a Hot Body contest days after her daughter died, getting tattooed with the words “La Bella Vida” (Beautiful Life), Casey’s apparent celebration of freedom now that her baby was dead, the videotape of her spitting fury at her parents while in custody, and most important, her endless lies for a solid month about what had happened to her daughter.
Those lies were—most people agreed (myself included)—the proverbial noose around her neck. What mother sees that her child has drowned in the pool and not only fails to call 911, but then duct tapes her mouth and nose, hides the body in the trunk for days, and then dumps it in the woods? And then goes out to party and lies for a whopping 31 days about where the baby is? Who but a killer mother does that?
The defense had to come up with a plausible reason for that behavior. One that would persuade the jury that the death was accidental. One that would show the lies were not evidence that Casey was a psychopathic killer but would instead show that they were merely the irrational behavior of a troubled but ultimately innocent mother.
And so her lawyer, Jose Baez, came up with a shocker—the twist that ensured this case a primetime spot on cable, and occasionally network, television: He claimed that Casey Anthony’s despicably callous behavior in the wake of her baby’s death could be explained by the fact that she’d been molested by both her father and her brother.
I’m not so sure the logic follows. Even if it did, I never saw one shred of proof to back up the claim. Zilch.
We got a bit of innuendo in one brief reference to the fact that the FBI gave paternity tests to both brother and father—the intended point being that Casey had made the molestation claims early on. But with no evidence as to when those tests were performed, the intended implication was all but lost. Certainly, it was too weak to support Baez’s claim.
In the end, after all the incendiary bluster of his opening statement, Baez never even tried to sell that story in any real way. (And there was a chance he could have: If the judge allows it, an attorney can put on a psychologist to give a general discussion of child abuse accommodation syndrome, even if he doesn’t claim the defendant on trial suffers from the syndrome.)
Nor did the defense make any serious inroads on the prosecution’s physical evidence.
"After the verdict was read in the Simpson case, as the jury was leaving, one of them, I was later told, said: “We think he probably did it. We just didn’t think they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.”
But then again, it didn’t need to. Because this case wasn’t really about the physical evidence. Caylee’s body was too decomposed to offer much information. Cause of death was undetermined. All the coroner could say was that it was a homicide, but that conclusion wasn’t based on science so much as logic: The body was found wrapped in plastic bags and dumped in the woods. In fact, the most compelling aspect of the medical examiner’s testimony (who was, by the way, a great witness) was not medical but merely logical: that when a baby drowns—and she said that’s a common cause of death for babies—the mother or father calls 911 every single time; and if the baby had merely died accidentally, then why put duct tape over the baby’s face?
So it was a circumstantial case. Most cases are. But the circumstances were compelling. Maybe not sufficient to prove premeditated murder—and I never believed the jury would approve the death penalty—but certainly enough to find Casey Anthony guilty of manslaughter at the very least.
Why didn’t they? My guess, since I’m writing this before the inevitable juror cameos, is that the jury didn’t necessarily believe Casey was innocent but weren’t convinced enough of her guilt to bring in a conviction. The thinking goes something like this: Sure, Casey’s behavior after her daughter's death looks bad—dancing, partying, lying—but that doesn’t mean she killed the baby. Sure, that duct tape was weird, but that could’ve been done after the baby was already dead—no way to know who or when that tape was put on the baby’s face. Sure, the chloroform computer search seems damning, but that may not even have been done by Casey (her mom took the fall for that one).
And so, every bit of evidence presented by the prosecution could’ve been tinged with doubt. At the end of the day, the jury might have found that they just couldn’t convict her based on evidence that was reconcilable with an innocent explanation—even if the weight of logic favored the guilty one.
Jury instructions are so numerous and complex, it’s a wonder jurors ever wade through them. And so it should come as no surprise that they can sometimes get stuck along the way. The instruction on circumstantial evidence is confusing even to lawyers. And reasonable doubt? That’s the hardest, most elusive one of all. And I think it’s where even the most fair-minded jurors can get derailed.
How? By confusing reasonable doubt with a reason to doubt. Some believe that thinking was in play in the Simpson case. After the verdict was read in the Simpson case, as the jury was leaving, one of them, I was later told, said: “We think he probably did it. We just didn’t think they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.” In every case, a defense attorney will do his or her best to give the jury a reason to doubt. "Some other dude did it," or "some other dude threatened him." But those reasons don’t necessarily equate with a reasonable doubt. A reason does not equal reasonable. Sometimes, that distinction can get lost.
In Scotland, they have three verdicts: guilty, not guilty, and not proven. It’s one way of showing that even if the jury didn’t believe the evidence amounted to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, it didn’t find the defendant innocent either. There’s a difference. And maybe that’s what today’s not-guilty verdict really meant. Not innocent. Just not proven. The jurors will eventually speak out and tell us.
Meanwhile, although I must accept their verdict, I don’t have to agree with it. Because I did follow this case, and I have to be honest: If I’d been in that jury room, the vote would’ve been 11 to 1. Forever.
Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.
Marcia Clark, the former L.A. district attorney who prosecuted the O.J. Simpson murder case, has since served a regular legal television commentator. She has written a bestselling book, Without a Doubt, and served as a columnist for Justice Magazine. Her debut crime novel will be published by Little, Brown in April of 2011.
For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.
Why Casey Anthony Got Off Scot-Free http://read.bi/obnzT4
It is shaping up as a long, hot summer for prosecutors and cable-television pundits.
First came last week’s collapse of the chambermaid rape case against French financier Dominique Strauss-Khan (and the resulting public humiliation of Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr.), and now Tuesday’s astonishing acquittal of Florida party girl Casey Anthony in the death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee.
In both cases, the accused was pilloried in the court of public opinion—instantly adjudicated guilty by reality-show righteousness and tabloid justice even before the evidence was in and the jury was out—only to be let off by the legal system.
SiriusXM radio host Judith Regan—the famed former publisher who interviewed accused murderer O.J. Simpson for a controversial (and canceled) television special and quasi-confessional book titled If I Did It—chalks up the shortcomings in the criminal-justice system to profound flaws in human nature.
“There is vast incompetence everywhere, and a rush to judgment by the media,” Regan said, “which is piling on with the arrest and humiliation, the perp walk, all of it very premature and unfair, especially if you have a high profile. This is America, and you’re supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.”
Regan, who has been publicly skeptical about the case against Strauss-Kahn since the beginning, said she recently was called, but not picked, to serve on a jury in a murder trial, and was deeply disheartened by what she saw.
“The judge interviewed 300 prospective jurors, and I cannot tell you how many stupid people there were,” she told me. “The judge spent an hour and a half explaining the concept of impartiality, and then people said things like ‘I can read his face, your honor, and I know he’s guilty’ and ‘I can just tell by looking at him.’ We are an attention-deficit nation, and we have dumbed ourselves down so much that people don’t understand the simplest of things.”
Regarding the Casey Anthony verdict, Regan said, “I’m not surprised. I expected it.” She speculated the jurors’ reasoning went as follows: “They looked at her and thought she was cute and they didn’t want her to get the death penalty. They couldn’t figure things out, so they just decided to say not guilty because they probably didn’t feel the prosecution had proven it—the ‘reasonable doubt’ thing. I, however, have no reasonable doubt that this woman was an atrocious criminal mother who is responsible for the death of her child.”
While the DSK developments might be easier to swallow, given the dubious background and behavior of his accuser, Tuesday’s Anthony verdict rocked the jurisprudential establishment.
After the verdict was live-streamed on cable and the web—with the pretty, 25-year-old defendant convicted only of lying to the cops after skating on first-degree murder, manslaughter, and aggravated child abuse charges—I talked to a variety of courtroom observers and practitioners. Depending on which expert witness was testifying, this summer’s narrative of American justice is either cause for alarm (the majority view) or grounds for celebration.
Only prominent jury-selection consultant Joshua Dubin, a former trial lawyer who now works exclusively with defendants, was completely satisfied with Tuesday’s outcome.
“This case is good for the criminal-justice system and here’s why: if people actually read the jury instructions about reasonable doubt, there would be a lot more acquittals,” Dubin told me. “What this verdict does is demonstrate that unless the prosecution is able to show us how, why, when, and where the crime was committed, a jury is not going reach a decision that could end up sending a defendant to his death. My initial reaction is that 12 men and women in a very high-profile case came up with a courageous verdict.
More common was the reaction of veteran New York Supreme Court judge and writer Edwin Torres, whose popular crime novels such as Carlito’s Way have been adapted into feature films starring Nick Nolte, Sean Penn, and Al Pacino.
“Holy s**t! I’m in shock—I can’t believe this!” Torres exclaimed when I informed him of the Anthony verdict. He added that while the direct evidence was slim (especially a lack of forensic material such as DNA and fingerprints), the circumstantial case against Caylee’s mom was strong: her constant lies and evasions; her hard-partying weeks after the little girl’s disappearance; the suspicious provenance of duct tape discovered on the mouth and nose of Caylee’s decomposing skull; the “death smell” of the defendant’s car trunk; and the disposal of the body, wrapped in a garbage bag, in a swamp near the Anthony home.
“Juries usually prefer circumstantial evidence to direct evidence,” the judge said. “This should have been a slam-dunk.”
But juries are notoriously unpredictable and occasionally irrational. Torres recalled presiding over a double-murder case in which the handsome, charming defendant—a bouncer at a brothel—was accused of shooting two prostitutes to death and stealing cash from the establishment before fleeing out of state. Despite eyewitness testimony by his girlfriend, who drove him to the airport, the madam who witnessed the crime, and a john who heard the commotion, the jury believed the defendant’s testimony that the murders were committed by unidentified Mafiosi who robbed the brothel—and found him not guilty.
Torres was outraged by the acquittal, and was hardly mollified when, a day later, the female foreperson and an older male juror visited his chambers to explain the verdict. “The woman said, ‘I’d rather run into [the defendant] in a dark alley than that dirty whore’—referring to the madam. And the old man told me, ‘Your Honor, I wanted to hold out for guilty, but it was already getting to be 4 o’clock.’ ”
Former Westchester County judge and district attorney Jeanine Pirro was equally appalled.
“I have two words to describe my reaction: ‘shocked’ and ‘speechless,’” said Pirro, who sat in the Orlando courtroom as a Fox News host and commentator through most of the six-week trial. “When a jury returns such a curious verdict, it points up the national obsession we have with CSI and DNA, and I think it has destroyed our ability to employ common sense. The use of circumstantial evidence in this age of technology is becoming more and more questionable. But what happened to Caylee? Did she get justice? I almost feel like I’m living in the twilight zone. The bottom line is that the mother was not held accountable in any way, shape, or form.”
Even star criminal-defense attorney Gerald Shargel, a Daily Beast contributor, was taken aback by Tuesday’s verdict, which the jury reached after a mere 11 hours of deliberation. “From a distance,” he said, “no sense can be made of it.”
Read more: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/06/casey-anthony-murder-acquittal-no-sense-in-jury-rooms.html#ixzz1RL7mNbdy
nancy grace and others eat crow as i do. not guilty folks.
re;
nancy grace , labeled casey marie anthony "TOT MOM."
http://nancygrace.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/04/tot-mom-closing-arguments-get-heated/
i don't think it can be done now...a precedent has been set in stone now.
this trial will be used for tomorrow and future yrs.
the chart of doubt scared the pants off the jury.
the present of the doubt chart should have never been allowed in the court system.
defense almost said to the jury you will be tried if casey isn't
released.
now this chart is a teaching tool to defense lawyers.
doubt? by the casey anthony chart there will be pprints made
to sell all over the world how defense beat beyond reasonable doubt.
by the way what is reasonable doubt?
as i see it the lessor of the charge could have been agreed on.
5 yrs and a felon charge.
but casey can never be tried for this crime again.
can one of the family members or a friend? hmmm.
one of the family members did the crime and casey takes da fifth?
how about boyfriend?
just s friend or friends in general?
even specualtion got george being culprit.
80% of american citizen say she was wrong.
i think he makes mistake by doing this but that is his decision.
they went for it all or nothing.
prosecution?
Jeff Ashton may be retiring as soon as this week. #CaseyAnthony #Fox35
THIS IS A LANDMARKED CASE NOW...IT WILL BE USED IN MANY CASES TOMORROW AND FUTURE CASES.
Followers
|
1
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
348
|
Created
|
06/24/11
|
Type
|
Premium
|
Moderator mick | |||
Assistants ZoZoStockWatch Forty Six & 2 |
maybe some will give their thoughts / opinions to see if conspiracy by.
Cindy Anthony
Lee Anthony
Casey Anthony
and death of Caylee Anthony. No one knows who the father is.
Links;
http://www.WFTV.COM
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/caylee-anthony/os-tivid-casey-anthony-jury-livestream,0,999563.htmlstory
http://www.myfoxorlando.com/subindex/our_programs/live
http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/121518144.html
#Casey Anthony tells judge she will not testify @RedHuber photo in court http://yfrog.com/kecppij
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/07/07/the-psychology-of-the-casey-anthony-trial/
http://investigation.discovery.com/tv/most-evil/most-evil.html
DISCLAIMER - Nothing in the contents transmitted on this board should be construed as an advisory, nor should it be used as only opinions. There is no expression to harm or hurt anyone or imply to the case of casey anthony.
only to discuss and mentions express casey's trial.
advised to conduct your own considering information & should be considered for information purposes only.
Posts Today
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
348
|
Posters
|
|
Moderator
|
|
Assistants
|
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |