No Justice for Caylee...

txcoastal1

Keiko wrote: »

She walked today, but sooner or later that ol' karma is gonna catch up to her.

Yeah maybe she'll get popped for drugs, or some how in jail without hurting someone

Look where OJ is

Sherardp

I was just reading about this a few days. WOW she got off on all counts!!! WTF!

tonyb

Give her a few months, she'll be doing the talk show routine, write a book, a bio, make alot of coin, then maybe even run for office on a ticket with Al Sharpton, for all those falsely accused people of the world.

doctor r

It is sad for the child, but the not guilty verdict is completely the prosecuters fault. They did not present evidence that proved what they charged her with. They chose the WRONG charges! To be over the top they chose charges that they did not have solid evidence to prove. If they were more concerned about the child than their own reputations then proper charges could have been filed that went along with the actual evidence they had. The prosecuters allowed no justice for the child. The jury's verdict was only appropriate based on what they were presented.

obieone

Slinger182 wrote: »

Nancy Grace is gonna be freakin pissed!!!

I'm more concerned with John Walsh:frown:

DollarDave

Doctor R wrote: »

It is sad for the child, but the not guilty verdict is completely the prosecuters fault. They did not present evidence that proved what they charged her with. They chose the WRONG charges! To be over the top they chose charges that they did not have solid evidence to prove. If they were more concerned about the child than their own reputations then proper charges could have been filed that went along with the actual evidence they had. The prosecuters allowed no justice for the child. The jury's verdict was only appropriate based on what they were presented.

I completely disagree. But, hey, that's just me. I see a whole bunch of easily connected dots. The child was with her on the day she left the house for a fictional job. The child died that day or perhaps a day or two later and was found dressed in clothes that were in the car. She was disposed of in a bag from that home, duct taped with tape from that home. The only person without an alibi for the time of death is the mother who was ostensibly with the child. The mother was caught getting a gas can from the house a few days into this ordeal without the child. The mother borrowed a shovel from the neighbor. These aren't just odd behaviours, they are acts to cover up the crime she committed. Add in all the dots from those 31 days, and it is easy to convict her of murder. I don't even have a doubt, much less a "reasonable" doubt. They did not need a complete lack of doubt, they needed a lack of reasonable doubt. Intelligent people know the difference between those two. The jury failed our justice system and I am ashamed of them.

Jstas

bobman1235 wrote: »

Our justice system does not find people "innocent." It finds people "not guilty." There is a difference.

It doesn't even do that. It just finds reasonable doubt of the guilt.

The way the prosecutors handled the case and just the general behavior of the plaintiffs and defendants was atrocious.

I'm not surprised she walked at all. There was lots of evidence but none of it was connected by the prosecutors and standing alone, a pile of unconnected evidence is not enough to convict. There's too much uncertainty. What little evidence the prosecution did have was subverted by the botched testimonies of the Anthony family. The whole thing was a joke.

That doesn't mean the justice system is broken though. It just means that either the Anthony defense attorneys are freakin' spectacular or the prosecution was completely inept. Not enough members of the jury saw enough correlating evidence to absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, vote guilty. That's the point of a jury. So that more than one person decides your fate and can keep you out of the clink if they have enough concerns to not convict.

Do I think it's bogus that she walked? Yeah, I do. But then again, since the security guy, her father and her mother all denied in their testimony what was in the case and in Casey's testimony then who know who is telling the truth and who is lying. All you need is one vote with doubt to avoid conviction.

The defense did not need to establish innocence. All they needed to do to win was establish doubt. With the conflicting testimonies and incomplete stories, that was pretty simple to do. The justice system didn't fail. It worked. Just not in the way we think it should have.

Jstas

DaveMuell wrote: »

I completely disagree. But, hey, that's just me. I see a whole bunch of easily connected dots.

Yeah, so does everybody else. But it's not the fault of the justice system. The prosecution has to build a case that connects those dots solidly. The defense has to build a case that casts doubt on those connections. If the defense is successful, she walks. If the prosecution is successful, she fries.

The prosecution failed and the defense manipulated the system. The justice system worked as designed.

schwarcw

Now, free the Juice!!!

JustinHEMI

I'd rather 1 guilty person go free than 100 innocent people be locked up. In my mind, do I think she is guilty? Yes. However, it doesn't matter what I think. The prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury handed down the correct verdict. I am just glad they were able to put aside emotion and stick to what was presented to them.

Justin

cubdog

I lived in Denver during the Jonbenet Ramsey murder and trial. I would have bet my house that one of the parents were responsible. Time and evidence proved me wrong. Don't be certain of anything when you don't have all the facts. None of us do, that's for sure.

cubdog

tonyb

The prosecution should have taken the same avenue they did with our former gov., Blago. Just throw everything at them and hope something will stick. I would have thought a few more charges could have been brought against her.

disneyjoe7

I'm shocked.

inspiredsports

Keiko wrote: »

God sits high, but he looks low. There will be justice for little Caylee come judgement day.

That's what I've been thinking.

But . . . I've also had the thought that the media is the only place where folks have gotten the information used to form their opinion about Anthony's guilt or innocence. Remember, according to the media, Obama is the greatest person to roam the earth :rolleyes:

cubdog

inspiredsports wrote: »

That's what I've been thinking.

But . . . I've also had the thought that the media is the only place where folks have gotten the information used to form their opinion about Anthony's guilt or innocence. Remember, according to the media, Obama is the greatest person to roam the earth :rolleyes:

That makes alot of sense?

cubdog

dkg999

The jury called out the prosecution and the police on the horrible job they did on this case. Some of the comments about jury backlash against the prosecution may be true, especially since the last I heard is that none of the jury agreed to talk to the media after the verdict. As referenced previously in this thread, the jury didn't find her innocent, the jury voted that the evidence and case presented to convict her did not meet the test of "beyond reasonable doubt". The judges instructions to the jury also had a little weirdness in them as to what the jury could convict her of. While I may not agree with the verdict, and certainly believe she should of been held accountable, I do highly commend the jury for putting courage and honor before pride and doing the job they were tasked with. Based on the media reports of the trial and evidence, I think they made the only decision that was aligned with the case and evidence presented to them.

mdaudioguy

cubdog wrote: »

I lived in Denver during the Jonbenet Ramsey murder and trial. I would have bet my house that one of the parents were responsible. Time and evidence proved me wrong. Don't be certain of anything when you don't have all the facts. None of us do, that's for sure.

cubdog

There has been no trial in the JonBenet Ramsey case. No one has ever been charged, ttbomk.

newrival

shack wrote: »

It seemed like a stretch to get a first degree murder convicition based on the lack of any "air tight" physical evidence. I figured it would come down to 2nd degree or manslaughter...especially since it was a capital case with the preponderence of evidence circumstantial. I never figured they would acquit. It may have been a case of the prosecutors jumping the gun.

I agree. I believe the prosecution was way over reaching with the death penalty. 1st degree went out the window for them after everyone of their own witnesses testified to her being a great and caring mother.

Who knows if it went down the way people seem to be so sure it did. everyone wants blood when something like this happens. I think the jury likely did what was asked of them. I agree that the prosecution did not prove their case.

stuwee

JustinHEMI wrote: »

I'd rather 1 guilty person go free than 100 innocent people be locked up. In my mind, do I think she is guilty? Yes. However, it doesn't matter what I think. The prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury handed down the correct verdict. I am just glad they were able to put aside emotion and stick to what was presented to them.

Justin

I have to agree, as much as it pains me. Our system isn't perfect, but too many folks who have done nothing wrong are paying a hard price for inept judgements.

mdaudioguy

stuwee wrote: »

I have to agree, as much as it pains me. Our system isn't perfect, but too many folks who have done nothing wrong are paying a hard price for inept judgements.

Can you support that statement? And don't say, "One is too many..." Your statement implies that there are many...

polktiger

I have not followed the case, so I don't know how well it was laid out/sufficiency of the evidence. I therefore can't speak to whether the prosecution dropped the ball, the defense hit a home run, or the jury had an unreasonable expectation of the evidence needed to convict.

My lone comment is the brevity of the deliberations...only about 10 hours for what in the real world was a very long murder trial. This case took an unusually long amount of time. The jury also apparently had few if any follow-up questions (read back testimony, review other evidence). To me, it sounded like these people wanted to go home. (which is reasonable, I think they were sequestered, and many employers are not going to cover over a months worth of pay while you are on jury duty which is may have been as little as $25 to $50 a day!) Not guilty may have simply been the path of least resistence.

cindy100

polktiger wrote: »

I have not followed the case, so I don't know how well it was laid out/sufficiency of the evidence. I therefore can't speak to whether the prosecution dropped the ball, the defense hit a home run, or the jury had an unreasonable expectation of the evidence needed to convict.

My lone comment is the brevity of the deliberations...only about 10 hours for what in the real world was a very long murder trial. This case took an unusually long amount of time. The jury also apparently had few if any follow-up questions (read back testimony, review other evidence). To me, it sounded like these people wanted to go home. (which is reasonable, I think they were sequestered, and many employers are not going to cover over a months worth of pay while you are on jury duty which is may have been as little as $25 to $50 a day!) Not guilty may have simply been the path of least resistence.

Unless I missed it (I did watch 95% of the trial) the jury did not ask for any of the testimony to be read back and I don't feel they even bothered to go through the 366 pieces of evidence they had.

In my opinion, the only thing they did do was let a child killer walk. Less than 11 hours of deliberation... they did not do their job.

stuwee

mdaudioguy wrote: »

Can you support that statement? And don't say, "One is too many..." Your statement implies that there are many...

Ok, 200 is too many, is that enough for you?? And I bet that is conservative figure. It happens more than you may think, usually because of bias for the defendant, being the wrong colored skin, or from a troubled background, or even because of the way they dress in court. We are all judged everyday for everything we do. You, mdaudioguy, probably already have a bias thought about me right now reading this...that's just how it works.

I'm not defending Caylee's mother or family in any way, shape or form!

nooshinjohn

... I just saw that she is already being offered roles in **** films and a book deal.

snow

Well I am not certain she killed her daughter even though I am pretty certain she knows what did happen and at the very least is one of the worst mothers ever for not reporting her being missing earlier than what she did.

It is very easy to want a pound of flesh from someone, we all look at that beautiful little girl and want to protect and care for her and in our minds need to blame/hate/punish someone for what happened, you can be pretty sure the jury felt the same way and if there was any way they could have reasonbly convicted her they would have.

I wasnt there on the jury and didnt get to hear everything that was said, all the evidence for or against and to be honest I am glad I wasnt, it would be a painful thing to endure. All we get to see/hear is what the media allows us to see and hear and their point of view which of course leads us to want to convict her to see justice done and evil punished.

I blame the prosecution as much as anyone for allowing this trial to end the way it did, they simply didnt prove their case it is simple as that.



REGARDS SNOW

cfrizz

I just saw one of the jurors on tv who said that 1 very crucial question wasn't answered, which was "How was the child killed." She said without that 1 question answered, they weren't able to find her guilty, and they couldn't live with themselves if they found her guilty, and she was executed and it turned out they were wrong.

Very tough case, and I feel sorry for the jurors. No one wins in this case, but I have to believe that sooner or later that *itch is going to get hers.

cubdog

mdaudioguy wrote: »

There has been no trial in the JonBenet Ramsey case. No one has ever been charged, ttbomk.

Of course you are correct. There has never been a formal trial. The parents were on trial publicly for years however. It wasn't until 2008 that the Boulder District Attorney office announced they no longer considered the Ramseys as suspects.

cubdog

Roy Munson

I wonder why the public never seems to care when the innocent are sent to prison?

Does GOD care?

kevhed72

Roy Munson wrote: »

I wonder why the public never seems to care when the innocent are sent to prison?

Great point...

Roy Munson

Originally Posted by JustinHEMI
I'd rather 1 guilty person go free than 100 innocent people be locked up. In my mind, do I think she is guilty? Yes. However, it doesn't matter what I think. The prosecution failed to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury handed down the correct verdict. I am just glad they were able to put aside emotion and stick to what was presented to them.

Justin

Originally Posted by stuwee
I have to agree, as much as it pains me. Our system isn't perfect, but too many folks who have done nothing wrong are paying a hard price for inept judgements.

mdaudioguy wrote: »

Can you support that statement? And don't say, "One is too many..." Your statement implies that there are many...

The Innocence Project which uses DNA testing to prove their cases has exonerated 272 people that were falsely sent to prison!