I was dumbfounded when Nancy Grace was saying there was something wrong with the defense team toasting and popping champagne bottles because "Caylee is still dead." Are you kidding me? They just did an excellent job after 3 years of hard work and they aren't supposed to celebrate?

 

I'm not going to lie. I was a little uncomfortable with the reactions of the defense team. I would hope that had I been on that defense team I would look at it as I was doing my job even though she may be a killer. My job is to make the state prove their case. If they do and she's guilty I've still done my job. Their reaction looked like they read the verdict as "innocent" instead of "not guilty."

And the number of those sentenced to death and later released based on DNA evidence is near 300 and climbing. The amount of coverage all of those cases combined probably doesn't add up to the coverage and national captivation this one received. I wonder why that is.

 

Because even though "presumed innocent" is a principle upon which our justice system is founded, the public wants to hear the limited information, form their conclusion and never be swayed. I'm one of those people, who if I had any question whatsoever, I could never vote to convict someone. I just couldn't do it. I'm probably a prosecutor's nightmare of a potential jurist. :lol:

I'm not going to lie. I was a little uncomfortable with the reactions of the defense team. I would hope that had I been on that defense team I would look at it as I was doing my job even though she may be a killer. My job is to make the state prove their case. If they do and she's guilty I've still done my job. Their reaction looked like they read the verdict as "innocent" instead of "not guilty."

 

They were doing their job. They set a goal for themselves 3 years ago, and that was for Casey to be acquitted. Against all odds they reached their goal and deserve to celebrate. It was a relief for it all to be over with and I have no problem with them having a glass (or two) or champagne after a victory in the courtroom of one of the biggest cases we've seen this decade. Now if Casey was in the restaurant popping bottles and toasting, it'd be a different story.

Cases like this are why I did not go to Law School. I think any attorney that would defend someone like this just as bad as the guilty party. Sure maybe nothing proved in a court of law that Anthony was guilty, but she was and is guilty IMO. There is no way that she could not be!

 

Got nothing to do w/ the lawyer. It has everything to do w/ the Constitution. It grants everyone a right to a fair trial. It grants everyone in a murder case, the right to representation (Competent Representation.)

And the number of those sentenced to death and later released based on DNA evidence is near 300 and climbing. The amount of coverage all of those cases combined probably doesn't add up to the coverage and national captivation this one received. I wonder why that is.

 

I think we all know.

I've heard the phrase the "CSI affect", where jurors are expecting everything to be laid out for them in a nice, neat package. There might not be a video tape showing the act, but I'm sure there was more than one juror who expected Gil Grissom to magically appear and bring out all this "evidence". When he didn't show, then they felt let down and figured that there's obviously reasonable doubt.

 

To me, the phrase "beyond reasonable doubt" has often been replaced by "beyond ANY doubt". There may, and often is, SOME doubt (unless you've got that video tape). The question is...is the doubt that is still there...REASONABLE?

 

Having served on a jury (not in anything as significant as a murder trial), doubt was enhanced for me. When you really consider that you're about to convinct somebody of something, I wanted to be as sure as possible. I can only imagine that feeling would be magnified even more if the sentence might be life in prison. I'd rather err on the side of freeing a guilty person than vice versa.

 

That's just my feelings though. I didn't follow this trial at all and can't comment on what the prosecutors did or did not do.

Because even though "presumed innocent" is a principle upon which our justice system is founded, the public wants to hear the limited information, form their conclusion and never be swayed. I'm one of those people, who if I had any question whatsoever, I could never vote to convict someone. I just couldn't do it. I'm probably a prosecutor's nightmare of a potential jurist. :lol:

 

I'm like you RM. It would be hard for me to convict anyone if I had the least amount of doubt.

They were doing their job. They set a goal for themselves 3 years ago, and that was for Casey to be acquitted. Against all odds they reached their goal and deserve to celebrate. It was a relief for it all to be over with and I have no problem with them having a glass (or two) or champagne after a victory in the courtroom of one of the biggest cases we've seen this decade. Now if Casey was in the restaurant popping bottles and toasting, it'd be a different story.

 

We disagree. It's a matter of showing respect and proper decorum. No way in heck they do not believe she is a whack job and a sick, sick person. Celebrate behind closed doors with your colleagues.

Didn't you have to believe the drowning story to acquit her? The Defense didn't have anything to prove, but they didn't say nobody knows what happened. They said she drowned accidentally and the family hid the accident. That has to be the story the jurors believe now right?

You do realize they found a nanny by that name right? She says she's never met Casey Anthony though.

 

Also, the fact that they had sworn testimony from someone who testified that her father confessed to her that "it was a terrible mistake that spiraled out of control", is quite the damaging testimony for the prosecution IMO.

 

You do realize she lied about that right?

To help me out can someone tell me what she admitted to lying about?

 

What , if anything, were they able to determine once they found the body? Neck broken?

 

Were the computer searches not enough? Does anyone really believe that the mom did the search when the defendant's Myspace page was accessed 30 seconds prior to the Google searches?

To help me out can someone tell me what she admitted to lying about?

 

What , if anything, were they able to determine once they found the body? Neck broken?

 

Were the computer searches not enough? Does anyone really believe that the mom did the search when the defendant's Myspace page was accessed 30 seconds prior to the Google searches?

 

The mom was at work.

The mom was at work.

 

Mom said she worked from home that day despite what her time card said. That was one of the few parts I saw and it really looked like a coverup for her daughter. Did something else come out of that that I missed? Did she explain the Myspace page being logged onto while she was supposedly doing her own searches on the same computer?

Mom said she worked from home that day despite what her time card said. That was one of the few parts I saw and it really looked like a coverup for her daughter. Did something else come out of that that I missed? Did she explain the Myspace page being logged onto while she was supposedly doing her own searches on the same computer?

 

Not sure. It seemed to me the mom was trying to help her get off though. I still think since the defense said she for sure drowned you have to believe that to be fact. That on top of the jail recordings should have done it.

I think the defense was expecting something different from the total not guilty verdict on murder/manslaughter. They probably had in advance how to proceed, but when they were totally off the hook, impromptu celebration came about. You wait until you are in a private room, situation, without cameras, video before you react, and create a backdraft of resentment.