How YOU would rule 'Tot Mom' Casey Anthony

[ebake02]

I'm not sure what's worse, Casey being acquitted (I don't agree with it but it was the right decision) or FoxNews camping outside her parent's house watching their every move this afternoon. It makes me sick.

Was Fox News the only news agency there?

Probably not, I just Fox News flipping through the channels, I think Shepard Smith blew a load every time Someone was heard coming from the neighbor's house. It was ridiculous.

Fixed it for you...

I need to start proofreading before I click submit.

[Jubilee]

Sorry, I disagree. I watched the whole trial As a court reporter, I have spent years in courtrooms, and they put out enough evidence for this reasonable person (me) to convict her of, at least, manslaughter and people have been convicted on less. It wasn't an easy case, so it never would have been a slam dunk for first degree murder, though she deserved it or second degree murder. I would have hung the jury and not caved in agreeing to only a conviction on the charges of lying to a police officer. There were tons of exhibits to pour over, which, apparently, they didn't bother.

You are Neal-er, therefore your status as a reasonable person is automatically suspect.

What I mean by slam-dunk is they already had the moral high ground here. No matter how impartial juries are supposed to be, they are made up of human beings, and we tend to go all wobbly where children are concerned. All the prosecution had to do was produce solid evidence, an give the jury a reason to convict. I think they took, what 10 hours to come back with a verdict? There may have been tons of exhibits, which I'm sure they reviewed before the final vote, it appears that they simply determined that the prosecution hadn't proved it's case.

[Angel]

There may have been tons of exhibits, which I'm sure they reviewed before the final vote, it appears that they simply determined that the prosecution hadn't proved it's case.

They didn't ask to review anything during deliberation...and it's also been reported that during the trial they took VERY FEW notes.

[S2M]

Sorry, I disagree. I watched the whole trial As a court reporter, I have spent years in courtrooms, and they put out enough evidence for this reasonable person (me) to convict her of, at least, manslaughter and people have been convicted on less. It wasn't an easy case, so it never would have been a slam dunk for first degree murder, though she deserved it or second degree murder. I would have hung the jury and not caved in agreeing to only a conviction on the charges of lying to a police officer. There were tons of exhibits to pour over, which, apparently, they didn't bother.

You are Neal-er, therefore your status as a reasonable person is automatically suspect.

What I mean by slam-dunk is they already had the moral high ground here. No matter how impartial juries are supposed to be, they are made up of human beings, and we tend to go all wobbly where children are concerned. All the prosecution had to do was produce solid evidence, an give the jury a reason to convict. I think they took, what 10 hours to come back with a verdict? There may have been tons of exhibits, which I'm sure they reviewed before the final vote, it appears that they simply determined that the prosecution hadn't proved it's case.

Have you read any of MY posts? You know about Dual Construction, as it applies to circumstantial evidence? I suggest you read up on it.

[Jana]

Sorry, I disagree. I watched the whole trial As a court reporter, I have spent years in courtrooms, and they put out enough evidence for this reasonable person (me) to convict her of, at least, manslaughter and people have been convicted on less. It wasn't an easy case, so it never would have been a slam dunk for first degree murder, though she deserved it or second degree murder. I would have hung the jury and not caved in agreeing to only a conviction on the charges of lying to a police officer. There were tons of exhibits to pour over, which, apparently, they didn't bother.

You are Neal-er, therefore your status as a reasonable person is automatically suspect.

What I mean by slam-dunk is they already had the moral high ground here. No matter how impartial juries are supposed to be, they are made up of human beings, and we tend to go all wobbly where children are concerned. All the prosecution had to do was produce solid evidence, an give the jury a reason to convict. I think they took, what 10 hours to come back with a verdict? There may have been tons of exhibits, which I'm sure they reviewed before the final vote, it appears that they simply determined that the prosecution hadn't proved it's case.

LOL. Believe me, in that amount of time, they didn't review the exhibits, filled with technical information. They had no questions for Judge Perry, which is rare in a case of this magnitude. They tossed it all out. I believe they came in in the morning knowing pretty much what they were going to do. And you can have a different jury come back with the same evidence and convict differently. Juries can get so hung up on reasonable doubt and not apply it correctly. It's tricky, admittedly, in a circumstantial case. To me, enough evidence was presented. And juries can be very favorable to a petite, vulnerable-looking white girl sitting in court. They went wobbly all right, Jubs. But it is what it is. I saw a child molester walk out of court free, and his own attorney told me he never believed with the evidence presented he would be found not guilty of all counts. Look at OJ.

[Rick]

Just saw this on Facebook. Not a real good Photoshop.

[Jubilee]

Have you read any of MY posts? You know about Dual Construction, as it applies to circumstantial evidence? I suggest you read up on it.

Yes. I've read your tired little posts, S2M.

I read your excerpt from the California Jury Instructions. It goes to the presumption of innocence, at which you seemed to take umbrage?? The point I was trying to make is this: if the prosecution had the goods, all they had to do was lay it out for the jury, and let them take it from there. If the District Attorney's office took a gamble on some cobbled together, ad hoc prosecution relying on character assassination, they got the only verdict the jury could possibly come to.

[Jubilee]

Sorry, I disagree. I watched the whole trial As a court reporter, I have spent years in courtrooms, and they put out enough evidence for this reasonable person (me) to convict her of, at least, manslaughter and people have been convicted on less. It wasn't an easy case, so it never would have been a slam dunk for first degree murder, though she deserved it or second degree murder. I would have hung the jury and not caved in agreeing to only a conviction on the charges of lying to a police officer. There were tons of exhibits to pour over, which, apparently, they didn't bother.

You are Neal-er, therefore your status as a reasonable person is automatically suspect.

What I mean by slam-dunk is they already had the moral high ground here. No matter how impartial juries are supposed to be, they are made up of human beings, and we tend to go all wobbly where children are concerned. All the prosecution had to do was produce solid evidence, an give the jury a reason to convict. I think they took, what 10 hours to come back with a verdict? There may have been tons of exhibits, which I'm sure they reviewed before the final vote, it appears that they simply determined that the prosecution hadn't proved it's case.

LOL. Believe me, in that amount of time, they didn't review the exhibits, filled with technical information. They had no questions for Judge Perry, which is rare in a case of this magnitude. They tossed it all out. I believe they came in in the morning knowing pretty much what they were going to do. And you can have a different jury come back with the same evidence and convict differently. Juries can get so hung up on reasonable doubt and not apply it correctly. It's tricky, admittedly, in a circumstantial case. To me, enough evidence was presented. And juries can be very favorable to a petite, vulnerable-looking white girl sitting in court. They went wobbly all right, Jubs. But it is what it is. I saw a child molester walk out of court free, and his own attorney told me he never believed with the evidence presented he would be found not guilty of all counts. Look at OJ.

Agreed.

[S2M]

Have you read any of MY posts? You know about Dual Construction, as it applies to circumstantial evidence? I suggest you read up on it.

Yes. I've read your tired little posts, S2M.

I read your excerpt from the California Jury Instructions. It goes to the presumption of innocence, at which you seemed to take umbrage?? The point I was trying to make is this: if the prosecution had the goods, all they had to do was lay it out for the jury, and let them take it from there. If the District Attorney's office took a gamble on some cobbled together, ad hoc prosecution relying on character assassination, they got the only verdict the jury could possibly come to.

Oh...so a jury has never been given the goods, subsequently ignored them - and ruled the other way?

and my posts are tired?

[Jubilee]

Have you read any of MY posts? You know about Dual Construction, as it applies to circumstantial evidence? I suggest you read up on it.

Yes. I've read your tired little posts, S2M.

I read your excerpt from the California Jury Instructions. It goes to the presumption of innocence, at which you seemed to take umbrage?? The point I was trying to make is this: if the prosecution had the goods, all they had to do was lay it out for the jury, and let them take it from there. If the District Attorney's office took a gamble on some cobbled together, ad hoc prosecution relying on character assassination, they got the only verdict the jury could possibly come to.

Oh...so a jury has never been given the goods, subsequently ignored them - and ruled the other way?

and my posts are tired?

Yes. But not in this case. PWNED!

(and yes, your post are a little...oh, just lighten up, already)

[steveo777]

Saw a picture of her on the news site today with an evil looking sneer. The bitch walks free on July 13th.
She will probably tell what really happened in a book, since she can't be held accountable for the death,
no matter what she says at this point. She'll profit from the story and that just sucks!