ghs73 157 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 No, it isn't taking it to extremes. Have you ever pulled jury duty? As I said, you have to follow the Judge's directions as to how to look at the evidence presented in the case. If the evidence that the Prosecution brought against the Defendant is in any way disaffirmed by the Defense and leaves doubt to whether or not the Defendant did it, you must rule "not guilty". Remember, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The Prosecution could not prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Casey Anthony was the one who killed Caylee. The Defense did their job in this case whether we agree with it or not. yes i have been on a jury. and i agree the defense did their job but also believe that as everyone does some on the jury had doubts to begin with and no matter what it can sway a person if they do not get what they are expecting. to me no doubt the child was murdered. her mother was the last to have seen her and kept the fact that she was missing for 31 days. if she did not kill this child she knows who did or what happened. but in any jury there is some doubt about a persons guilt it is human for some to have doubt just like it is human for some to say she did it. this is just my opinion. but i think a reasonable doubt is the way it should be rather than beyond a shadow of a doubt. cause as i said unless someone comes up and says i saw them do it or other proof then there will always be some doubt in every case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghs73 157 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 No, it isn't taking it to extremes. Have you ever pulled jury duty? As I said, you have to follow the Judge's directions as to how to look at the evidence presented in the case. If the evidence that the Prosecution brought against the Defendant is in any way disaffirmed by the Defense and leaves doubt to whether or not the Defendant did it, you must rule "not guilty". Remember, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The Prosecution could not prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Casey Anthony was the one who killed Caylee. The Defense did their job in this case whether we agree with it or not. also 10 hours to me is not enough for a jury to look at all the evidence presented in this trial. they did not ask for any testimony to be reread or for any other information. so i feel they had already made up their minds before going into deliberations. before the trial ended. did they do the job yes i do not fault them for that. but the did not have enough time to go over everything objectively. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Variable Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 No, it isn't taking it to extremes. Have you ever pulled jury duty? As I said, you have to follow the Judge's directions as to how to look at the evidence presented in the case. If the evidence that the Prosecution brought against the Defendant is in any way disaffirmed by the Defense and leaves doubt to whether or not the Defendant did it, you must rule "not guilty". Remember, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. The Prosecution could not prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Casey Anthony was the one who killed Caylee. The Defense did their job in this case whether we agree with it or not. Actually, that is the very definition of taking it to extremes. There is doubt, and then there is reasonable doubt. You could doubt your spouce/significant others fidelity to you because you think they are keeping a secret from you and people cheat all the time, but then you could have reasonable doubt of their fidelity because they stay out all night. Beyond-A-Shadow-Of-A-Doubt is an absolute, [again its the extreme]. Even gravity is considered a theory. Whether you agree with what I said or not doesnt make it any less of a fact. I am not speaking for this jury, I said in some cases juries go to the extremes, but reasonable doubt has always been the way it has been explained to any of the jury trials I have seen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMan 3,569 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit..." JC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Variable Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit..." JC Good context, in reference to a man who got away with murder and has done everything short of publically admitting he did it. But I do miss the old Cochran pizzaz (RIP). What was that guys name on Seinfeld? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueinbama 259 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Good context, in reference to a man who got away with murder and has done everything short of publically admitting he did it. But I do miss the old Cochran pizzaz (RIP). What was that guys name on Seinfeld? None other that Jackie Childs! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghs73 157 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Actually, that is the very definition of taking it to extremes. There is doubt, and then there is reasonable doubt. You could doubt your spouce/significant others fidelity to you because you think they are keeping a secret from you and people cheat all the time, but then you could have reasonable doubt of their fidelity because they stay out all night. Beyond-A-Shadow-Of-A-Doubt is an absolute, [again its the extreme]. Even gravity is considered a theory. Whether you agree with what I said or not doesnt make it any less of a fact. I am not speaking for this jury, I said in some cases juries go to the extremes, but reasonable doubt has always been the way it has been explained to any of the jury trials I have seen. reasonable doubt is it what a reasonable person can derive from information given to them. use good judgement but beyond a doubt is something that would if all juries use no one would ever be convicted. because as i said all humans have some doubt about things. but you have to use good judgement at the same time.now someone needs to take casey to civil court and get a judgement in her case like they did in oj's case may be not guilty of her death but find in caylee's favor she was responsible in some way and any money she gets from this could go to a fund to help missing and exploited children. dont know who could bring such a case but hope someone could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghs73 157 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 None other that Jackie Childs! and continues to get himself in trouble with the law. and i feel casey will mess up in the future and justice will prevail in the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Variable Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 reasonable doubt is it what a reasonable person can derive from information given to them. use good judgement but beyond a doubt is something that would if all juries use no one would ever be convicted. because as i said all humans have some doubt about things. but you have to use good judgement at the same time.now someone needs to take casey to civil court and get a judgement in her case like they did in oj's case may be not guilty of her death but find in caylee's favor she was responsible in some way and any money she gets from this could go to a fund to help missing and exploited children. dont know who could bring such a case but hope someone could. The father of Caylee (who is dead or MIA) or maybe the grandparents? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghs73 157 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 The father of Caylee (who is dead or MIA) or maybe the grandparents? i dont see the grandparents doing this though everything about this case has surprised me as for the father i dont remember them saying anything about him but who knows i just think someone should file a civil case against her. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) Unless UVAO corrects me, I think it IS beyond a reasonable doubt. I have heard that sometimes jurors take it to the extreme as GMAN described as a shadow of a doubt. If that was the case, nobody should be convicted in a jury trial. There is always the chance that the case is wrong, even with a confession. You are correct. It is "beyond a reasonable doubt". I blame CSI for perverting peoples' minds to this standard. Beyond a reasonable doubt /= I MUST HAVE VIDEOTAPED AND PERFECT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Beyond a reasonable doubt, you all think I'm an unemployed lawyer. I could've made up the entire last 7 years of my life, but that's UNREASONABLE. No reasonable person would believe that I would go to such lengths to fabricate this. Edited July 6, 2011 by UVAObserver Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueinbama 259 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 (edited) You are correct. It is "beyond a reasonable doubt". I blame CSI for perverting peoples' minds to this standard. Beyond a reasonable doubt /= I MUST HAVE VIDEOTAPED AND PERFECT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. Beyond a reasonable doubt, you all think I'm an unemployed lawyer. I could've made up the entire last 7 years of my life, but that's UNREASONABLE. No reasonable person would believe that I would go to such lengths to fabricate this. So let me ask you this: Since a juror (actually 12 jurors) couldn't have cast his/her vote for guilty, are you saying they are being irresponsible because he/she is not convinced that Casey Anthony willfully murdered her daughter? Are you saying all 12 (13 counting the alternate) were irresponsible and derelict in their duty as jurors because they weren't convinced first degree murder, child abuse, or manslaughter applied in this case? Are you saying they were all just worn out, tired and fed up with the trial and ready to go home, so they all agreed to declare her not guilty, and to hell with Caylee? I can't believe that. You can argue this alleged perversion of people's minds because of CSI, but I'm not buying it. I have never even watched CSI, I despise programs like that. But I agreed with the verdict, and yes I agreed because I had a reasonable doubt. What that means to me is that it's possible that Casey did not murder her daughter. It's entirely possible that this was a horrible accident that spiraled out of control. Remember, I said POSSIBLE. I'm not saying that is what happened either, but it is POSSIBLE because if the testimony by River Phoenix, the woman George Anthony went to "console" (the woman that accused George of having an affair with her). Her testimony directed toward George Anthony was that he told her it was an accident that went horribly out of control. I found her believable, and I think the jury also found her believable. Edited July 6, 2011 by blueinbama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghs73 157 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 So let me ask you this: Since a juror (actually 12 jurors) couldn't have cast his/her vote for guilty, are you saying they are being irresponsible because he/she is not convinced that Casey Anthony willfully murdered her daughter? Are you saying all 12 (13 counting the alternate) were irresponsible and derelict in their duty as jurors because they weren't convinced first degree murder, child abuse, or manslaughter applied in this case? Are you saying they were all just worn out, tired and fed up with the trial and ready to go home, so they all agreed to declare her not guilty, and to hell with Caylee? I can't believe that. You can argue this alleged perversion of people's minds because of CSI, but I'm not buying it. I have never even watched CSI, I despise programs like that. But I agreed with the verdict, and yes I agreed because I had a reasonable doubt. What that means to me is that it's possible that Casey did not murder her daughter. It's entirely possible that this was a horrible accident that spiraled out of control. Remember, I said POSSIBLE. I'm not saying that is what happened either, but it is POSSIBLE because if the testimony by River Phoenix, the woman George Anthony went to "console" (the woman that accused George of having an affair with her). Her testimony directed toward George Anthony was that he told her it was an accident that went horribly out of control. I found her believable, and I think the jury also found her believable. then if as you say a accident that went horribly out of control then where is this proof. casey has lied about everything so should the jury have disreguarded her lawyers contention that is was a drowning. how can anyone say that they do not believe her father but believe her. she lied for 31 days about her daughter while partying not caring about the whereabouts of her daughter. reasonable doubt yea but in this case i feel that this girl did this.and if you heard this womans statement about george he said he felt it was a accident that went out of control because he wanted to believe his daughter that she did not kill her daughter.i think the jury had its mind made up prior to deliberations. 10 hours is not enough to go over the entire 6 weeks of testimony also the thing about river phoenix is that she gave the police different statements and in the end stuck to the one in court. so no i do not find her credible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueinbama 259 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 then if as you say a accident that went horribly out of control then where is this proof. That's right. There is no proof of anything. That's why there is reasonable doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghs73 157 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 That's right. There is no proof of anything. That's why there is reasonable doubt. duct tape on a skull does not grow in nature someone had to place it on the face. the baby did not walk to the area where she was found placed duct tape on her face then wrap herself in blanket then in bag. her mother was the last one to see her alive. this gives me reason to believe she either had something to do with her death or knows who. either way enough proof for more than giving false information to police. murder one no Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghs73 157 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 That's right. There is no proof of anything. That's why there is reasonable doubt. love how you pick out a comment from entire statement to prove your point. should be a defense lawyer take things out of context and out of complete statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueinbama 259 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) love how you pick out a comment from entire statement to prove your point. should be a defense lawyer take things out of context and out of complete statement. Dude, that was your first sentence of your post. How is that taking what you said out of context? You agreed yourself there was reasonable doubt. That's what we are discussing, whether or not there is reasonable doubt. Edited July 7, 2011 by blueinbama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueinbama 259 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) duct tape on a skull does not grow in nature someone had to place it on the face. the baby did not walk to the area where she was found placed duct tape on her face then wrap herself in blanket then in bag. her mother was the last one to see her alive. this gives me reason to believe she either had something to do with her death or knows who. either way enough proof for more than giving false information to police. murder one no Possibly, but according to the jury the state did not meet their burden of proof. Edited July 7, 2011 by blueinbama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 So let me ask you this: Since a juror (actually 12 jurors) couldn't have cast his/her vote for guilty, are you saying they are being irresponsible because he/she is not convinced that Casey Anthony willfully murdered her daughter? Are you saying all 12 (13 counting the alternate) were irresponsible and derelict in their duty as jurors because they weren't convinced first degree murder, child abuse, or manslaughter applied in this case? Are you saying they were all just worn out, tired and fed up with the trial and ready to go home, so they all agreed to declare her not guilty, and to hell with Caylee? I can't believe that. You can argue this alleged perversion of people's minds because of CSI, but I'm not buying it. I have never even watched CSI, I despise programs like that. But I agreed with the verdict, and yes I agreed because I had a reasonable doubt. What that means to me is that it's possible that Casey did not murder her daughter. It's entirely possible that this was a horrible accident that spiraled out of control. Remember, I said POSSIBLE. I'm not saying that is what happened either, but it is POSSIBLE because if the testimony by River Phoenix, the woman George Anthony went to "console" (the woman that accused George of having an affair with her). Her testimony directed toward George Anthony was that he told her it was an accident that went horribly out of control. I found her believable, and I think the jury also found her believable. I'm not saying anything as to the outcome of the case, and I believe that I've made great, obvious efforts to do just that. I wasn't there, and I didn't block off six weeks of my life to listen to every single word that came out of the courtroom. Therefore, I cannot in good conscience uphold the banner for either those wanting "guilty" or those wanting "not guilty". It's just not my place. What I am saying is that today's culture, partly fueled by the media's obsession to have ironclad records of everything, is eroding the meaning of "beyond a reasonable doubt". It does not mean "beyond all doubt". Again, it doesn't even mean that "I believe there is doubt, so I must acquit". It means that if the doubt itself is "reasonable", one that a "reasonable" person would consider a possibility, then one must acquit. That's why I went into the example I did above. Also, what I am saying is that law school and my very limited practice have given me a strong distrust of jurors. Partly, it's because of the media perversion I mention above. Partly, it's because jurors each have their own biases coming into the trial that cannot possibly be drawn out during jury selection. Partly, it's that a whopping 8/9 jurors admit to having formed an opinion about a case before the close of evidence (something that is legal blasphemy). Partly, it's because nuanced phrases like "beyond a reasonable doubt" aren't fully explained to jurors, and this happens intentionally as a part of deliberation upon the jury instructions. Yes, it's very possible that after 6 weeks, they were tired and just wanted to "get the Hell out of Dodge". It's also very possible that they liked Baez more, and listened more to the charisma than what came from his mouth. It's also very possible that they knew at about Week 4 of 6 how they'd vote. Again, they may not have. They're the ones that have to sleep with their decision every night for the rest of their lives. I'm not passing judgment; it's not my place. I just distrust jurors. Not the process, but the jurors in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan4VT 4,557 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Just read where the Porn Company Vivid has reach out to Casey to star in a porn... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueinbama 259 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Yes, it's very possible that after 6 weeks, they were tired and just wanted to "get the Hell out of Dodge". It's also very possible that they liked Baez more, and listened more to the charisma than what came from his mouth. It's also very possible that they knew at about Week 4 of 6 how they'd vote. Again, they may not have. They're the ones that have to sleep with their decision every night for the rest of their lives. I'm not passing judgment; it's not my place. I just distrust jurors. Not the process, but the jurors in general. I sincerely hope no juror would be that irresponsible, especially in a first degree murder case where a child has died, but I guess that's possible. Our system is not perfect by any means, but I prefer our system of justice over any other in the world. It is meant to protect the innocent until they are proven guilty. I am so thankful we are given the opportunity as Americans to be judged by our peers instead of some one, two or three judge panel or the like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GMan 3,569 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Just read where the Porn Company Vivid has reach out to Casey to star in a porn... Strike while the iron is hot... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueinbama 259 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Strike while the iron is hot... This was reported last night to be off the table. I guess the porn company didn't want the bad publicity. After all, they have their reputation at stake! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueinbama 259 Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 Casey Anthony to be sentenced at around 9:00 this morning. Idiots outside the courtroom are still making it a circus. These people are pitiful. Holding signs and chanting...just wanting to get their pathetic mugs on TV. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Variable Report Share Posted July 7, 2011 On Greta last night, they reported some excerpts from Caseys writings where she was talking about wanting to get into a pregnancy pact with another inmate, or adopting. Nothing about how she misses Caylee. Also there is something coming out now about getting something called Caylees Law passed which would make it a felony for a parent or guardian to not report a child missing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.01bb665814ffc257795fe158cb2045c7.png.8a531ac878a82772b21014d7a6167582.png){kind=logo}
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.