GNBRETT
Pelennor Fields
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2004
The death was ruled a homicide and the cause of death listed as undetermined. thats right from Dr. G
Casey-Anthony Jury should Bury Their Head in SHAME!!!
- Thread starter GNBRETT
- Start date
I didn't watch any of the trial, but since it is on every news channel 24/7 it is easy to surmise that since the defense stated Caylee died as a result of a accident that would rule out "stabbed", "shot" and "poisoned".
Since she was found with DUCT TAPE on her face where her mouth and nose would be that would point to "suffocated". autopsy says " there is duct tape over the lower facial region" doesnt say nose or mouth
Us stake burners are only going on basic human compassion and love for ones child and none of us can even comprehend 31 days passing with no report of Caylee missing. As I stated before that should AT LEAST be Aggravated Child Abuse especially since the child turned up dead. Plain and simple. No Jury, No Defense team or Prosecution needed.
I am amazed that there is even any kind of defense for that...'mother'.
again i have no doubt she did it and do have compassion, and gonna piss a few people off but lets play devils advocate
everyone puts the blame on the jury, but if you had to follow the rules given to the jurors and follow the letter of the law and not your heart could you convict?
the DA had pressure to file charges, they filed way to early, there case was weak at best
in federal court you will spend years locked up while the prosecution works on the case, they also spend years collecting evidence.
please correct me if i'm wrong
ok so duct tape cover mouth and nose, just didnt read where its was proved that it was applied while she was alive or dead
suspect states victim drowned, was that dis-proven?
smell of decop proves a body was placed/moved in trunk not murder.
ok playing devils advocate again, lets see does anyone think this is possible?
piece of sh!t tweaker mother is in the room giving BF head, little Caylee is in the back yard playing and decides she wants to go swimming and drowns.
after a few hours of blowing BF and doing lines, goes out and finds daughter drowned. with that tweaker mentality (cops should know very well they will give up there own mother to not go to jail, catch the right tweaker and you'll find Hoffa) decides she doesn't want to go to jail, decides to hide body in cars trunk.
after a few weeks people start asking questions, now she has to figure out how to get rid of body without being implicated, she places duct tape on child and hides body in swamp.
is this possible, yes
can it be proven, nope (too much body decomposition)
can it be dis-proven nope (too much body decomposition)
conclusion= reasonable doubt
again I dont believe the case was proven with out reasonable doubt, and cant blame jury for that. do I believe jury thinks she is guilty yes can you convict on your beliefs nope.
to be clear im not defending her just dont see how murder was proven.
Aggravated Child Abuse....yes
child neglect....yes
child endangerment....yes
involuntary manslaughter....yes
tampering with evidence.....yes
hindering a murder investigation...yes
im sure there are plenty im missing
but I dont think murder was proven, not saying it didnt happen, just not proven.
from autopsy
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/19/caylee.anthony.autopsy.pdf
again i feel very sorry for what happened to this poor little girl, no child deserves what happened to her. will the mother rot in hell yep. she will be judged again but not by 12, just by 1.
Junior Samples
Walk Away
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2007
She will get her justice out on the streets. Looks like she is being released next Wednesday.
That is the truth..... If she thinks she will get home and get all dressed up to hit the bars and party like a rockstar... shes real mistakin.
She would be safer behind bars cause someones gonna take her out
TR Custom Parts
Mark Hueffman - Owner
- Joined
- May 25, 2001
Funny how she dolled herself up for the sentencing huh? Makeup and hair down almost like flaunting it.
She better have a plan of taking a one way trip to Idaho to escape the media.
She better have a plan of taking a one way trip to Idaho to escape the media.
Jury did what they had the mental capacity to do. Simple as that.
Here's my belief: She was a party animal, and had the kid...what an inconvenience. So, she figured out that chloroform puts her to sleep for hours...placed the baby in the trunk, give her a dose, go party. Probably worked for a while.
Well, one night, the little one OD'd on chloroform. No heartbeat. Now she's gotta cover up, make up stories, yada yada. The tape keeps body fluid inside. Tried to bury the body in the back yard (family's favorite spot) but soil was too hard. Parked the bagged body on the ground in the yard long enough for the dog to find the spot. Found another spot nearby. Decomposition wipes out most of the evidence.
Could be the family knows too much too, but the prosecutor was probably too aggressive, OJ'esque, and those confused jurors couldn't make anything of it. She skates.
Now that she's free, I've got this guy I'd like her to meet. I think his name is VonDerSloot....
Here's my belief: She was a party animal, and had the kid...what an inconvenience. So, she figured out that chloroform puts her to sleep for hours...placed the baby in the trunk, give her a dose, go party. Probably worked for a while.
Well, one night, the little one OD'd on chloroform. No heartbeat. Now she's gotta cover up, make up stories, yada yada. The tape keeps body fluid inside. Tried to bury the body in the back yard (family's favorite spot) but soil was too hard. Parked the bagged body on the ground in the yard long enough for the dog to find the spot. Found another spot nearby. Decomposition wipes out most of the evidence.
Could be the family knows too much too, but the prosecutor was probably too aggressive, OJ'esque, and those confused jurors couldn't make anything of it. She skates.
Now that she's free, I've got this guy I'd like her to meet. I think his name is VonDerSloot....
She may have done the deed. She may have gotten away with it. Some blood thirsty freak-a-zoid may give her the just due she may deserve on the outside. No one knows for sure.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm all for the death penalty for the right circumstances. It's just that I don't take killing another human being lightly. If someone is going to ask me to contribute to state sponsored murder, the prosecution had better do their best to prove their case to me beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not one of those type of people that don't think and just quickly go out to the garden shed, pick out a sharp garden tool and march the streets demanding satisfaction in the form of another person's blood on my hands.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm all for the death penalty for the right circumstances. It's just that I don't take killing another human being lightly. If someone is going to ask me to contribute to state sponsored murder, the prosecution had better do their best to prove their case to me beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm not one of those type of people that don't think and just quickly go out to the garden shed, pick out a sharp garden tool and march the streets demanding satisfaction in the form of another person's blood on my hands.
I agree with Brett, on the radio down here, i listened to a interview with our former DA Frank Clark, and he said some interesting things.
1) Circumstantial evidence is NOT bad evidence, it is VERY commonly used to convict and is usually very accurate.
2) If the jurors "think" the person did it, he generally thinks the prosecution did it's job.
3) Eyewitness accounts are very commonly wrong, and we had a case here where a poor guy, Anthony Capozzi went to jail for a long time, while the real rapist/serial killer continued to rape/kill, based on wrong eyewitness testimony.
I am smart enough to know, i do not know what the hell usually convicts someone, or does not. I pay attention to one case a year, i guess it might be smart to listen to someone who does this for a living, rather than a bunch of guys on a car forum...
1) Circumstantial evidence is NOT bad evidence, it is VERY commonly used to convict and is usually very accurate.
2) If the jurors "think" the person did it, he generally thinks the prosecution did it's job.
3) Eyewitness accounts are very commonly wrong, and we had a case here where a poor guy, Anthony Capozzi went to jail for a long time, while the real rapist/serial killer continued to rape/kill, based on wrong eyewitness testimony.
I am smart enough to know, i do not know what the hell usually convicts someone, or does not. I pay attention to one case a year, i guess it might be smart to listen to someone who does this for a living, rather than a bunch of guys on a car forum...
If an eye witness account can be wrong, then what are the chances of circumstantial evidence being wrong, or the interpretation of that evidence being wrong?
As i said, i do not know, do not work in the field, i have watched shows that test a persons ability to identify someone, right after an incident, and the results were not good.
I believe many people seem to want a witness saying he did it, or she did it, and i am just offering that this method is not a slam dunk either.
One more thing, putting myself in her shoes, if the same thing happened to me, and one of my kids disappeared, and i never reported it (her mother finally did), and a month later, when police were alerted and were searching for my lost child, and i were to slow the process by giving lie after lie...
Even if i didn't do it, i am at least partially responsible for the outcome.
On another tangent, some seem to want to protect the jurors, well i think they suck.
They have said, they thought she did it, if i were them, i would like to think i would have the balls to hang that jury so that bitch would have to get another trial.
The job of each juror is to find her quilty or innocent of the charges. The option is not there to purposely throw a monkey wrench in the works to force another trial because you want to see someone burn.
HAHAHA...that's too funny!
You know what the job of a juror is?
I did not really, so i googled "role of a juror", and this is what i found immediately:
The Role of the Jury
If you read it, i believe it more accurately describes my idea of a juror, and how they should follow their CONVICTIONS, even if they are the ONE and only juror that does.
If i were to follow my convictions i believe she is responsible for her daughters death, end of story.
With all due respect Brett is a LEO not an ATTORNEY... huge difference. It's not a LEO'S job to determine guilt, just to enforce the laws, that's what attorneys, jury's and judges do. Just sayin'.
The judge in this case told the jury to ignore the fact that the cause of death could not be positively determined. So the jury really had no idea as to whether the death was murder or an accident, or who was close by when either occurred.
"When a judge instructs the jury that it must judge according to the law as explained by the judge, this is in violation of the very intent of trial by jury, and of the protective justice of the nation. Jurors are at liberty to put aside any such instruction from the judge if it flies in the face of the concept of common justice. To follow such instruction from a judge will often lead honorable men and women on a jury, who, while recognizing the injustice of the law in respect to the person on trial, will nevertheless wrongly believe it their duty to convict the defendant because he has indeed broken the law. The greatest loyalty that a citizen can exercise in such circumstances, both to uphold the civil and religious freedom of the citizens of the nation and the intent of the Constitution, is to return a "not guilty" verdict in the face of the specific details of the law."
"When a judge instructs the jury that it must judge according to the law as explained by the judge, this is in violation of the very intent of trial by jury, and of the protective justice of the nation. Jurors are at liberty to put aside any such instruction from the judge if it flies in the face of the concept of common justice. To follow such instruction from a judge will often lead honorable men and women on a jury, who, while recognizing the injustice of the law in respect to the person on trial, will nevertheless wrongly believe it their duty to convict the defendant because he has indeed broken the law. The greatest loyalty that a citizen can exercise in such circumstances, both to uphold the civil and religious freedom of the citizens of the nation and the intent of the Constitution, is to return a "not guilty" verdict in the face of the specific details of the law."
This'll become the new "modus operandi" for murderers! Kill someone, stash the body until decomposition makes cause of death impossible, then go to court, waste a couple mils' of taxpayers money on a sham trial all so your "peers" can let you walk. Today's people are too stupid to sit in judgment, too much daily influence by media (which we all know are extremely biased). All the more reason to have judgments by judges, at least they have a clue...
GNBRETT
Pelennor Fields
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2004
with all due respect ANY human being with any common sense could have come to the conclusion that she murdered her child. you dont have to be an attorney to figure that out.
in fact, there are NEVER any attorneys even on a jury.
there was more evidence here to convict her then I have seen in ANY murder in my 15 years of LE experience. that included direct physical evidence.
TURBOPOWERED68
David
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2006
NEVER
BUT
what do we do when it fails the other way and some innocent person spends their life in jail because of this BS made up story called "circumstantial Evidence"?
some one else said it i'll repeat it - id rather let a POS (like this one) go then kill or send ONE innocent person to jail for a crime that they did not commit.
Who picked the jury? Both sides