Las Vegas Advisor Menu
« LVA Forums « Vegas Free-for-All

Not Guilty! Wow

BAGIANT
BAGIANT
Jul 6, 2011
1:54am
Block User
Well since none of us were sitting on the jury and hearing the evidence, how should we know if she's guilty or not?
INdianapaddler
INdianapaddler
Jul 6, 2011
1:55am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: pokerwayne
Stole this from another board......

"It is more important that innocence be protected than it is that guilt be punished, for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world that they cannot all be punished. But if innocence itself is brought to the bar and condemned, perhaps to die, then the citizen will say, “whether I do good or whether I do evil is immaterial, for innocence itself is no protection,” and if such an idea as that were to take hold in the mind of the citizen that would be the end of security whatsoever." ~ John Adams

Right or wrong you have respect the jurors....they had to make a decision based on the facts that were presented to them..and in the vast, vast majority of cases...they get it right. Not every time, as they are human as we all are. But, I really doubt they just ignored evidence, or had made up their minds beforehand. They most simply could not convict her on the evidence presented to them. They may even believe that she was most likely quilty. But thankfully and hopefully, they didn't judge by what they felt but took ther jobs seriously, like most of us would do.


Well said, pokerwayne.

INdianapaddler
INdianapaddler
Jul 6, 2011
1:57am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: curtis39
Well Indiana let's see how you feel about "vigilantes" when it's YOUR ass that's been attacked.


I don't know what the f*** you mean by this post, Curtis, but the vigilantes will have to say hello to my little friend first before they get to me.

KarenTN
KarenTN
Jul 6, 2011
2:01am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: BAGIANT
Well since none of us were sitting on the jury and hearing the evidence, how should we know if she's guilty or not?
.


it was a televised trial and the public had the opportunity to see the exact same evidence that the jury saw.


Ric
Ric
Jul 6, 2011
2:38am
Block User
It was televised, but I doubt that anyone who has responded to this thread watched the trial in it's entirety, first. Second, if you did, you also got to listen to all of the sidebars and other motions that the jury is not allowed to which could easily enter into the decision making when it shouldn't. These factors probably eliminate any of us as good jurors.

Do I think she was guilty? Yes. Can I point out the evidence that prooves beyond a reasonable doubt that she is guilty? No, and that is what our criminal justice system requires. This is one of those times I wish it didn't.

Good Luck!
Ric at Joes
malibber
malibber
Jul 6, 2011
2:43am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: KarenTN
Quote
Originally posted by: BAGIANT
Well since none of us were sitting on the jury and hearing the evidence, how should we know if she's guilty or not?
.


it was a televised trial and the public had the opportunity to see the exact same evidence that the jury saw.


Actually you got to see a lot more than the jury saw. Namely arguments about evidence that was inadmissible. And for the most part the public tried the case on sensationalistic details that were later deemed inadmissible (the jury didn't see them) because they were downright false or the evidence was simply too unreliable. For instance the heart shaped bandages the media played up for years just turned out to be down right false as there was no evidence of that whatsoever.

Anyway an actual (alt) Juror Spoke today and here is what he said:

Huekler laid out three reasons:
The prosecution "didn't present the evidence that would have sustained either a murder charge or a manslaughter charge."
They also failed to show a motive. "We ... kept waiting to see what was the motive — just because Casey was a party girl did not show why she would possibly, you know, kill Caylee.”
And the prosecution was also unable to say "how did Caylee actually pass away."

He went on to add

"the lies just didn't start with the death of Caylee" but several years before that. "I personally think this family was dysfunctional," he said.

The prosecutions case could be summed up as she must have done it because she is a liar and a party girl . Well it turns out she was a liar and party girl before her daughter died so that lost all of its sizzle.
Josie
Josie
Jul 8, 2011
4:01pm
Block User
If I understand things correctly, the jury also stated the prosecution wasn't able to tell them how caylee died. Well first of all, it WASN'T REQUIRED to show how she died and that was in the jury instructions. They did not follow the rules, plain and simple! They did not think anything through at all. They did a SHODDY job.

And, what is really sick is they will probably make money from it. Idiots, who couldn't even follow directions or give enough of a damn to ask a question if they didn't understand, Pathetic!

Also, I am learning that a restaurant called Skyline Chili in Clearwater, FL, had put a sign up stating that no jurors would be allowed in their establishment. I don't know if they are legal, I suspect so, but, I applaud them! I understand that their corporate office made them remove it. I also apologize to those of you who have already heard this; I work evenings and don't get to hear all of the news until I get home!
Gabby-girl
Gabby-girl
Jul 9, 2011
3:01am
Block User
If you listened to the remarks made by some of these jurors it would seem that they ignored any evidence presented and made up their own. How do you go from an initial vote of 10-2 to a 6-6 vote for Aggravated Manslaughter, to not guilty in less than 10 hours . Not sure that is even enough time to review all the evidence. It's also apparent they considered the sentence she might get and seemed to think that *reasonable doubt* actually meant *without any doubt* and had some confusion as to what a *circumstantial* meant. They got it wrong .
Loyd Vegas
Loyd Vegas
Jul 9, 2011
4:32am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: BAGIANT
Well since none of us were sitting on the jury and hearing the evidence, how should we know if she's guilty or not?


Holly shit! How hard it is see that she is guilty as hell.

First off the kid had not been seen in a month. if you kid was missing more than five minites you would be calling the cops.

She lied and said that the kid was with Zanny the nanny?

The trunk of the car smelt like a dead body and when they found the body near the house a sticker was found that matched some that was in the house.

Good lord! What else do you need?
Josie
Josie
Jul 9, 2011
7:03am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: Gabby-girl
If you listened to the remarks made by some of these jurors it would seem that they ignored any evidence presented and made up their own. How do you go from an initial vote of 10-2 to a 6-6 vote for Aggravated Manslaughter, to not guilty in less than 10 hours . Not sure that is even enough time to review all the evidence. It's also apparent they considered the sentence she might get and seemed to think that *reasonable doubt* actually meant *without any doubt* and had some confusion as to what a *circumstantial* meant. They got it wrong .


Exactly, Gabby-girl. I could stomach it if there appeard to be some real thought put into it but its looking more and more like they just didn't understand what they could and couldn't do re the verdict and basically, just wern't real bright. How fortunate for good ole' Jose; a bozo jury! Really reminds me of a scene in the "The Devil's Advocate", where the journalist, Harry, aka, the devil, ask Kenau Reeves how it felt to "squeeze a guy like Getteys through the door of reasonable doubt". Maybe Jose will ge an offer to good to refuse . . .

Go to Florida if you want to get away with anything. Considering the whole voting /ballot fiasco that occurred during "Shrub's" first election, they apparently don't understand much down there.

Personally, i hope that Casey Anthony, the defense team who smugly believes they were "so good", and the jurors all rot in hell.



Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now