Poll: Casey Anthony

[mh]

Does this topic have anything to do with early retirement?

Does one favorite TV logging reality show? There are things on here
unrelated to ER I'd rather not see. But there are also some Non-ER things
I find interesting and enjoyable due to the high quality of participants in this forum.

You just have to skip what you don't care for and enjoy the rest.

 

[rescueme]

You just have to skip what you don't care for and enjoy the rest.

True. Just use the "thread tools" and click on "ignore this thread". You should not be able to see it (and let it bother you).

I do the same with a few posters ...

 

[easysurfer]

I served as a juror three times. One case was particularly difficult - charges of kidnapping and assult (stabbed with a knife - we saw the bloody clothes and the knife in court). These experiences changed my view of the legal system. Not in a bad way though. I just understand how different it is to be a juror because your decision impacts other human beings.

Because of this, I'm perhaps more fastinated with cases like this. Now it's over, we should consider justice to have been served. Anthony may or may not be guilty, but it wasn't proven to the jury.

I loved how one of the defense attorneys let the "TV lawyers" have it. Basically said they should be ashamed for playing this up for ratings and how they drew concusions based on their own opinions - not the facts. Nancy Grace must be pretty unhappy about what he said.

When I served on a jury, as each side presented it's case I did see my opinions change toward's their side. That was an interesting experience. Also, it did help the side who had the better attorney.

I used to watch Nancy Grace a lot and liked her. She experiened a traumatic experience in earlier in her life -- was engaged, but her to be husband was stabbed and died in her arms. That led her to the patch of seeking justice. Have to feel for her for that horrible experience. Yet, I don't watch her anymore as she is too biased. Seems like she believes pretty much everyone is guilty until proven innocent. Also, I don't care for the talking down to others during her shows (kinda like Suze Orman ) so I don't watch her anymore.

 

[easysurfer]

Have to agree with you about HER verdict(s). I think she's guilty of "something" to do with the child's death, but it was never proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Have to respectfully disagree with you about OJ. I DO think he was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I think the jury let the extraneous issues cloud their thinking (I also think they may have been looking for any excuse to acquit.) Still, I wasn't there for either trial and it's just my opinion. I have no problem with anyone who disagrees.

I did sit on a jury for which the consequences to the defendant were significant in terms of sentence (multiple count drug case). The jury members took it very seriously and took two very long days to decide the 5 counts. Emotions ran high even though, looking back, the facts did support our decisions. Jury duty is an awesome responsibility. It's funny how quickly the jurors left their every-day world of kids, j*bs, houses, hobbies, etc. and settled into the task at hand. It made me feel better about the "system" to see them (us) w*rk 13 hour days for $30/day. God bless America!!

IMHO, on the OJ case, it seemed pretty much a slam dunk for the prosecution. But like it or not, the legal Dream Team did their job. The most explosive turning point in that case, I think was F. Lee Bailey setting up the bait against Mark Furhman saying pretty much to saying to him "marine to marine..you never used the 'N' word?", then hammering with those audiotapes afterwords. Switcharoo..suddenly, the prosecutors were on the defense. Soceity views is some ways not telliing a truth is even worst than committing the crime.

 

[MichaelB]

It would seem that being tried in a court of law is not the same as being tried by the media. The jury reached unanimous agreement rather quickly. Either the prosecution’s case was weak or the ADA did a poor job. Either way, it looks like the jury in short order concluded that there was no doubt.

The difference between "that jury's" view and this "forum jury" probably has something to do with the fact that "that jury" saw a case that was presented subject to a set of rules and overseen by a judge, whereas this "forum jury" saw a case presented by people with an agenda and no judge. See the difference.

 

[Purron]

Does this topic have anything to do with early retirement?

No, not at all. I look at it like those conversations at work around the coffee pot where people talk about news, TV and other random things going on. It's one of the few things I miss about my working life. This forum helps fill that void.

 

[ziggy29]

Does this topic have anything to do with early retirement?

There is no rule that says all topics have to be about early retirement -- only the usual "third rail" topics such as political issues.

In the "Other Topics" section, a watercooler atmosphere about off-topic stuff is allowed and even encouraged for a sense of community. It's just the routinely divisive stuff that is a no-no when it's not FIRE-related.

 

[Westernskies]

Hopefully she'll get to share a cell with OJ on the charges of lying to the investigators.

 

[MichaelB]

Does this topic have anything to do with early retirement?

Employers are reluctant to give paid time off to employees to serve on juries for cases that are expected to take weeks or months, and most employed people cannot afford to take unpaid time off.

People who retire early have the time to serve on juries, and by LBTM for so many years, also show the judgement needed to assure a fair outcome.

 

[steelyman]

True. Just use the "thread tools" and click on "ignore this thread". You should not be able to see it (and let it bother you).

I do the same with a few posters ...

Thanks, that's the better way to handle it, rather than posting a note as I did. Tip of the hat to all posters on this topic.

 

[Purron]

Thanks, that's the better way to handle it, rather than posting a note as I did. Tip of the hat to all posters on this topic.

And a tip of the hat to you too Steelyman

 

[Mulligan]

Well, it didn't take 24 hours to read that Casey will be in line for a $750,000 to million signing fee for a possible book deal, in addition to exclusive interviews and cut from a possible, future movie. I'm sure her high moral standards will preclude her from making money off the tragic event.

 

[Buckeye]

Well, it didn't take 24 hours to read that Casey will be in line for a $750,000 to million signing fee for a possible book deal, in addition to exclusive interviews and cut from a possible, future movie. I'm sure her high moral standards will preclude her from making money off the tragic event.

Casey better figure out some way to support herself as I imagine her parents won't be letting her move back in ..........but you never know. How ironic her father is an ex-homicide detective. The more money Casey makes the more money the real Zannie nanny can hope to recover when she sues for defamation. I hope they televise that trial!

 

[mickeyd]

Hopefully she'll get to share a cell with OJ on the charges of lying to the investigators.

She will be relaesed tomorrow after being sentenced to "time served" for the 4 other crimes that she was convicted of. OJ will have to wait for that fun.

 

[JOHNNIE36]

Right or wrong, the jury has spoken and the verdict is not always what we want to hear. I followed the trial daily on the tube and I feel that is where the problem lies. I don't think they should televise trials, regardless the situation. Look how it has the country all riled up. I even heard about one women that flew in from Germany just for the verdict. That is nuts! As Cheney Mason, defense attorney, put it, "this will put all the talking heads, pundits and would be trial attorneys on TV in their place. It ought to teach them not to try somebody on television."

 

[Purron]

Right or wrong, the jury has spoken and the verdict is not always what we want to hear. I followed the trial daily on the tube and I feel that is where the problem lies. I don't think they should televise trials, regardless the situation. Look how it has the country all riled up. I even heard about one women that flew in from Germany just for the verdict. That is nuts! As Cheney Mason, defense attorney, put it, "this will put all the talking heads, pundits and would be trial attorneys on TV in their place. It ought to teach them not to try somebody on television."

I agree - the jury has spoken and we should move on. I also agree these trials should not be on TV. I followed this one but kind of wish it wasn't so public. Don't see how it helped anything except for TV ratings.

 

[JOHNNIE36]

I agree - the jury has spoken and we should move on. I also agree these trials should not be on TV. I followed this one but kind of wish it wasn't so public. Don't see how it helped anything except for TV ratings.

That's the truth. It's all about the ratings. However, who's decision is it to televise these things? Why does the state permit this? Somebody is going to say that it is a public thing, public forum, open to the public, etc. This is true. I say, if you are that interested, go to Orlando and try to get a seat in the courtroom. Someone is going to get hurt as a result of this. As we've seen, there are some crazy people out there.

Interesting poll. Go back to page one and look at the results.
Shows us how wrong we were.

 

[ERD50]

Interesting poll. Go back to page one and look at the results.
Shows us how wrong we were.

Not necessarily - the poll only asked if she was guilty - it didn't ask what verdict you thought the jury would hand down. Juries can find innocent people guilty, and find guilty people innocent. It doesn't change the facts of what happened (which maybe no one knows).

Since I wasn't seated on the jury and privy to all their information (watched very little of any of the news on TV), I didn't vote.

-ERD50

 

[ls99]

On further thought - yeah dangerous ground, the Prosecution presumably put forth all the evidence, and still could not sway the Jurors to convict. And this was no sympathetic jury for the defendant.

My ultimate contempt is for the television lawyers and other talking heads who made a living harping on snippets of mis or dis-information for the past three years.

I was glad to hear one of defense attorneys say to the media shills: we will be talking to you.

 

[Purron]

On further thought - yeah dangerous ground, the Prosecution presumably put forth all the evidence, and still could not sway the Jurors to convict. And this was no sympathetic jury for the defendant.

My ultimate contempt is for the television lawyers and other talking heads who made a living harping on snippets of mis or dis-information for the past three years.

I was glad to hear one of defense attorneys say to the media shills: we will be talking to you.

Yes. This.

 

[73ss454]

2 of the jurors came forward and it seems they are say that they knew she was guilty but the evidence just wasn't there. What!?? Oxymoron.

Sheeeesh!

 

[Texas Proud]

2 of the jurors came forward and it seems they are say that they knew she was guilty but the evidence just wasn't there. What!?? Oxymoron.

Sheeeesh!

To me it just says the prosecution did a bad job on jury selection...

HOWEVER, the instructions given to a juror is that the state has to prove EVERY point in the indictment or the person should get a 'not guilty' verdict...


So, say the charge is a robbery with a gun... and there is a video of the crime and it is the defendant clearly on the video... but no gun is present... you are supposed to vote 'not guilty' since the prosecution did not prove the gun... the guy is guilty as sin of the robbery, but not robbery with a gun...

In this case I think they had included enough lesser charges that she would have been convicted of at least on of them... I am not sure I would have voted for murder 1... not sure what that means... but I would have voted for at least one of the charges even if it were child endangerment (or whatever the actual charge is).

 

[73ss454]

There was a host of lower charges but the jury seemed to think the only thing she was guilty of was lying.

I was just watching the news and it seems that there was a lightening strike on the tree that is holding up Caylee's memorial. Is this a sign of things to come for Casey. Move over OJ.

 

[kumquat]

Not to hijack the thread, but legal decisions like this one happen in all countries.

 

[kumquat]

You mean to tell me you can't hear Nancy Grace's mouth north of Montana

No, but now I know who she is. Not sure I want to listen to her. Glad there`s a filter on the 49th.