1242 users online (226 members and 1016 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 5 of 48 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 716
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by Tugela View Post
    There is no evidence that Caylee ever left the house. All of the items associated with the body apparently came from the house. Caylee was not with Casey after she left and went to live elsewhere. Her body was not in the car either, this we can be sure about otherwise there would be body fluids in the car. You could argue that her body might have been in a bag and that prevented fluids from leaking, but they supposedly recovered a "death hair" from the car. If this really was a death hair, then the body could not have been stored there in a bag, since it would have no way of getting out.

    My theory is that Casey left the house to live elsewhere, with Caylee being left in the care of the grandparents. Something happened, Caylee died and for whatever reason a decision was made not to report it. IMO the body was stored in the house long enough for some decomposition to start, and then it was put into the bag and transported in the car to the swamp. Obviously this could not have happened overnight, it was longer than that. This would explain the hair, because in that scenario a loose hair could have detached post-mortem and stuck to the outside of the bag when the body was put in it. Then it subsequently would have been deposited in the car when the bag was transported.

    That chloroform stuff was a lot of nonsense, and I have always said so. I am a chemist and I work with the stuff all the time. I found the prosecutions claims about that pressing credibility severely, and I think they went down the wrong road with all that.

    The question is, is there any evidence that Casey had the car outside of what the grandparents claimed? Because if she didn't have the car then they would be the next suspects in line and consequently you can't rely solely on what they say happened.

    I think it is entirely possible that Casey had no idea exactly what happened to her daughter until Caylee's body was recovered. In the interim she may have been basically helping to protect her parents, closing ranks around someone else in the family.

    IMO such a scenario would explain a lot of what subsequently happened. But we will never know unless one of them tells the truth about what really happened.
    Well.. she was seen backing her car into the Anthony garage (something very atypical) by a neighbor on key dates 17th, 18th of June and borrowed a shovel from him. Then she was witnessed to be in possession of the car by her boyfriend TL from June 16th until she abandoned it at Amscot June 27th. Her father witnessed her driving the car on June 24th when she returned the stolen gas cans. And she makes mention of the smell in her car to text messages to her friend AH on two different dates. I think it's safe to say she had possession of the car. Also, Caylee may have been killed at home but she was stowed in the trunk for at least two days.

    My theory was Caylee was wrapped only in her blanket the first approx 24 hours post death which left a small stain. On the 17th Casey began the clean up and cover up attempts and the bagging. On the 18th when she found she wasn't able to bury in the back yard she grabbed the laundry bag to find a new place to leave the remains. She had two weeks before the car was abandoned to attempt to clean up after the mess and I think she found the smell kept coming back which finally left the car unusable and of course no one could ride in without asking questions.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    998
    I do not think the prosecution was reaching with chloroform at all. I do not think she used it but i think cough medicine (which there would be no Google searches for bc every parent has heard tales from others about giving that as a "sleep aid") ... children become immune to things over time though - so she had to upgrade her babysitter. I do believe she gave caylee zanax... and that last time she gave her too much. I have taken it before - it knocks you out! I can barely get up the next day after i have taken it.

    A girl that lives in my town that rather party than parent left her child in a car outside a bar on more than one occasion ... on the last time she did it, she rolled her car with her 2 year old son in it ... both were unconscious when found a couple hours later. The mother admitted that she had crushed up prescription sleep aids and knew how much she could give him so he'd asleep at least 8 hours so she child drink. Luckily she hasn't had her child since and is just now receiving limited supervised visitation 8 years later. Her son is in my daughter's class and lives across the street from me with his grandparents.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G730A using Tapatalk

  3. #63
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    998
    And zanax is a street drug .. i never had a script for it (i was young and dumb once too lol) and it's easy to find and a couple bucks a pill.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G730A using Tapatalk

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Justiceseeker35 View Post
    Well.. she was seen backing her car into the Anthony garage (something very atypical) by a neighbor on key dates 17th, 18th of June and borrowed a shovel from him. Then she was witnessed to be in possession of the car by her boyfriend TL from June 16th until she abandoned it at Amscot June 27th. Her father witnessed her driving the car on June 24th when she returned the stolen gas cans. And she makes mention of the smell in her car to text messages to her friend AH on two different dates. I think it's safe to say she had possession of the car. Also, Caylee may have been killed at home but she was stowed in the trunk for at least two days.

    My theory was Caylee was wrapped only in her blanket the first approx 24 hours post death which left a small stain. On the 17th Casey began the clean up and cover up attempts and the bagging. On the 18th when she found she wasn't able to bury in the back yard she grabbed the laundry bag to find a new place to leave the remains. She had two weeks before the car was abandoned to attempt to clean up after the mess and I think she found the smell kept coming back which finally left the car unusable and of course no one could ride in without asking questions.
    There is a long timeline of events here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...y_Anthony_case

    We don't know when Caylee died. People assume that it was around when Casey left, but there is nothing to suggest that is the case. It could be much later for all we know. As I said before, we can't trust anything the family says, so the only witnesses we can rely on are the third party ones. Casey wasn't seen by anyone with the car outside of the first few days after she left. Outside of this single hair, there was no evidence that Caylee was in the car, in addition the hair could have come from any member of the Anthony family. There is a gap between the last time she was seen with car until the time it was found when custody of the vehicle is unclear. She was apparently behaving normally during this period. And if she had a body in the car, she would have known that was the source of the smell. If it was so bad she felt she had to get rid of it to hide that fact, why would she be talking to this friend about it? My guess is that the smell had nothing to do with decomposition of a body, and certainly when the vehicle was subsequently investigated no proof of a body was found in it, something that would be pretty easy to do if there really had been one there. If the car really was the key to tying Casey with Caylee's death, then the prosecution should have been providing a detailed timeline of custody of the vehicle in trial. While the prosecution used expert witnesses claiming there was evidence of a body, subsequently the defense produced numerous witnesses from the FBI and associates of the prosecutors witness who disagreed, claiming there was no evidence (this is probably the main reason why the jury acquitted - the prosecutions primary evidence was debunked and cast into reasonable doubt). Did all these people not talk to each other and reach a consensus? The prosecution appeared to be cherry picking experts to back up their theory, rather than the other way around as it should be. That is why they lost the case.

    The last verifiable time Caylee was seen was on the 15th, when she was recorded on video at an assisted car facility in the company of Cindy (not Casey). The Anthonys claim that they last saw her the following day, but we just have their say so on that. Prior to that she was seen by Morales when Caylee and Casey spent the night at his apartment (here). It think it is very likely that after that first night Caylee was back living at the grandparents house. Based on testimony from Melissa England, something happened in the Anthony household on or before July 3 which resulted in a change in Caseys demeanor. I suspect that is when Caylee really died, or at least when Casey was made aware that something had happened. The cover up would have begun some time after that and run out to the "discovery" of the impounded car which set the LE side of things into motion. It is interesting that very early on in the investigation there were reports that Caylee had accidently drowned in the pool, the same thing that was later claimed in trial and denied by the prosecution. How did that come out and who was claiming it at the time? It is a suspicious coincidence and IMO is probably what really happened. Basically a case of negligence that morphed into a cover up, which in turn was interpreted as something more sinister by investigators as the story seized the public imagination and then became a murder case.

    So there are some very critical things we don't know about this case.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,569
    Quote Originally Posted by StacyMarie83 View Post
    I do not think the prosecution was reaching with chloroform at all. I do not think she used it but i think cough medicine (which there would be no Google searches for bc every parent has heard tales from others about giving that as a "sleep aid") ... children become immune to things over time though - so she had to upgrade her babysitter. I do believe she gave caylee zanax... and that last time she gave her too much. I have taken it before - it knocks you out! I can barely get up the next day after i have taken it.

    A girl that lives in my town that rather party than parent left her child in a car outside a bar on more than one occasion ... on the last time she did it, she rolled her car with her 2 year old son in it ... both were unconscious when found a couple hours later. The mother admitted that she had crushed up prescription sleep aids and knew how much she could give him so he'd asleep at least 8 hours so she child drink. Luckily she hasn't had her child since and is just now receiving limited supervised visitation 8 years later. Her son is in my daughter's class and lives across the street from me with his grandparents.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G730A using Tapatalk
    Yes it was reaching. Chloroform is pretty volatile, but the amount you would need to ingest to knock you out would be relatively small. It is not as though you would reek of the stuff, and it clears from the air pretty fast. That is why what they were claiming was very surprising to me as a chemist. But sometimes surprising stuff is true. However, if you are going to claim surprising stuff and claim it is true, the responsibility is on you to demonstrate that your argument has validity. The way to do it is to conduct experiments to show that it really is so (in this case, by chloroforming a pig, for example, and leaving the body in a car to see if residues really would be left), complete with positive and negative controls. This was not done, and consequently the evidence should never have been admitted as scientific evidence. Chloroform is a common solvent in industry, so I would not be surprised to see some level of it in manufactured products like cars. It is also generated as a byproduct when organic materials are exposed to cleaning agents containing chlorinated agents, which is another source. So even if chloroform was there, there are other more obvious ways to account for it that don't involve homicide.

    The multiple searches on the computer for "chloroform" turned out to be a single search, and not only that, related to its use in the 1800s. This was discovered only after the jury had gone into deliberation and was never revealed to them.

    There was no evidence of the purchase/acquisition/possession of chloroform by anyone involved in the case.

    All of that means that the prosecutions claims were sheer guessing on their part.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    482
    Quote Originally Posted by Tugela View Post
    There is a long timeline of events here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...y_Anthony_case

    We don't know when Caylee died. People assume that it was around when Casey left, but there is nothing to suggest that is the case. It could be much later for all we know. As I said before, we can't trust anything the family says, so the only witnesses we can rely on are the third party ones. Casey wasn't seen by anyone with the car outside of the first few days after she left. Outside of this single hair, there was no evidence that Caylee was in the car, in addition the hair could have come from any member of the Anthony family. There is a gap between the last time she was seen with car until the time it was found when custody of the vehicle is unclear. She was apparently behaving normally during this period. And if she had a body in the car, she would have known that was the source of the smell. If it was so bad she felt she had to get rid of it to hide that fact, why would she be talking to this friend about it? My guess is that the smell had nothing to do with decomposition of a body, and certainly when the vehicle was subsequently investigated no proof of a body was found in it, something that would be pretty easy to do if there really had been one there. If the car really was the key to tying Casey with Caylee's death, then the prosecution should have been providing a detailed timeline of custody of the vehicle in trial. While the prosecution used expert witnesses claiming there was evidence of a body, subsequently the defense produced numerous witnesses from the FBI and associates of the prosecutors witness who disagreed, claiming there was no evidence (this is probably the main reason why the jury acquitted - the prosecutions primary evidence was debunked and cast into reasonable doubt). Did all these people not talk to each other and reach a consensus? The prosecution appeared to be cherry picking experts to back up their theory, rather than the other way around as it should be. That is why they lost the case.

    The last verifiable time Caylee was seen was on the 15th, when she was recorded on video at an assisted car facility in the company of Cindy (not Casey). The Anthonys claim that they last saw her the following day, but we just have their say so on that. Prior to that she was seen by Morales when Caylee and Casey spent the night at his apartment (here). It think it is very likely that after that first night Caylee was back living at the grandparents house. Based on testimony from Melissa England, something happened in the Anthony household on or before July 3 which resulted in a change in Caseys demeanor. I suspect that is when Caylee really died, or at least when Casey was made aware that something had happened. The cover up would have begun some time after that and run out to the "discovery" of the impounded car which set the LE side of things into motion. It is interesting that very early on in the investigation there were reports that Caylee had accidently drowned in the pool, the same thing that was later claimed in trial and denied by the prosecution. How did that come out and who was claiming it at the time? It is a suspicious coincidence and IMO is probably what really happened. Basically a case of negligence that morphed into a cover up, which in turn was interpreted as something more sinister by investigators as the story seized the public imagination and then became a murder case.

    So there are some very critical things we don't know about this case.
    It was July 3rd that Cindy Anthony went to universal to track Caylee down and spend time with her. And July 3rd was when Cindy wrote the "My Caylee is Missing" my space page. And it was later that day LA tried to track her down at a club and bring her home to CA. Given that during that time KC had no car, her boyfriend was out of town and joking about not coming back, she had to stay with AH and now her Mom is on to her charade... I'd say about that time was one of the worst days of the 31 days. And those 31 days are the most sinister I've ever heard of anyone behaving towards the death of their child.

    About the drowning theory. If you read the original OCSO statements when the detectives questioned her that first day, they actually pose the accident and drowning theory as an out. They give her a way out and she doesn't agree that's what happened. She sticks to lies. And its only a few months before trial that the drowning theory is presented by the defense. I think JB was trying to find any way to get her from going to death row.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,548
    Quote Originally Posted by Tugela View Post
    Yes it was reaching. Chloroform is pretty volatile, but the amount you would need to ingest to knock you out would be relatively small. It is not as though you would reek of the stuff, and it clears from the air pretty fast. That is why what they were claiming was very surprising to me as a chemist. But sometimes surprising stuff is true. However, if you are going to claim surprising stuff and claim it is true, the responsibility is on you to demonstrate that your argument has validity. The way to do it is to conduct experiments to show that it really is so (in this case, by chloroforming a pig, for example, and leaving the body in a car to see if residues really would be left), complete with positive and negative controls. This was not done, and consequently the evidence should never have been admitted as scientific evidence. Chloroform is a common solvent in industry, so I would not be surprised to see some level of it in manufactured products like cars. It is also generated as a byproduct when organic materials are exposed to cleaning agents containing chlorinated agents, which is another source. So even if chloroform was there, there are other more obvious ways to account for it that don't involve homicide.

    The multiple searches on the computer for "chloroform" turned out to be a single search, and not only that, related to its use in the 1800s. This was discovered only after the jury had gone into deliberation and was never revealed to them.

    There was no evidence of the purchase/acquisition/possession of chloroform by anyone involved in the case.

    All of that means that the prosecutions claims were sheer guessing on their part.

    If this was really just one benign search into the use of chloroform, I wonder why Casey tried to delete all trace of it from her computer and Cindy Anthony felt it so essential to cover it up that she committed perjury during the trial, by claiming "the searches" were done by her.
    Casey also did a search for neck breaking and of course let's not forget those searches for 'foolproof suffocation' that were eventually found by WS members. All coincidental?

    Regarding the chloroform levels - IIRC Dr Vass stated that the levels found were far in excess of what could be explained by environmental sources. They did a control study to ensure their results were not typical.
    He also said there were 30 compounds that were found during the decomposition process, and they found 7 of those in Casey's trunk. When given a can of the air from the trunk, Dr Vass also immediately recognized the smell of decomposition. He has 20 years of experience, so I think he knows it intimately.

    Other independent proof of a decomposing body having been present in Casey's car - cadaver dog Gerus alerted to her trunk; the tow lot manager reported smelling decomposition ( he recognized the smell from a previous corpse they had found in a car) of course Cindy RN recognized it and declared so on the 911 call- George also later testified that he knew what it was also..
    None of Cindy or George Anthony's behavior during the month Caylee was missing gave any suggestion they knew what had happened to her, or were covering it up. It defies common sense to listen to the 911 calls and hear the sheer panic and anguish in Cindy Anthony's voice, then suggest she was part of a conspiracy all along to cover up some mysterious happening. Casey alone was responsible. She stuck to the kidnapping story to the last possible minute ( just as she stuck to the Universal job lie) and then when faced with the inevitable that she will be found out, she changed to the drowning story.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    736
    Quote Originally Posted by Tugela View Post
    There is no evidence that Caylee ever left the house. All of the items associated with the body apparently came from the house. Caylee was not with Casey after she left and went to live elsewhere. Her body was not in the car either, this we can be sure about otherwise there would be body fluids in the car. You could argue that her body might have been in a bag and that prevented fluids from leaking, but they supposedly recovered a "death hair" from the car. If this really was a death hair, then the body could not have been stored there in a bag, since it would have no way of getting out.

    My theory is that Casey left the house to live elsewhere, with Caylee being left in the care of the grandparents. Something happened, Caylee died and for whatever reason a decision was made not to report it. IMO the body was stored in the house long enough for some decomposition to start, and then it was put into the bag and transported in the car to the swamp. Obviously this could not have happened overnight, it was longer than that. This would explain the hair, because in that scenario a loose hair could have detached post-mortem and stuck to the outside of the bag when the body was put in it. Then it subsequently would have been deposited in the car when the bag was transported.

    That chloroform stuff was a lot of nonsense, and I have always said so. I am a chemist and I work with the stuff all the time. I found the prosecutions claims about that pressing credibility severely, and I think they went down the wrong road with all that.

    The question is, is there any evidence that Casey had the car outside of what the grandparents claimed? Because if she didn't have the car then they would be the next suspects in line and consequently you can't rely solely on what they say happened.

    I think it is entirely possible that Casey had no idea exactly what happened to her daughter until Caylee's body was recovered. In the interim she may have been basically helping to protect her parents, closing ranks around someone else in the family.

    IMO such a scenario would explain a lot of what subsequently happened. But we will never know unless one of them tells the truth about what really happened.
    I should've read here first, I posted about this earlier on a different thread...

    There's not one bit of evidence that someone else had that car, but there's plenty of evidence that fca had it. Other than that, it's just speculation... You say she wasn't ever in the trunk because there's no fluid, but, there's a lot of other solid evidence to say she was. You disagree with just one piece of it, and ignore all the rest... That's a lot to ignore. And a whole lot of credible sources that all have to be wrong. There's just too much to refute... And while I appreciate your theory, and if true, then why on earth did jbaez/fca go with some far out story of imaginary people, a drowning, compartmentalizing, and blasting her own father as a child molester instead? If it's the truth it would stand up to the evidence... Right? ...She turns herself into a crazy, molested, lying tramp who could care or less if 911 was ever called after her daughter accidentally drowns, instead she just lets someone take off with her body and never questions where she was and what became of her. I mean, your way she's just completely innocent of everything...

    All jmo.

  9. #69
    Not just anyone heidisms, her child molesting father. She let her child molesting father take her baby and went on about her life without a care in the world because of shock. Give me a effing break!

    Sent from my KFJWI using Tapatalk

  10. #70
    I'm new here, but I followed this case during the trial. Unlike a lot of people, I knew very little about it during the period Caylee was missing nor when the body was discovered and only got into it during the trial. From most of the people I've talked to, those who followed the case from 2008 on had different attitudes than those who only started following it during the trial in 2011. Knowing that Casey lied about stuff in an abstract sense is different from living through the exposure of those lies in the most heartbreaking way. I think this may account for a lot of the dissonance between the expected verdict from those who followed the case religiously from day one and what the jury (who for the most part didn't) ultimately decided.

    My attitude at the time was that the death was accidental in the sense that Casey didn't mean for it to happen, but that Casey was doing something illegal and was clearly at fault. One theory I heard was that Caylee did drown, but Casey was home alone and perhaps high at the time. To normal, sane people it makes no sense not to report a drowning, but first of all I don't think Casey is particularly sane, but also it must be remembered that she wasn't supposed to be home that day and reporting that she and Caylee were home would probably mean exposing two years of lies about her fake job. If you factor in the possibility of drug use on Casey's part or even just that Casey had been willfully neglectful by letting Caylee play outside by herself while Casey was on the computer. To me, that did make sense, and I thought Jose Baez lied about George Anthony's involvement (and I suspect that was an invention of Baez rather than Casey herself as he seemed very gleeful in all the attention he got from the allegations about George, both covering up the drowning and the molestation story) because without that part of the story it still looked a lot like manslaughter. George also did not seem like a reliable witness because of his hostility towards Baez and his lying about the affair. That's why I think Baez decided to pick on him in particular; because he knew George would look bad on the stand.

    I thought Casey would be convicted of manslaughter because every scenario I could imagine of Caylee's death other than murder seemed to fit the definition. It's not really fair to compare Caylee's probable death to that of adult murder victims like Laci Peterson simply because there are so many ways that just a few moments carelessness can lead to the death of a small child that just aren't feasible in the case of an adult.

    I think that a lot of the prosecutions failures came from them focusing so much on the first-degree murder charge and not on the manslaughter which would have been an easier conviction. Yes she was charged with both but the prosecution didn't do much to paint a picture of how this was manslaughter and their theory for murder was completely unbelievable. I just don't buy that Casey Anthony who didn't even finish high school would decide to make chloroform as some sort of chemistry project while her parents weren't around and manage to hide all the evidence that she'd made it when there are so many easier ways to drug a small child.

    Also I don't really buy the google searches as evidence. This seems to be a generational thing; I'm about the age now Casey was when Caylee died and I've been through periods between school sessions or jobs where I spent a lot of time on the internet and I googled tons of stuff. Weird and potentially incriminating stuff. Especially when I'd been watching an ID or TruTV marathon. Yet I've never even thought about murdering someone. I've sat in the back of large seminar classrooms and seen the whole class spending the entire period googling everything the professor says and a lot of random stuff they didn't say. If Casey had actually visited the chloroform site 84 times, that might've meant something but it turned out she didn't and that particular site IIRC wouldn't have been a whole lot of help anyway. If "foolproof suffocation" had been included that might have been more meaningful as it actually occurred the last day Caylee was alive, but there are ways that could be explained and as I said people do google crazy things sometimes. Also I found Dr. Spitz very credible and he put a lot of doubt on the idea that Caylee was suffocated. I honestly think Cindy's lies about the google searches hurt Casey more than helping her; the younger folks on the jury would have understood that someone's search history doesn't necessarily mean anything but Cindy's decision to lie about it makes it look more suspicious than it was.

    Of course I can't blame the prosecution completely for their failure to cover the manslaughter charge as I suspect they had thought the defense would say Caylee was murdered but not by Casey rather than saying she drowned accidentally. If both sides concede it's murder, then you just have to show evidence of the body being in the car and her being buried with stuff from the house and that implicates Casey so the prosecution would win. But it ultimately came down to whether Caylee was murdered or died accidentally, and that's an entirely different case to argue because then it doesn't matter as much whether the body was in Casey's trunk or where/how she was buried but the actual cause of death which the prosecution struggled to prove. If Caylee didn't drown whoever thought up that defense was very smart.


  11. #71
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    16,438
    The whole thing is ludicrous beyond words. You haven't seen your child for a month and that is OK? And you make up stories about a babysitter?

    Your child is missing but you are having a high old time? Um hm.

    I just pray she never has another child,

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    736
    Quote Originally Posted by LadyTudorRose View Post

    ** Snipped by me **

    Also I don't really buy the google searches as evidence. This seems to be a generational thing; I'm about the age now Casey was when Caylee died and I've been through periods between school sessions or jobs where I spent a lot of time on the internet and I googled tons of stuff. Weird and potentially incriminating stuff. Especially when I'd been watching an ID or TruTV marathon. Yet I've never even thought about murdering someone. I've sat in the back of large seminar classrooms and seen the whole class spending the entire period googling everything the professor says and a lot of random stuff they didn't say. If Casey had actually visited the chloroform site 84 times, that might've meant something but it turned out she didn't and that particular site iirc wouldn't have been a whole lot of help anyway. If "foolproof suffocation" had been included that might have been more meaningful as it actually occurred the last day Caylee was alive, but there are ways that could be explained and as I said people do google crazy things sometimes. Also I found Dr. Spitz very credible and he put a lot of doubt on the idea that Caylee was suffocated. I honestly think Cindy's lies about the google searches hurt Casey more than helping her; the younger folks on the jury would have understood that someone's search history doesn't necessarily mean anything but Cindy's decision to lie about it makes it look more suspicious than it was.

    ** Snipped by me **
    BBM

    No, I disagree... People don't just do crazy things like sit around and Google ways to suffocate someone - on the day their child was suffocated (with 3 pieces of duct tape) - and the explanation be that there's always the possibility she googled it because she'd been watching too many reruns of ID or TruTV... I'm going to make a generalization about this statement, it's this type of thinking that is responsible for verdicts like this. It's why (strong) circumstantial cases are heading toward a thing of the past. We live in a world where everyone is an expert in csi. I hear way too many put all their emphasis on the "physical evidence," to the point that nothing else in the case exists without it. They want hard evidence, and all doubt removed. If they have to reason, they take one piece of evidence at a time, look at it, find a hundred ways to explain it away, and then toss it. Move on to the next. These types just don't understand circumstantial evidence... Circumstances build on each other, inferences are made, dots are connected, it takes time, and they don't teach all that in a one hour show...

    All jmo.
    Last edited by heidisams; 06-27-2015 at 04:38 AM.

  13. #73
    Yes, but the foundation of the American justice system was based on Blackstone's formulation, that it is better for ten guilty to go free than one innocent to be punished. Benjamin Franklin actually took it further saying it's better for one hundred guilty to go free, and John Adams said:

    "It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished.... when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever."

    I think it's a good thing that forensic evidence is required now. There were 154 people on death row because of circumstantial evidence that were later freed by DNA evidence. The standard for conviction has gotten higher over the years and that's not a bad thing; it's a good thing.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9,548
    Quote Originally Posted by LadyTudorRose View Post
    Yes, but the foundation of the American justice system was based on Blackstone's formulation, that it is better for ten guilty to go free than one innocent to be punished. Benjamin Franklin actually took it further saying it's better for one hundred guilty to go free, and John Adams said:

    "It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished.... when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever."

    I think it's a good thing that forensic evidence is required now. There were 154 people on death row because of circumstantial evidence that were later freed by DNA evidence. The standard for conviction has gotten higher over the years and that's not a bad thing; it's a good thing.

    Forensic evidence is not a requirement to obtain a conviction.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    736
    Quote Originally Posted by LadyTudorRose View Post
    Yes, but the foundation of the American justice system was based on Blackstone's formulation, that it is better for ten guilty to go free than one innocent to be punished. Benjamin Franklin actually took it further saying it's better for one hundred guilty to go free, and John Adams said:

    "It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished.... when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever."

    I think it's a good thing that forensic evidence is required now. There were 154 people on death row because of circumstantial evidence that were later freed by DNA evidence. The standard for conviction has gotten higher over the years and that's not a bad thing; it's a good thing.
    I know all about The Innocence Project. But, what do those cases have to do with this one? Circumstantial evidence (loads of it)? And just to remind you, this case had plenty of forensic evidence, as well. Just because ChMason, jbaez, defense experts/talking heads, etc, told us over and over and over again that there was no forensics and that EVERYTHING was based on speculation and media brain washing, doesn't make it so. But, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, some accepted what they were saying as fact, then ran around parroting it. I'm not accusing you of that LadyTudorRose, I don't know you well enough yet , but I will include some of the jurors in this, quoting directly from the defense team's opening and closing statements... And I really don't think Benjamin Franklin and John Adams were talking about cases like this when they made those quotes. Remember, they made those statements at a time when there was no such thing as forensic evidence. The foundation of our legal system was created and based on circumstantial evidence. Most cases, even today, are still based on circumstantial evidence. That's why defense attorney's are so afraid of it, and do their darndest to brainwash us into believing it's nothing but speculation, and should never be considered! Then they twist the constitution and quote our Founding Fathers in a way that distorts their hopes for a fair, reliable legal system... In reality, if we start requiring forensics for a "no doubt" standard, and dismiss circumstantial evidence as wild speculation, and/or because ANYTHING could happen, you're going to have a whole lot more than 100 guilty men going free. Of course, back in the day everyone would've gone free.... It's just not realistic to argue The Innocence Project or the constitution or the foundation of our legal system, and compare them to casey anthony and the (loads of) evidence against her. It's funny for me, to even think that John Adams and Benjamin Franklin had casey anthony in mind when they made those statements... What we've got to require is an understanding of reasonable doubt, and get rid of this idea that there has to be dna all over a crime scene. You can't compare every case, or even most cases, with those that ended up exonerated due to dna..... I promise you, BF and JA never meant they wanted dangerous criminals to go free because they were clever enough to put on gloves and avoided being caught on videotape while committing the crime...

    All jmo.
    Last edited by heidisams; 06-27-2015 at 06:43 PM.

Page 5 of 48 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. When will the jury come back with a verdict on the MD Case?
    By Steely Dan in forum The Poll Forum! Public Welcome To Participate
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 02-18-2014, 05:06 AM
  2. GUILTY Conrad Murray Case - After The Trial & Verdict
    By peace9274 in forum Conrad Murray
    Replies: 406
    Last Post: 11-07-2013, 07:08 PM
  3. Verdict in Moussaoui case to be heard at 4:30 p.m. Eastern
    By Jeana (DP) in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-08-2006, 04:44 PM