The Verdict - Do you agree or disagree?

[logicalgirl]

A very factual and legally pertinent article posted today in Today's News - and this is the perfect spot to post it.

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202508318214&Reasonable_doubts_in_the_Casey_Anthony_trial&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
Adam H. Kurland - The National Law Journal - July 26, 2011
"When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." — Sherlock Holmes

Should be an interesting read for those who support the NG verdict.....

 

[froginTtown]

I ABSOLUTELY disagree with this verdict...!!! In fact, I'm disgusted..!!

Did FCA learn anything from all this...?? Hell no she didn't...!! If anything, she learned that decieving people will and can get you out of any mess... including murder...!!!

I'm afraid of what her warped mind will challenge next at the expense of the public....

She's appealing her "lying to the police" verdict for God's sake...!!! and that IS on tape...!!

In FCA own words... "I'm such a good liar !!!" and her comment to Lee about bringing Caylee home.."Maybe I'm a spiteful *****..!!!"

After she realizes how much the public can't stand her.... she will be far more than a spiteful ***** !!! that's for sure.....!!!

 

[Mystic]

A very factual and legally pertinent article posted today in Today's News - and this is the perfect spot to post it.

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202508318214&Reasonable_doubts_in_the_Casey_Anthony_trial&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
Adam H. Kurland - The National Law Journal - July 26, 2011
"When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." — Sherlock Holmes

Should be an interesting read for those who support the NG verdict.....

lol i just posted it too... 1 page back.. excellent would be nice for each of the Juror's have a copy of this article

wondering if there is any action available agains JB's OS??

 

[logicalgirl]

A very factual and legally pertinent article posted today in Today's News - and this is the perfect spot to post it.



lol i just posted it too... 1 page back.. excellent would be nice for each of the Juror's have a copy of this article

wondering if there is any action available agains JB's OS??

It has some just excellent observations doesn't it - sorry didn't see you had posted it - by some one who knows what he is talking about...and I'm still waiting on HHJP and those contempt charges...

 

[pcrum12]

‪Casey Anthony: Murder Trial Day 12 - 5/24/11 Part 26 "George Anthony"‬‏ - YouTube (4:20)

Yet another version by GA. What is it GA, Caylee looked at you confused if someone asked about Zanny or this story, Caylee told you "going to see Zanny"??? He lies as much as his daughter. JMO

 

[jon_burrows]

I ABSOLUTELY disagree with this verdict...!!! In fact, I'm disgusted..!!

Did FCA learn anything from all this...?? Hell no she didn't...!! If anything, she learned that decieving people will and can get you out of any mess... including murder...!!!

I'm afraid of what her warped mind will challenge next at the expense of the public....

She's appealing her "lying to the police" verdict for God's sake...!!! and that IS on tape...!!

In FCA own words... "I'm such a good liar !!!" and her comment to Lee about bringing Caylee home.."Maybe I'm a spiteful *****..!!!"

After she realizes how much the public can't stand her.... she will be far more than a spiteful ***** !!! that's for sure.....!!!

JBP let her break the court room rules every day. She constantly shook her head, made faces, verbally said things like 'that's not true' or 'no' during testimony. Basically she testified without going through cross examination. JBP never reprimanded her and she got more animated as the trial went on. She even made a big scene when graphic pictures were shown to the jury but had no problems watching Caylee's face morph into her skull outside the jury's presence. Apparently it worked with at least one juror because he said she seemed sincere. She probably feels bullet proof now.

She had easy targets before Caylee's murder. She stole from her mother for years. She stole from her grandparents. She stole from Caylee's piggybank and the account GA set up for Caylee (like all good mothers do). She stole every penny in Amy's account. Her secret is out now.

She is kept in hiding for one reason only. Someone is expecting a big pay day for her first interview and a nice cushy TH job. Once she isn't worth anything they'll drop her as fast as they can. She is the one being used right now.

It's scary to think who her next target will be when she runs low on cash or if she doesn't get her way.

IMO

 

[HatesSociopaths]

A very factual and legally pertinent article posted today in Today's News - and this is the perfect spot to post it.

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202508318214&Reasonable_doubts_in_the_Casey_Anthony_trial&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
Adam H. Kurland - The National Law Journal - July 26, 2011
"When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." — Sherlock Holmes

Should be an interesting read for those who support the NG verdict.....

Very good read thank you.

I looked up the Supreme Court case he mentioned Nix v. Whisteside. I thought it was an interesting case in comparison to how JB acted. Here is a brief of it, bbm:

In preparing for his Iowa state court trial on a murder charge, respondent consistently told his attorney that, although he had not actually seen a gun in the victim's hand when he stabbed the victim, he was convinced that the victim had a gun. Respondent's companions who were present during the stabbing told counsel that they had not seen a gun, and no gun was found. Counsel advised respondent that the existence of a gun was not necessary to establish a claim of self-defense, and that only a reasonable belief that the victim had a gun nearby was necessary, even though no gun was actually present. However, during preparation for direct examination shortly before trial, respondent for the first time told counsel that he had seen "something metallic" in the victim's hand. When asked about this, respondent said: "If I don't say I saw a gun, I'm dead." On respondent's insisting that he would testify that he saw "something metallic," counsel told him that, if he testified falsely, it would be counsel's duty to advise the court that he felt respondent was committing perjury, and that counsel probably would be allowed to impeach that testimony and would seek to withdraw from representation if respondent insisted on committing perjury. Respondent ultimately testified as originally contemplated, admitting on cross-examination that he had not actually seen a gun in the victim's hand. After the jury found respondent guilty, respondent moved for a new trial, claiming that he had been deprived of a fair trial by counsel's admonitions not to state that he saw a gun or "something metallic." The court denied the motion after a hearing, and the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that counsel's actions were not only permissible, but were required under Iowa law. Respondent then sought federal habeas corpus relief, alleging that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel by his attorney's refusal to allow him to testify as he proposed. The District Court denied relief, but the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that an intent to commit perjury, communicated to counsel, does not alter a defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel, and that counsel's threatened violation of his client's confidences violated the "effective representation" standards set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668. [p158]

Held: The Sixth Amendment right of a criminal defendant to assistance of counsel is not violated when an attorney refuses to cooperate with the defendant in presenting perjured testimony at his trial. Pp. 164-176.

(a) Strickland v. Washington, supra, held that, to obtain relief by way of federal habeas corpus on a claim of a deprivation of effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment, the movant must establish both serious attorney error and prejudice. The Sixth Amendment inquiry is into whether the attorney's conduct was "reasonably effective." A court must be careful not to narrow the wide range of attorney conduct acceptable under the Sixth Amendment so restrictively as to constitutionalize particular standards of professional conduct, and thereby intrude into a state's proper authority to define and apply the standards of professional conduct applicable to those it admits to practice in its courts. Pp. 164-166.

(b) Counsel's conduct here fell within the wide range of professional responses to threatened client perjury acceptable under the Sixth Amendment. Counsel's duty of loyalty to, and advocacy of, the defendant's cause is limited to legitimate, lawful conduct compatible with the very nature of a trial as a search for truth. Although counsel must take all reasonable lawful means to attain his client's objectives, counsel is precluded from taking steps or in any way assisting the client in presenting false evidence or otherwise violating the law. Moreover, accepted norms require that a lawyer disclose his client's perjury and frauds upon the court. Iowa's Code also expressly permits withdrawal from representation as an appropriate response of an attorney when the client threatens to commit perjury. Pp. 166-171.

(c) The Court of Appeals' holding is not supported by the record, since counsel's action, at most, deprived respondent of his contemplated perjury. Whatever the scope of a constitutional right to testify, it is elementary that such a right does not extend to testifying falsely, and the right to counsel includes no right to have a lawyer who will cooperate with planned perjury. There was no breach of professional duty in counsel's admonition to respondent that he would disclose respondent's perjury to the court. Pp. 171-175.

(d) As a matter of law, counsel's conduct here cannot establish the prejudice required for relief under the Strickland inquiry. The "conflict of interests" involved was one imposed on the attorney by the client's proposal to commit the crime of fabricating testimony. This is not the kind of conflict of interest that would render the representation constitutionally infirm. Pp. 175-176.

744 F.2d 1323, reversed. [p159]

BURGER, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, POWELL, REHNQUIST, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. BRENNAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 176. BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined, post, p. 177. STEVENS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 190.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0475_0157_ZS.html

 

[jon_burrows]

It has some just excellent observations doesn't it - sorry didn't see you had posted it - by some one who knows what he is talking about...and I'm still waiting on HHJP and those contempt charges...

Don't hold your breath. JBP is all bark and no bite. He won't do anything to JB.

IMO

 

[cluciano63]

Yet another version by GA. What is it GA, Caylee looked at you confused if someone asked about Zanny or this story, Caylee told you "going to see Zanny"??? He lies as much as his daughter. JMO

There is no way Caylee said that...there was no Zannie, so who on earth would be she be referring to? If Caylee was going to say anything, she might have blurted out the truth, we are going to sit in Mommy's car all day, or whatever the heck they did...

 

[logicalgirl]

Very good read thank you.

I looked up the Supreme Court case he mentioned Nix v. Whisteside. I thought it was an interesting case in comparison to how JB acted. Here is a brief of it, bbm:



http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0475_0157_ZS.html

Interesting and well worth reading - thank you HatesSociopaths!

 

[logicalgirl]

Don't hold your breath. JBP is all bark and no bite. He won't do anything to JB.

IMO

Oh I don't know about that - I think he was as disgusted with this verdict as most of us were.

 

[pcrum12]

There is no way Caylee said that...there was no Zannie, so who on earth would be she be referring to? If Caylee was going to say anything, she might have blurted out the truth, we are going to sit in Mommy's car all day, or whatever the heck they did...

My point exactly!

 

[beccalecca1]

A very factual and legally pertinent article posted today in Today's News - and this is the perfect spot to post it.

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202508318214&Reasonable_doubts_in_the_Casey_Anthony_trial&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
Adam H. Kurland - The National Law Journal - July 26, 2011
"When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." — Sherlock Holmes

Should be an interesting read for those who support the NG verdict.....

Interesting article.

The only thing I have to wonder though is why the author didn't see the dispute in the evidence with expert witnesses stating 2 completely different facts about most of the evidence.

If the experts agreed on most, if not all of the evidence (chloroform, duct tape, decomposition fluids in the trunk, entomology, etc), then I'm sure the case would've been pretty simple to decide. But, instead you had experts arguing that the chloroform was either extremely high levels (although this is not a quantitative study) or levels that equate to cleaning products (which I believe was from a quantitative study). Experts arguing the tape was adhered to the mouth/nose before decomp, or just happened to fall there in the process of weather and animal activity. Experts arguing if the chemicals in the trunk matched decomposition fluids, or the chemicals could be related to the other food items in the trunk. Experts arguing that the fact there were no first colonizers in the trunk meant that the body had been stored somewhere else previously/first colonizers were secluded from the body somehow, or that the body was never in the trunk of Casey's car meaning there wasn't a link to her having anything to do with bringing Caylee there.

IMO (bolded and italicized for a purpose), if you walked into trial with the idea that she was probably guilty or was guilty, and were waiting for the Guilty verdict for the whole 6 weeks the trial took; it would be easy to see this evidence pointing directly to her. If you walked into the trial without knowing a lot of details on the case, unsure of what really happened, and thought she could be innocent; this evidence would be extremely faulty. Again MOO

 

[kidz110]

A very factual and legally pertinent article posted today in Today's News - and this is the perfect spot to post it.

http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202508318214&Reasonable_doubts_in_the_Casey_Anthony_trial&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
Adam H. Kurland - The National Law Journal - July 26, 2011
"When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." — Sherlock Holmes

Should be an interesting read for those who support the NG verdict.....

Thank you. I did find it to be a very interesting article.
I also enjoyed this one which was posted in today's news-- http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ot-so-obvious-lessons-the-casey-anthony-trial
"In most criminal cases in America there is no need for jury consultants. However, there is a reason why they exist and it is primarily to assist the defense pick the jury that will best help the defense, not jurisprudence. I will repeat: that will best help the defense, not jurisprudence. What this means is that jury consultants (mostly hired by the defense) are there to "game" the system in one direction."

 

[gngr~snap]

I respectfully disagree. The way Cindy mistreated the LE department? Come on here. The police hated Cindy and her evil lying ways. Why would they go out of their way to help her??? Heck the Orange County Police were not even good enough for Cindy to speak to. She called the FBI in!

Cindy openly impeded the LE investigation as well.

No, there has to be some other reason here.IMO

yes she did and YM called her out on it!
I had a HUGE post with quotes.. hit the back button and LOST IT ALL!'
I got a few screen caps CA was asked about Zanny and then talks about the dog and teaching Caylee to color.
I need a break but I will find YM pages where he gets onto her for telling the media the car sat at the house two days. etc.

http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21310276/detail.html
pg 156 (i think) and pg 145-174 The Zanny story starts
she knew way too much about a person/people she never met.
I'm not buying that KC told all those stories about the hospital etc. No
KC didn't have medical knowledge.- she'd have said Zanny had a wreck. she has to saty another day cause the Dr. said so. MOO
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/9270330/Casey-Anthony-Cindy-Anthony-April-2009-Statement

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5395659/Cindy-Anthony-Depo-April-9th-ZG-Civil-Case

she also admitted to KC being pregnant again and that care of caylee was split 60/40
60% KC -40% her unlike the 99%we have heard

 

[gngr~snap]

My point exactly!

I just got a sick feeling! What if Caylee said Zanny's dog
was white because it really was invisible,
(no nanny= no dog) but Caylee didn't know
that term and used white instead?

like when you color with the white crayon???
you can't see it unless you have dark paper to color on!

 

[kidz110]

Yet another version by GA. What is it GA, Caylee looked at you confused if someone asked about Zanny or this story, Caylee told you "going to see Zanny"??? He lies as much as his daughter. JMO

MOO--George was trying to look like a non-creditable witness to save his daughter from possibly facing the DP. I think everything he said and all of his actions on the stand had a purpose.

 

[Sustained]

Interesting article.

The only thing I have to wonder though is why the author didn't see the dispute in the evidence with expert witnesses stating 2 completely different facts about most of the evidence.

IMO, the author knows there will always be a dispute between experts from the State and the defense. It happens in any trial like this with circumstantial evidence. He talks about all of the factors pointing to FCA's consciousness of guilt as evidence the jury obviously overlooked.

I could have thrown out all of the experts' testimony and the testimony by the A's. To convict her of aggravated child abuse and felony murder, all I would have needed is :

1) FCA not reporting Caylee missing for 31 days
2) FCA's behavior during those 31 days
3) FCA lying to police
4) No 911 call to police suggesting an accident
5) Smell of death in the Sunfire
6) Bella Vita tattoo
7) Caylee found in woods with objects from Anthony home

All of that and a little common sense and FCA would be sitting in a 6x8 cell at Lowell CI right now.

 

[kidz110]

IMO, the author knows there will always be a dispute between experts from the State and the defense. It happens in any trial like this with circumstantial evidence. He talks about all of the factors pointing to FCA's consciousness of guilt as evidence the jury obviously overlooked.

I could have thrown out all of the experts' testimony and the testimony by the A's. To convict her of aggravated child abuse and felony murder, all I would have needed is :

1) FCA not reporting Caylee missing for 31 days
2) FCA's behavior during those 31 days
3) FCA lying to police
4) No 911 call to police suggesting an accident
5) Smell of death in the Sunfire
6) Bella Vita tattoo
7) Caylee found in woods with objects from Anthony home

All of that and a little common sense and FCA would be sitting in a 6x8 cell at Lowell CI right now.

8) FCA was the last person seen with Caylee. Even FCA admits she was the last person to have Caylee......before she handed to over to imaginary ZFG.

 

[Velouria]

Yet another version by GA. What is it GA, Caylee looked at you confused if someone asked about Zanny or this story, Caylee told you "going to see Zanny"??? He lies as much as his daughter. JMO

I doubt that George or for that matter, anyone on Planet Earth lies as much as Casey!