Imperfect Justice-Prosecuting Casey Anthony by Jeff Ashton

Discussion in 'Caylee Anthony 2 years old' started by JBean, Aug 29, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. GracieLu

    GracieLu New Member

    Messages:
    467
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ya know, respectively, i don't agree with this post. i have tried hard to analyze this from a "I knew nothing about this case before the trial" point of view, which is hard because i've been here since day 31, and i truly believe the prosecution did a fantastic job. for what ever reason (laziness i'm guessing) they didn't take their job very seriously and that makes me sad...

    imo, the only thing that would have convinced this jury that FCA was guilty was a video tape of the crime...
     


  2. Well Done 99

    Well Done 99 New Member

    Messages:
    1,180
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :floorlaugh: that's funny, funny. funny
     
  3. Well Done 99

    Well Done 99 New Member

    Messages:
    1,180
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree GracieLu. The prosecution had me convinced, but it seems twelve (seventeen) people either didn't see it the same way or were easily swayed by someone in that room.
    As for watching a video of the crime itself, LOL, they wouldn't have been bothered would they?
    I'm sure looking forward to reading JA's book to see his take on it.
     
  4. dunlurken

    dunlurken New Member

    Messages:
    1,119
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I was not convinced. Prosecution (JA) didn't convince me and I've followed this case in it's totality. I was hoping Prosecution would convince me. They didn't.

    All along I kept waiting for a smoking gun or some PROOF of what happened to Caylee. We never got it. To this day, I still don't know what happened to her. So.......... that leaves us where? NG.
     
  5. bonniez451

    bonniez451 Member

    Messages:
    111
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I stood and applauded LDB closing argument but, I think she knew they were not listening and as I think back imo they most of them chose not to listen and I think LDB saw that hense, the beginning of her closing which imo again shows me the case had been discussed among them. I cannot wait for JA book I don't know how much of the jurys responsibility he will hold them accountable for.
     
  6. LAMARQ

    LAMARQ Active Member

    Messages:
    202
    Likes Received:
    189
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I loved my Kindle, but I've misplaced it. :maddening: I do have my Kindle books synched on my android phone.
     
  7. tsitra01

    tsitra01 Member

    Messages:
    769
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Hi Dunlurken, I don't think you can deem her NG because we don't know how she died. She was found wrapped in items from the house with duct tape on her face. Her mother held everyone back long enough (with her lies) so that when the little body was found, there was nothing left to assist in determining how she died. OCA was rewarded by the jury.

    OCA walks away with no consequences for not protecting Caylee and in my eyes causing her death. Unfortunately she might have another child in the future if someone is foolish enough to have a relationship with her. Moo
     
  8. LambChop

    LambChop Former Member

    Messages:
    21,160
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Unfortunately the State's most critical witnesses were the family. And the jury apparently blew off all the forensic evidence as (just the standard stuff) and focused on the dysfunction of the family and decided they could not figure who to blame or what to blame them with. They were looking for DNA evidence.....the State can't manufacturer that type of evidence if it is not there. Jury ignored the most important evidence of this case. Both parents worked, KC did not and KC, through lack of evidence of anyone other than KC watching her child, was responsible. Just because CA and GA bought Caylee clothes, made sure she had food and a bed to sleep in does not diminish the fact that KC was the custodial parent by law. I can't believe there was one juror on the panel that did not know that for sure. jmo
     
  9. Sweet Fox

    Sweet Fox New Member

    Messages:
    551
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, Yes, Yes BUY the book. He was a GREAT prosecutor, the whole SA team was terrific. I ordered the book and can’t wait to read it. I’m so glad he decided to write a book. IMO) there were a few stealth jurors and I hope someone is investigating them. I also believe that HHJP knew, from the onset, that they were colluding with each other and he did nothing to stop it. What a sham, what a disgrace. I want the truth exposed about what really went on. This is my own opinion, not subject to change. MOO
     
  10. lonetraveler

    lonetraveler Crime Addict

    Messages:
    15,951
    Likes Received:
    29,387
    Trophy Points:
    113
    LOL, I know exactly what you mean. I have accidentally dropped my novel of the moment into the bath and after painstakenly drying each page out in front of an electric fan, I could actually read it again...............that doesn't work very well with a Kindle...........LOL.
     
  11. MarthaM

    MarthaM New Member

    Messages:
    871
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I wasn't convinced, either. I didn't follow this case from Day One, though. I had only heard vaguely of Caylee disappearing, and I do remember seeing coverage of the day she was found. But that's about it. I didn't know any of the players, including family, until the trial. And the prosecution didn't convince me of anything. I didn't know what happened to Caylee before the trial, and I still don't know what happened now.

    I think it will be interesting to see whether Ashton acknowledges in the book that his team wasn't convincing enough. Or maybe that they got a little complacent, having lived and breathed this case for so long, that they thought that what was clear to them would be clear to the jury, too. We'll see.
     
  12. MidAtlanticNative

    MidAtlanticNative New Member

    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Excellent article! Thanks for linking.
     
  13. my2sense

    my2sense Me - in the old country

    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    partial quote snipped by me

    Yes, I agree with you that I think the pros may have left some things out, believing (subconsciously) that they were common knowledge. I wondered that myself during the trial.

    I also believe they were forced to "condense" their case down because they were given time constraints by the judge. They had to choose which things were (maybe) lesser known and therefore had to be brought out while they had "time." Judge Perry (under a lot of pressure) cut the legs off of this case when he imposed his time constraints.

    Another thing (re: HHJP) -- I will never forget him telling a prospective juror (who became an actual juror) that he had no intention of being at trial by the 4th of July. I worried when he said it, and I worried when it didn't come true. I think it had some backlash. Again, MOO.
     
  14. LambChop

    LambChop Former Member

    Messages:
    21,160
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well it was difficult for SA to prove that Caylee didn't drown because by the time they found her not much was left to test. If KC had stuck to the Nanny story I think the jury would have been more inclined to find KC responsible for the death of her child. But to throw out the drowning at the very beginning of the trial with no prior discovery that this would be her defense leaves the SA at a disadvantage. I could see the jury sitting there scratching their heads wondering why are we hearing about a nanny when we know there wasn't one. HHJP was pressuring them to remember the jury is sequestered and want to get home. So we can't just blame SA, nor the jury. It's just as HHJP said anything that could go wrong, did go wrong in this trial.

    Not fair to completely blame SA when the jury were also remiss in their duties. A child is dead, the mother lied about the child being dead and if the child died accidentially why did her attorney not reveal that right up front instead of waiting, pushing the trial off for three years, constantly appearing on talk shows and complaining they haven't had enough time to read through all the discovery. Then there was that subliminal message on the 4th of July.....Freedom. jmo
     
  15. MissJames

    MissJames a yellowflutterby changed my life : )

    Messages:
    6,738
    Likes Received:
    1,580
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Several times JA referred to deals and commitments between JB and the SA's that JB reneged on once in the courtroom. I think we'll learn more about that. I hope so.
    I also hope he discusses what happened when JB requested items ,then never followed through on retrieving them or looking at them,like the TES files.

    The DT's tactics cost the State of FL a LOT of money on on both sides.They wasted a lot of taxpayer money in light of the defense they went with.I hope JA goes into some of that and places it at the DT's feet.
     
  16. MissJames

    MissJames a yellowflutterby changed my life : )

    Messages:
    6,738
    Likes Received:
    1,580
    Trophy Points:
    113
    BBM

    True ,and what the Jury didn't know is that most of the delays were created by the defense. I wonder if that would have made a difference :waitasec:

    Nah :maddening: I think the Jury Foreman intended for this to be a NG or at the very least ,a hung jury. :banghead:
     
  17. LambChop

    LambChop Former Member

    Messages:
    21,160
    Likes Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When I was younger, much younger (immature) and wanted to get my way with my husband, I'd cry. He could not stand to see me cry. Worked like a charm...then. Didn't take him long to figure out what I was doing, lol. Some men just can't deal with a woman when she cries and the State could have lost the moment that first invisible tear fell.

    What I do not understand is why one of the women felt compelled to do the foreman's laundry. This woman obviously respected this man's opinion but why? When we hear his interview he clearly did not use his common sense and power of reasoning. Did he just lead them all over the cliff????

    It will be very interesting to see what JA's thoughts were about this jury. jmo
     
  18. NavySubMom

    NavySubMom Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    bbm, That laundry revelation by Mr. Foreman during his interview seemed really bizarre to me. I realize these jurors spent a lot of time together, but I can't imagine myself doing another grown man's laundry who I barely knew!! Just another strange thing with this jury....who knows what else went on behind the scenes? Did she do others' laundry as well? or only his? how POWERFUL was this guy????? Bizarre is all I can say about that laundry situation.
    IMO, MOO. etc.
     
  19. PeteyGirl

    PeteyGirl New Member

    Messages:
    667
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If the only "guilty" verdicts resulted from smoking guns, we'd have a lot more dangerous people wreaking havoc in society than we do.

    The jury failed to regard this giant pool of circumstantial evidence from the Law's point of view. That it is ALSO evidence, not just a bunch of smoke, but actual evidence. Evidence that must be handled differently, knitted together with other bits of circumstantial evidence, and re-connected with the direct evidence of the case.

    Cumulatively, the circumstantial evidence as the state knitted together for us WAS a smoking gun, like, a smoking Uzi.

    I sense the jury regarded circumstantial evidence as being equivalent to the defense team's hole-poking. Otherwise, how could they disregard it the way they did?

    Here is some circumstantial evidence from real life. The jury foreman tells of his experience and thought processes on Greta. We get a picture of him as a very confident person, perhaps a little TOO confident, willing to regard his special abilities to "read people" because of his job as a PE teacher as somehow distinguished. He drops many other little "indications" of how important he believes himself and abilities to be.

    Having some other jurist do his LAUNDRY illuminates and highlights this guy's self importance.

    No where in this does the foreman come right out and say "I am a bonafide narcissist". But the accumulation of his own words and behaviors, along with being WILLING to allow another person to do his LAUNDRY has me drawing some conclusions about his character.
     
  20. NavySubMom

    NavySubMom Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,388
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Agree with all of your points. "smoking guns" I think are few and far between these days as criminals become more and more aware of how to not leave or do away with DNA at a crime scene, try not to leave any hair, fibers, people are becoming more and more knowledgeable about how to thwart computer forensics, destroy their harddrives, not use their cell phones leading up to and during the actual commission of the crime (buy "bat phones" :loser: lol, drive to places for no reason and with no connection to their crime with their cell phone on to confuse LE) etc., not make obvious withdrawals from bank accounts due to LE investigating financial records, etc. "smoking guns" are prosecutors dreams, but I think they are seeing less and less of them, IMO.

    Your example of circumstancial evidence was spot-on about Mr. Foreman in this jury, also. IMO, MOO, etc.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice