United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Nolu Chan vs War
Source:
The Peoples Scrotum
URL Source: http://www.the-peoples-forum.com/cg ... t.cgi?ArtNum=24807&Disp=41#C41
Published: Jul 12, 2011
Author: war
Post Date: 2011-07-12 09:37:42 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 64576
Comments: 119
I cannot characterize your legal argument until you make one.
I'm not making a legal argument. I am making a common sense one which, I believe, properly identifies your problem in responding to it.
I have no idea what people do with duct tape where YOU live but where I live and on my several dozen trips to FL, I have yet to see people walking around with it wrapped around their faces. I will admit that I have seen windows, car bumpers and even trailer hitch fashioned with duct tape, but I have yet to see a human face so fashioned.
A jury is to reach a conclusion based upon the evidence presented. It's given the evidence and then it's given scenarios under which that evidence points to or away from "guilty". To me, her lies and the tape, just as OJ's lies and the blood, point in one direction, GUILTY.
war posted on 2011-07-12 8:42:24 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
Now, I know I’m not going to change the minds of any of the True Believers…those who read all of Reverend Al’s sermons, and say things like, “You know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, …”. Can I get an ‘amen’??
Wow. Who knew the despicable little troll had an iota of decency in him? There may yet be hope for him.
war has to do something for entertainment. The voices in his head aren't speaking to him and his imaginary friends have found reasons not to come over anymore.
war does get it right sometimes.
The leader of the scrotum doesn't have a clue. She must think that the little girl is still alive. Here is what the ruler of the scrotum said. Status: Not Logged In; Sign In USA - CONSTITUTION & LAW See other USA - CONSTITUTION & LAW Articles Title: Casey Anthony Acquitted Of Killing Daughter Source: Associated Press URL Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic ... /07/05/national/a005110D01.DTL Published: Jul 5, 2011 Author: Associated Press Post Date: 2011-07-05 15:21:32 by Brian S Keywords: None Views: 453 Comments: 49 (07-05) 11:57 PDT Orlando, Fla. (AP) -- Casey Anthony was found not guilty Tuesday of killing her 2-year-old daughter three years ago in a case that captivated the nation as it played out on national television from the moment the toddler was reported missing. Anthony, 25, wept after the clerk read the verdict, which jurors reached after less than 11 hours of deliberation over two days. She was charged with first-degree murder, which could have brought the death penalty if she had been convicted. Instead, she was convicted of only four counts of lying to investigators looking into the June 2008 disappearance of her daughter Caylee. Her body was found in the woods six months later and a medical examiner was never able to determine how she died. More at link... Click for Full Text! Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Comments (1-8) not displayed. . . . #9. To: nolu chan (#8) She has about three years time served and she will likely walk free on Thursday. well, at least that won't be a surprise "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." ~Thomas Jefferson Robin posted on 2011-07-06 8:37:12 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #10. To: Brian S (#0) CBS: Anthony juror wanted to know how Caylee died "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." ~Thomas Jefferson Robin posted on 2011-07-06 12:58:43 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #11. To: All (#10) Focus turns on cast of characters as Casey Anthony trial ends "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." ~Thomas Jefferson Robin posted on 2011-07-06 14:29:14 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #12. To: Robin (#11) Zenaida Gonzalez, aka Zanny the Nanny, is best known as a fictional character made up by Casey Anthony. Some woman, whose real name is Zenaida Gonzalez, has retained counsel and is suing Casey Anthony for defamation. The HNN talking heads speculate that Casey Anthony will be forced to testify under oath and has no post trial 5th amendment privilege to assert. It is not believed that this lady ever met Casey or Caylee, she just happens to have the name made up by Casey Anthony. Additional reasonable speculation has been that Zanny the Nanny referred to Xanax. It may be more reasonable to suspect Xanax as the drug of choice, than chloroform. nolu chan posted on 2011-07-06 16:16:41 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #13. To: nolu chan (#12) Oh what tangled webs we weave.... "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." ~Thomas Jefferson Robin posted on 2011-07-06 16:22:11 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #14. To: nolu chan (#12) She's only 25... Casey Anthony Writes About Wanting More Babies "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." ~Thomas Jefferson Robin posted on 2011-07-06 16:28:14 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #15. To: All (#14) "I did not say she was innocent," said Ford, who had previously only been identified as juror number 3. "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be." ABC: Casey Anthony Juror: 'Sick to Our Stomachs' Over Not Guilty Verdict "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." ~Thomas Jefferson Robin posted on 2011-07-06 19:47:03 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #16. To: Robin (#15) "I did not say she was innocent," said Ford, who had previously only been identified as juror number 3. "I just said there was not enough evidence. If you cannot prove what the crime was, you cannot determine what the punishment should be." Ms. Ford was less than precise in her wording. This is the money shot: Nightline anchor Terry Moran interviewing Juror #3, Jennifer Ford. [Terry Moran] The prosecution wasn't able to give you a solid enough picture, of how Caylee died? [Juror #3] Do you see that picture? I have no idea. They didn't even paint a picture for me to consider. [Terry Moran] You think that this might have been an accident, that she might have drowned in the pool? You believe the defense on that? [Juror #3] I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's a lot easier to get to that conclusion. I can walk from here to there and make it happen. With the chloroform, I'm all over the place. I'm in a maze. I don't know where I'm at. I don't know where the end is. I'm not even quite sure where I began with the chloroform. So, I can't get from A to B to C would even happen. I can't make it work. The jury does not consider potential punishment until after conviction. She apparently meant they could not find her guilty of a criminal act when they did not know what the act was. nolu chan posted on 2011-07-07 1:18:25 ET (1 image) Reply Trace Private Reply #17. To: nolu chan (#16) At what point does a a jury stop adding 1+1 to come up with "What the f**k were they ***thinking***?" And since when is a corpse not evidence? war posted on 2011-07-07 8:19:27 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #18. To: nolu chan (#16) The jury does not consider potential punishment until after conviction. She apparently meant they could not find her guilty of a criminal act when they did not know what the act was. Right. I noticed that in her statement, but I assumed what she meant was they could not find her guilty of murder, which is what the prosecution was seeking. I wonder if the prosecution had tried for a lesser charge, like wrongful death & negligence, would they have gotten a conviction. "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." ~Thomas Jefferson Robin posted on 2011-07-07 8:22:22 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #19. To: war (#17) And since when is a corpse not evidence? There was no corpse. There was skeletonized remains. The remains provided no evidence of cause of death or manner of death. The skeleton indicated a healthy child with no evidence of any type of abuse, such as healed breaks in bones. The skeleton provided no evidence of any drugs. The skeleton is evidence that the child died. It provided no evidence whether the child died of suffocation, drug overdose, or drowning. nolu chan posted on 2011-07-07 16:52:37 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #20. To: nolu chan (#19) There was no corpse. There was skeletonized remains. My understanding of the word "corpse" is that it includes human remains - as opposed to "cadaver" which is specific to "dead body" or "carcass" which is the general description of a dead animal...but no matter. The skeleton is evidence that the child died. That was my point. war posted on 2011-07-07 17:21:36 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #21. To: war (#20) [nc] The skeleton is evidence that the child died. [war] That was my point. The skeleton provides no useful evidence that the child died by something other than drowning. For circumstantial evidence, the standard mandates that "a conviction cannot be sustained unless the evidence is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence." Joseph v. State of Florida, District Court of Appeal of the State of Florida, Fourth District, No. 4D06-1131, May 23, 2007, quoting the Florida Supreme Court in State v. Law, 559 So. 2d 187, 188-89 (Fla. 1989) The State's evidence was not inconsistent with all other reasonable hypotheses. Whether one believes they provided the most compelling hypothesis, such hypothesis fails if there is any other reasonable hypothesis. I'll take a shot at a reasonable hypothesis, not inconsistent with established facts. Casey administers chloroform or Xanax (Zanny) which unintentionally results in the death of Caylee. Casey puts the ladder by the pool and puts the body in the pool. Casey goes and gets George and, wailing and crying, takes him to the pool. George does not know how the ladder got there but presumes Cindy forgot about it. George does not know that Caylee was dead when she went into the pool. The ex-cop sees negligent homicide with Casey and Cindy implicated. He decides to "help" by participating in a coverup. The body in the pool results in subsequent discovery of slight but detectable amounts of chloroform from the chemicals in the pool water. The misfit clothes results from the grandfather doing the redressing, not the mother. The experience of George results in the absolute absence of DNA or useful forensic evidence, and the presence of the duct tape. The presence of duct tape is consistent with a cover story that a third party took the child and disposed of the body. It is consistent with someone who knew the jaw falls off upon decomposition. When the car was recovered, and said to be reeking of the smell of human decomposition, and George did not notify law enforcement, that is consistent with his participation in a coverup. Cindy's calling law enforcement is consistent with her lack of knowledge of the coverup and George's participation. Cindy tells George she did not leave the ladder there. She tells co-workers some unidentified person had been using the pool. In the heat of the moment, George's participation was predicated on his belief of an accidental drowning death, albeit attributable to negligence of both Casey and Cindy. Cindy wound up assisting a coverup of what George did believing he was protecting Casey and Cindy. Cindy could have left the ladder by the pool or not. There is no way to know for sure. Caylee could have died of an overdose or drowned in the pool. Only Casey would know. If Zanny the Nanny was Xanax, Casey had a supply of Xanax. Being on Xanax would help explain her demeanor following the death of Caylee. nolu chan posted on 2011-07-07 18:20:19 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #22. To: nolu chan (#21) "I didn't do it even though everything that I did immediately thereafter her death shows that I very likely covered up what I say that didn't do" is a "reasonable hypothesis of innocence"? war posted on 2011-07-08 8:21:11 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #23. To: war (#22) "I didn't do it even though everything that I did immediately thereafter her death shows that I very likely covered up what I say that didn't do" is a "reasonable hypothesis of innocence"? No, she killed the kid with imaginary chloroform and killed her second time with duct tape, and enlisted her parents to lie to cover up pre-meditated murder, and ex-cop George smelled the car with the odor of death and did not report it. That is not only reasonable, but the only possible hypothesis which is not inconsistent with known facts. Casey was so good at forensics that she managed to dispose of the body in such a manner that there was not one bit of useful forensic evidence aside from the skeleton. She flawlessly planned it all while out partying. And psychics led people to the area where the body was found. And Roy Kronk was just a guy who liked to spin a yarn. When contriving a hypothesis for this prosecution, there are few established facts. For example, the administration of chloroform to Caylee is not a fact, it is an inference. When drawing an inference, if there is any alternate inference, or inferences, not inconsistent with the facts, the inference most favorable to the defence is to be adopted by the jury. A case consisting of inference stacked upon inference is like a house of cards. Remove one bit of blather and the whole house collapses. To look more directly at your quip, I will note that it requires you to consider facts not in evidence. Nothing from the opening or closing statements, and nothing said by attorneys anywhere in between, is evidence. The unidentified "I", the speaker of your assertion, cannot be Casey as she did not testify. While you are free to put words in her mouth, they are not evidence of anything she said. The counsel asserted that she and George, together, covered up what she did do. That was claimed to be accidental death by drowning. Your quip does not address or rebut the case for accidental drowning. The defense case was that nobody murdered Caylee, that the manner of death was drowning, not drug overdose or suffocation. Not believing the story is insufficient as proof of guilt. For conviction, the jury must be shown that this was inconsistent (not reasonably possible) within the scope of the evidence. The coroner and two autopsies could not establish the cause or manner of death. There was zero proof that duct tape was the murder weapon, or that suffocation was the manner of death. There is zero proof that drugs were administered. There is equally no proof that drowning was the manner of death. The skeleton proves Caylee is dead, but it does not show how she got that way. Did Casey appear to cover something up? Definitely. The defense case stated such. The hypothesis I provided explicitly states such. Neither the prosecution, nor your quip, identifies any evidence proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, what was being covered up. It also seemed clear that George and Cindy were involved in some coverup. What I set forth was a hypothetical that there was a coverup of unintentional death resulting either from drowning or drugs. With drugs, that could still be a capital case of felony murder. With accidental drowning, it could still be a case of negligent homicide. The Anthony testimony was not credible, and jurors have so stated. Cindy's testimony was proven false. Nothing reliant solely on the testimony of Cindy or George establishes a fact. If the door was not properly secured, and the ladder was left at the pool, and Caylee wandered out on her own and jumped in and drowned, there would likely be a case of negligent homicide. If Caylee was drugged to death, that would be felony murder. Even if drugs were left out and ingested by Caylee, it is still a crime. The prosecution went for an extremely tenuous case of premeditated murder, with the murder weapon being duct tape, and the manner of death being suffocation. There is no evidence when the duct tape was applied, nor that the child was alive when it was applied. Speculation of death by duct tape does not make for a compelling prosecution case. If the jury bought the speculation, and determined it to be fact, then there would be a case of premeditated murder. The jury would not make that leap of faith in the absence of evidence. As juror #3 stated, "I can't find her guilty of a crime if I'm not sure a crime was committed." The jurors "needed something solid to say it was absolutely not an accident and [to] not leave the dots for me to connect with speculation, accusations, and guessing — we're instructed not to to that." Improper disposal of a body would be another charge, but it wasn't charged. As another item, there was one team of videotaped private detectives searching the nearby wrong area, guided by a psychic on the phone. Another psychic and company were also at the same wrong area. And the meter reader, Roy Kronk, also went to the same wrong clearing the the wooded area. Either their tin foil hats all received the same psychic vibe, or they all had some common source of information. Casey was in jail and (presumably) had no unrecorded conversations except for privileged conversations with legal counsel. There is a lot to this case that we did not know and the jury did not know. The jury realized that pieces of the prosecution case were simply missing. The jury cannot convict based on what it does not know. nolu chan posted on 2011-07-08 14:05:09 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #24. To: nolu chan, war (#23) It was the job of the prosecutor to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that she murdered her child. They couldn't and therefore never should have tried her for that. Not reporting a disappeared child for 31 days must be at minimum some sort of negligence. Someone knows how the child died but they're not talking. "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." ~Thomas Jefferson Robin posted on 2011-07-08 14:14:27 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #25. To: nolu chan (#23) Improper disposal of a body would be another charge, but it wasn't charged. I wonder why not. I avoided following the trial as I detest soap opera news, but I did tune in when the verdicts were read, only because I happened to be channel surfing at the time. Fred Mertz posted on 2011-07-08 16:38:43 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #26. To: Robin (#24) Not reporting a disappeared child for 31 days must be at minimum some sort of negligence. Someone knows how the child died but they're not talking. Failure to report a child missing is not a crime until the state passes a law making it a crime. There is a movement in several states now seeking to enact something called Caylee's Law making such failure a crime. Had the prosecution charged wrongful disposal of a body, the defense of accidental death at the Anthony home would essentially be an admission. I agree that someone knows more than they are saying. The prosecution sort of pursued two theories. If you bought death by duct tape, then it was premeditated murder. If you figured that Caylee died from the chloroform, it was felony murder. Either was first degree murder and carried the death penalty. However, if the prosecution or the jury did not know whether it was either death by suffocation, or death by drug overdose, they had no ready way to rule out death by drowning. If negligent homicide because the ladder was in position at the pool, there is no way of knowing who left it or put it there. If negligence because the door lacked a childproof lock, who was negligent? A case can be offered that Casey was not the only one with a motive to cover up whatever happened. I find the duct tape theory counterintuitive. I do not picture a woman, with premeditation, administering drugs to incapacitate a child, her own or any other child, with the intent of finishing the job by application of duct tape to cause suffocation. That sounds mostly like a contrived prosecution attempt to give the jury an excuse to find premeditation, or an excuse to explain away the presence of the duct tape. If it was not there to suffocate, then why was it there? If it was to keep the skull and mandible together after decomposition, who was knowledgeable in the area of human decomposition? nolu chan posted on 2011-07-08 21:13:36 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #27. To: All (#26) The instructions to the jury by Judge Perry explained the elements of each charged crime and the requisite proof and what the jury could consider. Casey Anthony Trial - Judge Perry Instructions to Jury nolu chan posted on 2011-07-08 21:15:26 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #28. To: All (#27) The jury verdict forms list every charge given to the jury for consideration, including lesser included offenses. Casey Anthony Trial - Jury Verdict Forms nolu chan posted on 2011-07-08 21:16:59 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #29. To: Fred Mertz (#25) I wonder why not. Note that negligent homicide is also not included as a lesser included offense. They overcharged, meaning they charged more than they could prove. They went for the fame and the glory. The OJ players lost, wrote books, and some are still cashing in. They eliminated lesser options to eliminate downward jury compromise. The prosecutors rolled the dice that the jury would not acquit, but would feel compelled to return a guilty verdict, and would stretch to reach the only available options. None of the jurors felt able to stretch that far. nolu chan posted on 2011-07-08 21:36:24 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #30. To: nolu chan (#29) They eliminated lesser options to eliminate downward jury compromise. Good answer! I get your point. Fred Mertz posted on 2011-07-08 21:54:59 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #31. To: nolu chan (#26) Far too many unanswered questions, and not a few wild ideas. There's a restaurant in FL that won't serve the jurors of that trial. "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." ~Thomas Jefferson Robin posted on 2011-07-08 22:07:11 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #32. To: Robin (#31) Dateline, 7/8/2011 Alternate Juror #4 - Dean Eckstadt - - - - - "I couldn't see it. I just don't see, if they were gonna say the chloroform was to knock Caylee out, I don't understand why they would use duct tape. It didn't make sense. - - - - - "There are so many stories that could've happened with that duct tape. I really don't want to say what happened because, honestly, I don't know." - - - - - "The ladder itself being up or down. There is that possibility that she could've drowned." - - - - - "George, he, he was just always confrontational, seemed like, never wanted to answer questions correctly, always evasive." - - - - - "I believe that she's a liar. There's no mistake about that. To actually commit murder to her child, I don't believe that she did. The State tried the best they could, but, obviously there was no evidence to convict her." - - - - - nolu chan posted on 2011-07-08 23:17:17 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #33. To: nolu chan (#23) Did Casey appear to cover something up? Neither the prosecution, nor your quip, identifies any evidence proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, what was being covered up. The dead child notwithstanding? And Casey did have her several contradictory to outright lying videotaped statements to police entered into the court record. I have no doubt that she murdered her daughter. None. All of the evidence leads to that very reasonable conclusion. war posted on 2011-07-09 11:59:03 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #34. To: war (#33) [nc] Did Casey appear to cover something up? Neither the prosecution, nor your quip, identifies any evidence proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, what was being covered up. [war] The dead child notwithstanding? And Casey did have her several contradictory to outright lying videotaped statements to police entered into the court record. I have no doubt that she murdered her daughter. None. All of the evidence leads to that very reasonable conclusion. I have posted the Jury Instructions and the Jury Verdict Forms. These include the requisite proof of each charge, and set out the specific options available to the jury. Generic, we know she did something and we call it generic murder, is not one of the choices. There is [COUNT 1] Murder 1, Murder 2, Manslaughter, Murder 3, Not guilty; [COUNT 2] Aggravated Child Abuse, Child Abuse, Not guilty; [COUNT 3] Aggravated Manslaughter, Manslaughter, Not Guilty. A dead child is conclusive proof that a child died. It is not conclusive proof that the child was murdered, nor that one of the charged crimes was committed. The Anthony's plural were, and are, covering up something, or several things. The child could have gotten into recreational meds of Casey, it could have gotten into meds of the grandparents, It could have died from deliberately administered drugs, with or without intent to kill, it could have walked through the door lacking the childproof lock, climbed the ladder left at the pool, and drowned. The dead skeleton does not provide any evidence whether death resulted from murder or accident. It provides no evidence whether death resulted from drowning, drug overdose, or suffocation. Casey's lies are not proof of murder. Disposal of the body is evidence that something happened, but not exactly what. It does not say what was being covered up, whether murder, negligence, or an accident. You have every right to your belief that Casey committed some form of murder, and it is perfectly reasonable. It is not the only reasonable conclusion that may be drawn from the evidence which is insufficient to prove murder. Judge Perry's instructions to the jury on MURDER - FIRST DEGREE stated, "To prove the crime of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: ... 2. The death was caused by the criminal act of Casey Marie Anthony. 3. The death was a premeditated killing of Caylee Marie Anthony." That is what the prosecution said they would prove beyond a reasonable doubt. To which Jose Baez asked in closing argument, "What act?" Alternate juror #4 stated, "I couldn't see it. I just don't see, if they were gonna say the chloroform was to knock Caylee out, I don't understand why they would use duct tape. It didn't make sense." ... "There are so many stories that could've happened with that duct tape. I really don't want to say what happened because, honestly, I don't know." ... "The ladder itself being up or down. There is that possibility that she could've drowned." ... "George, he, he was just always confrontational, seemed like, never wanted to answer questions correctly, always evasive." ... "I believe that she's a liar. There's no mistake about that. To actually commit murder to her child, I don't believe that she did. The State tried the best they could, but, obviously there was no evidence to convict her." Juror #3 stated, "I can't find her guilty of a crime if I'm not sure a crime was committed." Juror #3 felt they "didn't have enough evidence to say definitively if she did or didn't" kill her child. They "needed something solid to say it was absolutely not an accident and [to] not leave the dots for me to connect with speculation, accusations, and guessing — we're instructed not to to that." You offer emotions, but not proof of murder to the exclusion of something less. What is the proof that Casey Anthony had chloroform, incapicitated the child with chloroform, and did so with the intent of incapicitating Caylee, to murder her later by applying duct tape? If any of those elements is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, why was it charged and argued by the prosecution? If one or more of those claims is not proven, how is premeditation proven? Is that tale of the manner of death credible? The prosecution claimed the duct tape as the murder weapon. Is it remotely proven beyond all reasonable doubt as a matter of law, to the exclusion of any other reasonable belief? If you are applying duct tape to a child that young, for the purpose of suffocation (or to just keep them quiet), do you wrap in all the way around the skull, over hair, and down under the mandible? Harkening back to the O.J. case and the testimony of Dr. Henry Lee, "Only opinion I can giving under this circumstance, something wrong." nolu chan posted on 2011-07-09 18:31:16 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #35. To: nolu chan (#34) You can type as manty words as you want to use. You can characterize my argument however you want to. Caylee is still dead and she shouldn't be. It's stretches credulity to a new level to believe that after first accusing someone of kidnapping her baby that in the end she was simply covering up an accident. war posted on 2011-07-11 11:11:38 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #36. To: Robin (#31) (Edited) There's a restaurant in FL that won't serve the jurors of that trial. By taking that position, they are sending a message that future jurors need to adhere to public opinion when deciding guilt or innocence. A very dangerous thing. I'd boycott that restaurant. I hope others do as well. Pinguinite posted on 2011-07-11 14:39:03 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #37. To: Pinguinite (#36) By taking that position, they are sending a message that future jurors need to adhere to public opinion when deciding guilt or innocence. A very dangerous thing. I'd boycott that restaurant. I hope others do as well. Good point. I hope this targeting of ordinary folks trying to do the job they've been given, backfires. "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." ~Thomas Jefferson Robin posted on 2011-07-11 15:32:36 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #38. To: war (#35) You can type as manty words as you want to use. You can characterize my argument however you want to. Caylee is still dead and she shouldn't be. It's stretches credulity to a new level to believe that after first accusing someone of kidnapping her baby that in the end she was simply covering up an accident. I cannot characterize your legal argument until you make one. I listed the actual crimes charged, presented the actual instructions to the jury, the actual elements of proof required, and you have failed to even make any attempt to show that you can identify evidence provided at trial which proves all the required elements of your claim of murder (or anything else) beyond a reasonable doubt. You may vent your emotion as desired, but 12 jurors, and all known alternates, unanimously observed the evidence at trial and found it lacking. They are not supposed to convict on pleas to their emotions, not based on the law. Caylee is still dead and she shouldn't be. That does not provide proof that her death resulted from one of the crimes charged. It's stretches credulity to a new level to believe that after first accusing someone of kidnapping her baby that in the end she was simply covering up an accident. If there was a coverup of negligent homicide or an accident, the only possible verdict for a crime not charged is not guilty. Stretching credulity is not one of the elements of any of the crimes charged. I stretches credulity to think that a jury should return a conviction without proof that any crime was committed, and absent the requisite legal proof of any crime charged. Notably stretching credulity was the testimony of George Anthony, Cindy Anthony, Roy Kronk, Yuri Melich, et al. Caylee is dead. That nobody stands convicted of an offense related to responsibility for that death may be a serious injustice. Convicting someone of a crime not proved is an injustice. "We can only hope the chloroform was used before the tape was applied, so Caylee went peacefully without fear," said Jeff Ashton in closing argument. The alleged chloroform, allegedly administered prior to the application of duct tape, was the only supposed evidence of premeditation. Had the prosecution properly charged the case, they might not have argued hopes to the jury, and they might have gained a conviction. But as a result of overcharging, they can go on to be OJ-style celebrities. nolu chan posted on 2011-07-11 16:17:30 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #39. To: Robin, Pinguinite (#37) The restaurant thing is a carryover from the OJ trial aftermath. The Anthony trial distorted TV coverage contributed to creating a group of fanatics. According to the HNN talking heads, the prosecution was brilliant, the defense was incompetent, and guilt was proven by overwhelming evidence. The only question was whether the jury would recommend the death penalty. nolu chan posted on 2011-07-11 17:13:42 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #40. To: Robin, Pinguinite (#37) http://patriotpost.us/opinion/ben-shapiro/2011/07/06/should-we-abolish-the-jury-system/ Should We Abolish the Jury System? By Ben Shapiro (Archive) · Wednesday, July 6, 2011 On Tuesday, a Florida jury found Casey Anthony not guilty of first-degree murder in the death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee Marie. As so often happens in high profile cases, the jury was wrong. Casey clearly murdered her daughter. Her mom, Cindy, reported that Caylee was missing on July 15, 2008. Casey's cover story was unbelievably ridiculous. When Casey's mom, Cindy, confronted Casey at Casey's boyfriend's apartment, Casey actually claimed that a random baby sitter nobody had ever met had taken Caylee away over a month beforehand. Cindy called the cops, informing them, "I found my daughter's car today. And it smells like there's been a dead body in the damn car." Sure enough, cadaver dogs identified the trunk of Casey's car as a dead body location, and scientists confirmed that a body had decomposed back there. A few months after a jury indicted Casey, police found Caylee's corpse in the woods near Casey's home, duct tape on her head. The defense did a Johnny Cochrane routine -- they blamed everybody within a 10 mile radius of the murder for the murder. Defense attorney Jose Baez suggested that Casey's dad, George, had sexually abused her during her childhood, without any evidence whatsoever. Baez also claimed that Caylee had drowned in the pool while George was at home, and that George had been involved in dumping the body. [...] Cadaver dogs do not produce the sort of conclusive evidence as that alluded to by Mr. Shapiro, as shown by an unofficial transcript of the testimony of the dog handler under cross-examination by Jose Baez. [Jose Baez] Uh, before we get in to what you did in this case, I want to ask you something so that we can kinda clear, ah, clarify something for the jury. The alerts that a, that a cadaver dog does, they're not, you don't give individual commands to find, find me some bones, correct, or find me decomp fluid, or find me blood, correct? [Deputy Kristin Brewer, K-9 cadaver dog handler] That's correct. [Jose Baez] And it's just one command? [Deputy Kristin Brewer] Right. [Jose Baez] When you deploy the dog, and many times, well actually let me rephrase that. A dog can alert on fluid or something decomposing from a live person, could they not? [Deputy Kristin Brewer] Yes, if it's out of the body. [Jose Baez] Anything out of the body, that is now decomposing, even though the person's alive, the dog can alert? [Deputy Kristin Brewer] Yes. [Jose Baez] So if I have a, if I'm a block, a drop of blood from a fingernail or something comes out, that blood begins to decompose and the dog can alert to that? [Deputy Kristin Brewer] That's correct. [Jose Baez] In fact, when you are trained to deploy dogs on vehicles for training, your training tells you not to use old cars because you don't know the history of those cars, right? [Deputy Kristin Brewer] We try to use something, an unknown source, no that's not self-contaminated... (Jose starts to talk over her). [Jose Baez] I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. [Deputy Kristin Brewer] We try to use something that we know may not have... [Jose Baez] Right, something that you know the history of, because you don't know if this car's been in an accident. You don't know if somebody cut their finger or had any bleeding in any location? [Deputy Kristin Brewer] Correct [Jose Baez] And you don't know, if, um, someone bled on a rag and that was thrown into the trunk or something like that. [Deputy Kristin Brewer] Right. [Jose Baez] So there's any number of scenarios that makes the dog more of a tool as opposed to a conclusive indicator of human decomposition, especially when you don't have a body. [Deputy Kristin Brewer] Right. He's trained to find the strongest source, whatever it might be. In her FIRST 911 call, there is no allusion to a dead, stinking body. CINDY: "Hi. I drove to a police department that is closed and I have a 22 year old person that stole something; my car and also money". POLICE DISPATCHER: Is this a relative? CINDY: Yes DISPATCHER: What did they steal? CINDY: My car and money. DISPATCHER: Is this your son? CINDY: "Daughter". In the SECOND 911 CALL, there is no allusion to a dead, stinking body. Dispatcher: How old is your daughter? Cindy: 22. Dispatcher: What is her name? Cindy: Casey Anthony. Dispatcher: And your name? Cindy: Cynthia Anthony. Dispatcher: Phone number? Cindy: 407-808-4731. Dispatcher: And you said you have the vehicle back? Cindy: Yes. Dispatcher: Casey's there right now? Cindy: Yes, but we can't find our granddaughter. Dispatcher: How tall is Casey? Cindy: 5'1 1/2. Dispatcher: Thin or medium built? Cindy: Thin. Dispatcher: Hair color? Cindy: Brown. Dispatcher: What color shirt is she wearing? Cindy: White. Dispatcher: What color pants? Cindy: They're shorts, Pink and black plaid. Dispatcher: Does she have any weapons on her? Cindy: No. Dispatcher: Is Casey not telling you where her daughter is? Cindy: Correct. Dispatcher: Ok, we'll have a deputy out to you as soon as one is available. In the THIRD 911 call, CINDY: "There's something wrong, I found my daughter's call today and it smells like there's been a dead body in the damned car." - - - - - In response to a 911 call reporting a missing child and the smell of a dead body in the damned car, Detective Yuri Melich, who blogged about the case as Dick Tracy Orlando did not have Casey Anthony advised of her Miranda rights because she was not a suspect. Detective Melich did not detect any stink of a dead body, saw no reason to secure the vehicle, and the vehicle was just left there, unsecured. Here is some confidence inducing testimony. There is something called testilying. http://www.wftv.com/video/28100597/index.html Raw video at link. My transcript here. Day 18, Trial Part 11 TESTIMONY OF DETECTIVE YURI MELICH CROSS EXAMINATION BY JOSE BAEZ 26:10 - 30:25 at source [JB] You were told about an odor coming from a car? [YM] I remember there was a comment about an odor coming from a car but I don't recall who made it or at what point thrughout my time there that it occurred. [JB] So, immediately upon getting this information, you went and inspected the car? [YM] No. [JB] You were told that there is a missing child? [YM] Yes. [JB] You were told that the location where Ms. Anthony had taken officers showed no results? [YM] Something along those lines, yes. [JB] And then you were told about an odor coming from a car? [YM] Yes. [JB] And you never went and looked at the car? [YM] No. [JB] You never secured any possible evidence that may, or may not, have been at that car? [YM] Upon my arrival that night when I first responded, no. [JB] You did absolutely nothing with the car. [YM] Correct. [JB] And in your investigation at that point, or that entire evening, you didn't find it necessary to secure that car in any way? [YM] No. [JB] Now, one of the first things you looked at with Ms. Anthony was, she was a suspect, did you not? [YM] At the time I got there, she wasn't a suspect of anything. She was the mother of a missing child. [JB] And despite all of this information that you had, you didn't consider Ms. Anthony a suspect? [YM] I hadn't talked to her yet. I didn't know what she was gonna tell me. I was just going by what one of the deputies had told me upon arrival. [JB] Did you instruct Deputy Hosea (ph) to un-handcuff Ms. Anthony because you wanted to come down and speak to her? [YM] I did not. I didn't even know she was handcuffed. [JB] Did you Mirandize, or read Casey Anthony her Miranda warnings prior to questioning her? [YM] No. [JB] And the reason for that is because you didn't think she was a suspect of anything? [YM] She was the mother of a missing two and a half year old. That's what I was there to investigate was a missing two and a half year old. I had no reason to Mirandize her. [JB] A mother of a two and a half year old who is telling -- who is giving information that did not appear to pan out. Is that right? [YM] According to what I was told before getting there, yes. But I hadn't talked to her yet, so I didn't know if they may have misunderstood. I don't know what she was going to tell me. [JB] Well, you read her statement, did you not? [YM] Yes. [JB] And in fact, you testified prior to it getting admitted if she was adopting it, correct? [YM] Yes. [JB] And, in fact, you thought the information contained in there was suspect, did you not? [YM] I wrote that in my report, yes. [JB] OK. But, you thought it was suspect? [YM] I can't recall what I thought at the time but I do acknowledge I wrote that in my report. [JB] [malformed question started and withdrawn] [JB] Her version is suspect according to you? [YM] To what I wrote in the report, yes. [JB] You have a missing child that's been missing for thirty days? [YM] Yes. [JB] Never reported. [YM] Correct. [JB] The mother's not taking you to a location where you can find the child? [YM] She hasn't taken me anywhere yet. [JB] Or prior officers? [YM] As far as the officers are concerned, correct. [JB] And, in your opinion, she is not a suspect? [YM] Yes. [JB] Yes, she is a suspect, or yes, she is not a suspect? [YM] You're asking me if in my opinion she is a suspect. No, she is not a suspect. nolu chan posted on 2011-07-11 23:26:55 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #41. To: nolu chan (#38) I cannot characterize your legal argument until you make one. I'm not making a legal argument. I am making a common sense one which, I believe, properly identifies your problem in responding to it. I have no idea what people do with duct tape where YOU live but where I live and on my several dozen trips to FL, I have yet to see people walking around with it wrapped around their faces. I will admit that I have seen windows, car bumpers and even trailer hitch fashioned with duct tape, but I have yet to see a human face so fashioned. A jury is to reach a conclusion based upon the evidence presented. It's given the evidence and then it's given scenarios under which that evidence points to or away from "guilty". To me, her lies and the tape, just as OJ's lies and the blood, point in one direction, GUILTY. war posted on 2011-07-12 8:42:24 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #42. To: war (#41) A jury is given instructions by the judge about how to come to a decision. The evidence and testimony must be weighed against the law and charges. The prosecution overcharged. They did not have the hard evidence, like this case below, necessary to convict for Murder 1. Oklahoma pharmacist sentenced to life for killing would-be robber [Then, in a scene recorded by the drugstore's security camera, he went behind the counter, got another gun, and pumped five more bullets into Parker as he lay on the floor unconscious.] But the media did a fine job of convicting without the judge's instructions: The miserable postscript for a Casey Anthony juror "Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains." ~Thomas Jefferson Robin posted on 2011-07-12 9:36:04 ET (1 image) Reply Trace Private Reply #43. To: Robin (#42) (Edited) The prosecution overcharged. They did not have the hard evidence, like this case below, necessary to convict for Murder 1. So people walk around with duct tape on their faces where you live too? Premeditation is the compelling factor in the M1 charge. Wrapping duct tape in a fashion that most probably caused asphyxiation seems fairly compelling and plausible beyond a reasonable doubt to me. That baby was dead. There was no physical trauma and nothing indicating that she had drowned. What is being glossed over here is the fact that jurors are equally charged with using logic to take the evidence and render the verdict. This jury seemed to want a a video of Casey wrapping the tape around Caylee's face, waiting for her to die and then taking her out and burying her. You had several pieces of compelling evidence...Casey's "lifestyle" which most certainly goes to motive...her lies to the police...her lies about a kidnapping...both elements of mens rea... You had a dead body disposed of in a manner that clearly indicated a wrongful death...you had a quite reasonable explanation of how a live body came to be a dead body...couple that to the overhwlming evidence of the mens rea of Casey and guitly was a slam dunk. Yes, a judge gives instructions to a jury; nowhere in those instructions is it commanded to forego logic and common sense. war posted on 2011-07-12 9:49:54 ET Reply Trace Private Reply #44. To: war (#43) Wrapping duct tape in a fashion that most probably caused asphyxiation seems fairly compelling and plausible beyond a reasonable doubt to me. But WHO put the duct tape and WHY? Why not remove the duct tape? If it was premeditated why botch the disposal? Whatever her lifestyle, unless I'm misinformed, her parents seemed more than willing to babysit whenever. And unless I am misinformed there were no previous charges of physical abuse. Rather, the child appeared to have been healthy and happy. The mother is guilty of perjury and there is a coverup. But of what? The jury could not reach a verdict of premeditated murder based on what was presented in court. The media presented a lot of ideas, that were not necessarily part of the trial.
I read one of the jurors ran away in fear of her life.
war has to do something for entertainment. The voices in his head aren't speaking to him and his imaginary friends have found reasons not to come over anymore.
The jurors should be ridiculed not harmed.
You're just figuring that out? Maybe it's war's sense of decency that's been a problem for you.
Von Mises associates any Government involvement in markets as "Socialism" , to mislead people into thinking Government is the enemy , when infact empire is the enemy and empire is Privatized.
BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHA I LOVE Nolu Chan. So you ban WAR but then attack him? YUKON....8D
8D Perfect example of the USEMPIRE in action. These folks at LF give us a front row seat on the machinations underway. That's Empathy at work: "Taliban claims responsibility for assassinating Afghan President's younger brother Agence France Presse 12karzai08797_20.jpg July 12, 2011 - Afghan President Hamid Karzai's younger brother, a key powerbroker in the south of the country, was assassinated on Tuesday depriving NATO of a vital if controversial ally. The Taliban claimed responsibility for the killing of Ahmed Wali Karzai in his own home, but spy officials said the Kandahar provincial council chief was shot twice in the head by a guest who was apparently an old friend....
YUKON was assassinated on Tuesday depriving LF/LP of a vital if controversial ally. 8>D
war isn't banned. I just gave him a timeout for a few days for starting threads telling people to do things that disrupt.
No, whiningoldloonymom, it was war's sense of indecency that was the problem I had with him. Only a fool with zero values could support and defend that self-loathing piece of human debris.
war has to do something for entertainment. The voices in his head aren't speaking to him and his imaginary friends have found reasons not to come over anymore.
You may disagree with what nolu says but nolu could out think you with 95% of his brain tied behind his back.
gave him a timeout? You mean like a school child? Instead of a spanking? I'd prefer the spanking...I'm kinky that way though...8D And Further. As WAR has been Timed Out, you attack him as he cannot reply? WWJD LMFAO
I thought you liked pitchforks.
I hadn't been at ThePeoplesForum for a while. Have to go over there again. Thanx for the head's Up....;}
Then let him back in now. You need to have your personality disorder diagnosed to see if it can be treated.
WWJD LMFAO And he encourages others here to attack war while he's suspended too. How ethical is that? LOLOL
Nolu gets it wrong way to much. He loves Obama. Need I say more.
US Legislature Corrupted by AIPAC's Payola (#12) [Full Thread] Post Date: 2011-07-01 17:24:35 From: Peo111 To: mcgowanjm The Painful Evacuation of a Japanese Village (#9) [Full Thread] Post Date: 2011-06-10 00:37:14 From: Robin To: nolu chan, mcgowanj TWO threads right off the top. I don't know if LF has ever dissed AIPAC or Heard of Fukushima...
Have to go over there again. Thanx for the head's Up....;} It's quite different than here. People there can actually have a conversation without turds like no gnu taxes posting their racist crap while Stone sanctions it.
WWJD ;} Epicurus; "One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, ... On the verse, "Love your fellow as yourself," the classic commentator Rashi quotes ... The "Golden Rule" has been attributed to Jesus of Nazareth But not necessarily in the Yukon way, eh? ;}
Where did I do such a thing? I actually just gave him a compliment for kicking chans ass. I took war off the shit list days ago. He is probably mad at me and doesn't want to come here anymore.
Just because you don't agree with him doesn't mean he gets it wrong. I think you're one of the leaders in that field.
Well, from what I hear he hasn't taken you off of his.
Name a major issue that Chan is correct on. He has a tendency to twist words to much.
He's nailed you moron birthers to the wall more times than I can count, showing why your "legal" arguments are pure fiction.
You can only be a liberal there. No dissent is allowed. None at all. Robin has an inferiority complex and doesn't like to be challenged.
Yukon is gay and his account wasn't hacked or compromised.
Chan is pretending that you don't have to be a natural born citizen to be president. It is in the constitution, I swear.
Either that or buckeroo.
Project much?
Wasn't it strange that Chan was obsessed with that. I mean who writes a tomb on a subject like that?
Project much? Dissent is allowed here. You are a prime example of that. Name one conservative on the scrotum.
You could probably get away with an occasional conservative position or two there if you be sure and mix in a heaping helping of Joo hatred.
Now, I know I’m not going to change the minds of any of the True Believers…those who read all of Reverend Al’s sermons, and say things like, “You know, global warming can mean warmer OR colder, wetter OR drier, cloudier OR sunnier, windier OR calmer, …”. Can I get an ‘amen’??
I've posted articles dissing AIPAC here and was either ignored or called the usual names.
Actually that is one of Robin's peeves. Dissing Israel on specifics is okay but the generalized dissing of all 'jooos' (according to your spelling) is not welcome there.
You are a prime example of that. Name one conservative on the scrotum. Actually Nolu Chan is very conservative and so am I. You guys only 'think' you are conservative.
Here is my thoughts on that. Correct me if I am wrong on any of these issues. You can chan support faggots destroying marriage. You can chan support abortion. You and maybe Chan support gun control. You support a maximum wage and I don't know about chan. You want to restrict freedom of speech by taking it away. (citizens united). You and chan support illegals getting healthcare. Sounds pretty statist to me.
Whiningoldloonymom, you are to the left of Mao and Pol Pot.
war has to do something for entertainment. The voices in his head aren't speaking to him and his imaginary friends have found reasons not to come over anymore.
Sometimes that's the only way to win an argument.
Von Mises associates any Government involvement in markets as "Socialism" , to mislead people into thinking Government is the enemy , when infact empire is the enemy and empire is Privatized.
Comments (42 - 119) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestI have no idea what people do with duct tape where YOU live but where I live and on my several dozen trips to FL, I have yet to see people walking around with it wrapped around their faces.
#2. To: A K A Stone (#0)
#3. To: Rudgear (#2)
Wow. Who knew the despicable little troll had an iota of decency in him? There may yet be hope for him.
#4. To: Rudgear (#2)
#5. To: A K A Stone (#4)
#6. To: Rudgear (#5)
#7. To: Rudgear, A K A Stone (#2)
Wow. Who knew the despicable little troll had an iota of decency in him?
#8. To: A K A Stone (#3)
#9. To: lucysmom, All (#7)
#10. To: All (#9)
was assassinated on Tuesday depriving NATO of a vital if controversial ally.
#11. To: mcgowanjm (#8)
#12. To: lucysmom (#7)
#13. To: A K A Stone (#0)
#14. To: A K A Stone, Fred Mertz, All (#11)
gave him a timeout
#15. To: A K A Stone (#11)
I just gave him a timeout for a few days for starting threads telling people to do things that disrupt.
#16. To: Skip Intro (#13)
#17. To: A K A Stone (#11)
(Edited)
war isn't banned.
#18. To: mcgowanjm (#14)
As WAR has been Timed Out, you attack him as he cannot reply?
#19. To: Skip Intro (#13)
You may disagree with what nolu says but nolu could out think you with 95% of his brain tied behind his back.
#20. To: mininggold (#18)
#21. To: mcgowanjm (#16)
I hadn't been at ThePeoplesForum for a while.
#22. To: A K A Stone (#19)
Nolu gets it wrong way to much. He loves Obama. Need I say more.
#23. To: mininggold, Fred Mertz (#18)
And he encourages others here to attack war while he's suspended too. How ethical is that? LOLOL
#24. To: A K A Stone (#19)
Nolu gets it wrong way to much.
#25. To: A K A Stone (#23)
I took war off the shit list days ago.
#26. To: Skip Intro (#24)
#27. To: A K A Stone (#26)
Name a major issue that Chan is correct on. He has a tendency to twist words to much.
#28. To: Skip Intro (#21)
It's quite different than here. People there can actually have a conversation without turds like no gnu taxes posting their racist crap while Stone sanctions it.
#29. To: A K A Stone (#26)
Name a major issue that Chan is correct on.
#30. To: Skip Intro (#27)
#31. To: Fred Mertz (#29)
#32. To: A K A Stone (#28)
You can only be a liberal there. No dissent is allowed. None at all. Robin has an inferiority complex and doesn't like to be challenged.
#33. To: Fred Mertz (#29)
Yukon is gay and his account wasn't hacked or compromised.
#34. To: mininggold (#32)
You can only be a liberal there. No dissent is allowed. None at all. Robin has an inferiority complex and doesn't like to be challenged.
#35. To: A K A Stone (#28)
You can only be a liberal there.
#36. To: mcgowanjm (#20)
I don't know if LF has ever dissed AIPAC
#37. To: no gnu taxes (#35)
You could probably get away with an occasional conservative position or two there if you be sure and mix in a heaping helping of Joo hatred.
#38. To: A K A Stone (#34)
Dissent is allowed here.
#39. To: mininggold (#38)
Actually Nolu Chan is very conservative and so am I. You guys only 'think' you are conservative.
#40. To: mininggold (#38)
Actually Nolu Chan is very conservative and so am I. You guys only 'think' you are conservative.
#41. To: mcgowanjm (#8)
So you ban WAR but then attack him?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]