No I too agree. The people who still are angry just need to take that anger & turn it into something more constructive. The trial is over; you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. I think is the saying used here.Originally Posted by seurtoFW
Renowned Death Hag
RE:
No I too agree. The people who still are angry just need to take that anger & turn it into something more constructive. The trial is over; you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. I think is the saying used here.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
I have no intention of ever serving on a jury, although I've been called every two years. I've chosen more than one path to community service and this is not it.
I have both friends and family members who've served on a jury and it is not an easy task. Several of the Peterson juror's needed therapy following their service.
There isn't any reason not to believe with all of the threats and harrassment that there are many who incensed enough might commit an act of harm.
By the way ... Judge Perry is currently being harrassed by media, per his interview.
Renowned Death Hag
Unfortunately, this "aftermath" will go on for a long time. Just like with the OJ trial mess. She hasn't even got out yet, so her leaving jail is going to extend this crap longer. Yeah, I'm pretty done with it. It just stirs up all the nuts out there with more threats to everyone involved. The media has a habit (especially NG) of constantly adding fuel to a fire. They won't simply let it go out on it's own and move on.
Cindy
I heard that Casey is getting out today? They "miscalculated" the date before. I bet they will be sneaking her out in a laundry cart or something and then where?? It will be interesting where she turns up.
^^^ That is wrong^^^ Read it on one of the f.b. pages! According to JVM it is 100 hours left.
Last edited by lvrgirl64; 07-12-2011 at 04:19 PM.
She's still in the jail, according to a current report.
There is a good possibility Casey will be released early and under the radar to avoid the extra personnel, sheriff's department, who would be needed.
Equusearch, Tim Miller, filed suit today against Casey Anthony. The likelihood is that Anthony, once the various suits have been filed, will declare bankruptcy. The only monies left owing will be to the IRS, (amount due, negotiable).
The state's attorney's office will not seek perjury charges against Cindy Anthony.
I think the sooner they place Casey in some quiet location, the media will slow down. NG and her henchmen will have nothing to blather about.
OJ ... remained in the public eye, which kept the chatter continuing.
Renowned Death Hag
A Chapter 7 filing will wipe that out too.
Renowned Death Hag
I thought monies owed to the IRS, as well as student loan balances, were not dischargeable in any type of bankruptcy.
Renowned Death Hag
so whens this video coming out & I read EquuaSearch is following up with the civil suit.
[SIGPIC]
dont know if this was posted or not.
http://glossynews.com/society/strang...back%E2%80%99/
Wow! So the jurors sent in a petition to Judge Perry to "take back their Not Guilty verdict" I didn't know until I read that that they had a 7 day grace period! and it's up to the Judge to decide if they can!!
So what would happen? Would Casey have to stay in Jail while this goes on? I don't think JVM knows this or they would have brought it up for sure!
Edit:
I thought it looked fake but I Googled it and it is on several other sites so I'm not sure. Hmmmm....
Last edited by lvrgirl64; 07-12-2011 at 05:06 PM.
Renowned Death Hag
That story looks fake. The author is named Juvenal delinquent?
The defense team issued a statement condemning the jury’s request, saying in part that, “they, the jury, should have thought about the ramifications of their verdict ahead of time. If they didn’t think she was innocent, then they should have said so in the courtroom, not after realizing that most of the country thinks they’re crazy.”
No defense lawyer would ever say that. Wish all you want, she is going to be free.
Last edited by JefeStone; 07-12-2011 at 04:27 PM.
Senior Death Hag
IRS debt can NOT be discharged, but you can file paperwork to show that you should not have to pay the full amount. It is involved, but it is what I do all day in the summer.
Renowned Death Hag
well because the state does not HAVE to prove how someone died & the main juror keeps saying "The state did not prove how Caylee died.." Can THAT be a breach of jury responsibilty? The jury all act like they KNOW what they were doing, they know everything, everything about how to being a jury when they obviously don't know the rules.!!
[SIGPIC]
I have never heard of such a thing anywhere. Besides, look at the source Glossy Print. If this had validity wouldn't it be all over the news? I think it is fake.Wow! So the jurors sent in a petition to Judge Perry to "take back their Not Guilty verdict" Omg... I didn't know until I read that that they had a 7 day grace period! and it's up to the Judge to decide if they can!!
So what would happen? Would Casey have to stay in Jail while this goes on? I don't think JVM knows this or they would have brought it up for sure!
As far as the continued debate about the verdict...there are lessons to be learned from how the verdict was arrived at in such a small amount of time compared to the amount of evidence and the witness testimony.
There has been much social commentary in the past concerning a rush to judgement. It usually if not always speaks to guilty verdicts being reached for too quickly. There has been discussions at high levels for the need for professional jurors which I heartily oppose. This verdict is indicative of too little attention being paid. Evidently enough is not done to impress on juries the seriousness of their duty. The jury in their explanations have shown that they didn't know how to apply the principal of reasonable doubt. Is that their fault? I don't know. Was an explanation of that given in their instructions? It seems to me with the length of Judge Perry's instructions it would have taken a few hours to get through them and ask for clarification if there was something they did not understand. Reports said they never asked for anything.
I'm sorry to say, I think it was a complete emotional decision and I think the emotion was based on the personalities of all the people who spoke
before them either as witnesses or attorneys. This is just wrong.
This should serve to alert the courts that juries need to be better educated in the law...not to mean that they have to have degrees,etc.
But after they are empaneled they should have a class or at least a discussion on what terms like reasonable doubt mean under the law.
When you think about all the hours the people who investigated the case and chased down Casey's lies, the people who molded those findings into a case and flip flop the jury got it all in 11 hours. That time did not account for meals, breaks, etc. The problem with this verdict rises above this one case.
If people don't want to serve on a jury, I think in all cases that should be enough to excuse them. Who wants people who don't want the job, doing it? I don't really know anyone who actually enjoys jury duty. But it is that second word that compels them to serve...duty. Maybe the system has out lived its purpose. What would be a reasonable substitute?
I read on yahoo news today that there is now an investigation of witness tampering but they aren't saying who or how. **Sigh** the saga continues...
http://news.yahoo.com/witness-tamper...222334116.html
Last edited by Frazzzld Kat; 07-12-2011 at 06:46 PM.
Guest
Death Hag Extraordinaire
Newsflash. The jurors had nothing to convict her on except rumour, innuendo and supposition, of which, by the way, is being perpetuated in this thread ad-nauseum.
I am a sick puppy....woof woof!!!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Carping the living shit out of the Diem. - Me!!
http://www.pinterest.com/neilmpenny
Convicted in the media ... unrealistic expectations by trial watcher's.
I listened to part 2 with Juror #11, and again he was succinct, honest, discussed the process they went through to reach the verdicts.
No dissension, as much time allowed as each juror needed to reach a conclusion.
The problem is less with juror's and more with the media and public, who simply joined in the media frenzy and had Casey convicted without a trial.
No perjury charge for Cindy Anthony:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/07/12/...html?hpt=hp_t2
Senior Death Hag
I'm relieved that they are not filing charges against Cindy Anthony. There is no use in prolonging this.
The sooner the disappear into oblivion the better.
Neil,I appreciate your opinion and I say this with no sarcasm or hatefulness which I don't know how to express in words. If you are sick of it, you don't have to read it. You can move on as well as the ones you think should.
There is a lot about this case that I am woefully uninformed on. I did not follow this on any cable news outlets. So I don't know all the ins and outs of Cindy and George and their actions over the coarse of the investigations. I believe the verdict was wrong. Casey is free the jury system worked, but it doesn't mean the right verdict was reached. My interest is not in a do-over. That is impossible, my interest is to work against this type thing not happening again. A jury can find a person guilty or not guilty in error, The verdict does not end the debate about its rightness it is just the end of the trial. In law school there is much rehashing of old cases. They are used as teaching tools. Without the knowledge gained from looking back at them much would be lost to both defense and prosecution, In the studies of old cases, public opinion surrounding the events is useful to what can be learned about these cases.
I have a problem with the claim that the child died as a result of an accident but the body is found discarded in a trash bag in a swamp.
In what world does this make sense? What inference is to be drawn?
I have a problem with the claim that a nanny took the baby when it is discovered that there never was a nanny? Would one need to create these lies if an accident occurred? I have a problem that the accused
told lie after lie that was proven to be a lie but when she says it was an accident she is instantly believed.
Old cases are sighted in new cases all the time. Would you want this one
to be used as a fair case law?
People are flawed. We all make mistakes. There is no reason to think that juries don't fit that very human flaw as well. I believe in the process of peaceful dissent. I have practiced it when I marched in the civil rights
movement. In my state there were laws against the simplest rights for blacks. Many people didn't view them as smart enough or sadly human enough to have the same rights as others. What was once legally acceptable in this state is no longer legal. This was a large issue
that drew the attention of the world. It was wrong though laws protected it. I participated in every way I could to turn this around.
The case in point is a seemingly small point in law, but it can have huge consequences in future cases.
I don't believe you will find that I have advocated any violence toward the jury other than wishing them bad nightmares. I HAVE NEVER ADVOCATED VIOLENCE AS A SOLUTION. But I believe that all debate is fair. If you weary of it, leave it, but don't dismiss others who don't agree
with you.
I have throughly enjoyed your posts on the many threads on this board. I get a kick out of your wonderful sense of humor so I hope you won't let this being on opposite sides on this thread sour you against me. (If you weren't already lol).
This is to PurrPurr:
I believe that Casey was kept isolated from the other prisoners, so nobody could have gotten to her, even if they wanted to.
Senior Death Hag
From what I understand, Casey was not in general population. There is another rumor floating about (shame on me!) that she could end up in Puerto Rico, where El Bozo is from.
Renowned Death Hag
MissMarple, is any of Neils post factually wrong? How can anyone say Casey murdered Caylee without no speculation involved? IMO to suggest otherwise is preposterous.
Death Hag Extraordinaire
I think that trying to prevent a jury making a wrong decision going forward in respect to their collective decisions is pretty much futile. We are human, we make mistakes, sometimes to the detriment of the law and of course those participants in the process. Sure, we should limit those mistakes, I totally agree with you on that, but juries will never be 100% right.
I believe having 'professional' jurors is a mistake. The right to be judged by 12 men and women true is a cornerstone of democracy. You need to be judged by your peers, preferably from your locale, as there is a shared sense of what is right or wrong. After all, a society is a collection of people who share a common set of values, have a shared history and who have developed a set of norms and traditions which are the accepted way of life. This varies from state to state, county to county etc. To fly in a professional 'rent-a-juror' would undermine the process. I feel they would be looked upon like those doctors and other specialists who spend their lives in a witness box for money, rather than actually out there practicing their craft.
I apologise if any of my previous posts accused you, or anyone else, of advocating violence towards jurors. If I did, then I apologise profusely as it was not my intent.
I understand the circumstances and points of law where you think the state got it wrong. However, were these points not explored in the trial with insufficient proof to back them up? This is the foundation of my argument in respect to the juries decision.
I am not saying you, or anyone else, is wrong in respect to disputing the evidence presented, however, the prosecution had their chance to present and prove their case. In this instance they got it wrong, and/or failed to make their case.
For all reading this, ask yourselves these questions. Do you believe you are a fair and moral person? If given a place in a jury, whether you like it or not, would you judge a person in the dock against the proven facts of a case, as presented by the prosecution, and rebuffed by the defence. Or would you go on gut instinct and what you think happened, proven or otherwise?
If you were in the dock, how would you like to be judged? By the media? By a person in the dock ignoring proven facts, or considering unproven facts, and going on intuition and gut instinct?
My argument was and always will be that they made their decision based upon the proven facts of the case, and in this instance there was not enough to convict. Everyone thought OJ did the deed, and perhaps he did, but the prosecution made such a meal of it he got off. This could very well be the case here.
Besides, I am sure there will be an appeal and a new prosecutor appointed. Maybe he or she can do a better job then.
We can agree to disagree in this issue MissMarple, we live in our relative democracy's, and we are of course free to express our opinions. I have no personal beef with you whatsoever.
Last edited by neilmpenny; 07-13-2011 at 05:03 AM.
I am a sick puppy....woof woof!!!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Carping the living shit out of the Diem. - Me!!
http://www.pinterest.com/neilmpenny
Renowned Death Hag
ITA, neilmpenny. That's what I've been trying to say the whole time. A lot of people jump on the emotional bandwagon, but don't stop to think how they would feel if they were the defendant, or what they would do as a Juror. I've been a Juror on a murder case; you go by facts, not speculation.
However, I'm missing the part about an appeal. Who is going to appeal? She was aquitted. Unless they come up with totally new charges, there won't be another trial on this issue.
Anyway, hopefully cooler heads will prevail before long; Nancy will find something else to harp on; they others will be distracted by someone else's scandal, etc.
As a side note, I firmly believe a lot of the reporters/commentators/whatevers should be repremanded in some way for trying to incite more mob mentality than already existed. I'm thinking mostly about JVM standing outside the restaurant where the PRIVATE party was going on trying to stir up trouble. The police chief had just asked for the public to keep a cool head about the whole thing. Anyway, JMO.
I keep trying to stay out of this conversation anymore, but just can't. Have....to.....try.......hard..er.......
Death Hag Extraordinaire
I am just speculating about the appeal.
Btw, please call me Neil.
I am a sick puppy....woof woof!!!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Carping the living shit out of the Diem. - Me!!
http://www.pinterest.com/neilmpenny
Jefe. I was not arguing any of the points Neil was making. I was just addressing the very last sentence in his post that if the discussions in
in this thread was making him sick, he didn't have to read them. I tried to make it clear that my comments were not intended to be sarcastic or hateful in any way. It is hard with the written word, to have the right tone. I hope that clears that up for you so you understand that I have no problem with Neil's posts. As much as you can like a person from a board,I like Neil. He often makes me laugh.
As I said in my post, I disagree with professional jurors as well/ It has been brought up in the past and I have always argued against it when I was on a judicial review board. I believe that would be a fast way to have corruption in juries.
I didn't see it if you ever accused me of advocating balance. I added that in my post to hopefully show that just because I disagreed with the jury's verdict I was not a nut job who would seek physical harm to anyone.
When I served on the judicial board many years ago, part of our duties was to review and discuss cases in depth to try to find ways to improve the system. Perhaps I was wrong to use that criteria on a thread where that is not the purpose.
I obviously feel that the state met their burden of proof. I felt the defense was the one who through out things in their opening statement that they had no way to proof and no intention of trying to do.
Way back in the beginning of people being allowed to have a defense attorney, the purpose was to insure that the accused got a fair trial and that they couldn't be kind of railroaded. It the hundreds of years since it has evolved to get them off at any cost. I am not going to debate the rights or wrongs of that. It would be useless. It is a practice established and accepted now.
HLN is not a station I watch,just as the National Inquirer is not a publication I read. But I do more reading than I do viewing TV.
I think all news media sensationalize too much.
Anyway, I have never had a problem with you and I look forward to getting more chuckles from your posts.
I said way up thread that I would try to limit my posts on this thread and I haven't kept my word very well. I'll not make that mistake again.
There will be no appeal in this case.
The only thing LE's have mentioned was an ongoing investigation in witness tampering which is a road to nowhere.
The department wants to move on. They have hundreds of cases to investigate and choose to use time and resources more effectively.
At a criminal level, this trial is complete.
And, the media inspired vultures continue their harrassment. Jennifer Ford, who shares the same name as Juror #3, is receiving phone calls and attacks on her FB page. She has found it necessary to hire a lawyer.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43718309...cksonville_fl/
Last edited by Giada; 07-13-2011 at 09:04 AM.
It's official: Tim Miller of EquiSearch served papers on Casey this morning at the jail for a $112,000 civil suit. Turns out they had to turn down other people requesting services while time was spent searching for Caylee.
Drew Peterson wants everyone to know he's happy with the verdict!
Uuugh.
I know nothing about Florida laws, but wouldn't the jury trying to change their decision now be considered tampered with (I don't know the correct terminology) because it's being made after the trial is over, and they have been exposed to outside views?
About her being sued, all she has to do is file for bankruptcy... She owns no land or personal property. Actually some of your property, if she did own something, can be protected by filing for bankruptcy, like your primary residence and vehicle.
Death Hag Extraordinaire
As I said, we are totally cool. It is just a difference of opinion.
So you served on a judicial review board, are you a lawyer or an advocate?
I am a sick puppy....woof woof!!!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Carping the living shit out of the Diem. - Me!!
http://www.pinterest.com/neilmpenny
Renowned Death Hag
there is some speculation that Casey has already left; someone FB said she went directly to the jail & checked & she wasn't there but some other people went directly to the site & typed her name in & she shows up.
Next rumor is that Casey will be going to Puerto Rico- Jose's hometown.
[SIGPIC]
Renowned Death Hag
I have no problem with this and actually think it is highly appropriate. She wasted their time/money under fraudulent circumstances.
Renowned Death Hag
Yes that is great that Tim Miller served Casey papers
Last edited by Tiffany; 07-13-2011 at 01:41 PM.
[SIGPIC]
Tim Miller filing a lawsuit has no bearing on Casey Anthony. By garnering national media attention, he will be raising funds for Equusearch.
This is one of several debts that will be discharged in bankruptcy court.
Renowned Death Hag
I have no doubt he'll never collect, but hopefully some other crazy person will think twice before wasting valuable time from people who do such a great service. They may have been able to locate other kids in the time they wasted, with Casey knowing what she did.
suerto ... I think the benefit is in the fund raising. I don't perceive this as a deterrent.
The penalty of having a name associated with this trial.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_897147.html
Senior Death Hag
Maybe she should move to Managua, where she would go unnoticed in such a place.
No I am not a lawyer, I served at both the local and state judicial review board. It was made up of just plain citizens to review, discuss and recommend ways to make the legal process work more uniformly and at its best. It was not a paid position. But it was extremely interesting and some good was achieved. There were attorneys and judges on the panel as well.
I'm a hound dog for activism and stuck my nose into most every way to be involved.I like being a servant to my community. Alas, the best most active part of my participation, especially the physical part is more in the past. Health considerations don't allow me to take the more physical parts, but that was a great love. My work in the civil rights movement is my proudest to date. What the jury did in the Anthony case is a drop in the bucket to what courts and the society of the South did to blacks.
I think peaceful decent is one of the strongest tools citizens have. I have tried to light the fire under my children, friends and associates to stand up and step out to support what they believe to be right. It was the words of Dr. King who originally inspired me to work against injustice wherever it is found. I admired him so much. Now I am reduced to just putting my money where my mouth is and engaging in a few debates on line. It's been an interesting and fun life.
Renowned Death Hag
If you meet the criteria it CAN.
http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/...lear-irs-debt/
Renowned Death Hag
Well I have waited a few days to comment but I just wanted to let everything sink in. I am very disappointed with this jury. They are idiots. It is not by any doubt, it's beyond a reasonable doubt. I agree with those who say this jury suffered the CSI effect. Most cases are not going to be tied up in a little bow like they are on TV. Not everything will be laid out and easy to see. That is why you have to use common sense. 2 + 2 still equals 4 even if no one specifically tells you that. I think this jury was wayyyyy to careful and therefore looked for any doubt, doubt that went way beyond common sense. I hope they are happy with themselves.
Renowned Death Hag
I guess stupid question here: can people who want to help out, donate money to Equuasearch?? Not to prevent Casey herself from paying; but because the whole case was "emotional" to you??? Or is that unethical for Equuasearch ?
[SIGPIC]
I am against 'Caylee's Law', and I'll tell you why. It could easily be used against innocent parents who lose a child through no fault of their own. If it becomes law that a child's death has to be reported within an hour, and a baby dies of SIDS during the night, the parents could be charged for not reporting the death in time, because they didn't discover the child is dead for four hours.
Also, forensic science cannot tell time of death that closely. There is no real difference between being dead 45 minutes, and dead 90 minutes.
The effect this law would have is to punish parents who are already suffering due to the loss of a child. Think it can't happen? There are at least two women in prison right now, here in the United States, for having had a miscarriage. They have been charged for murder, after having lost a baby in what is likely to have been beyond their control. So don't think the law won't be misused. It will.
Renowned Death Hag
I'm sure Texas Equusearch would welcome ANY donations to further its work. Just because someone felt emotion about the Anthony case, why would their contribution even remotely be thought of as "unethical"?
Renowned Death Hag
ohhh okay thank you. "Unethical" for them to accept money when its not coming from the appropriate person
[SIGPIC]
I have to disagree with you...Caylee's law is not that parents must report a child's death in a certain time frame, it's that they must report a child missing within 24 hours...to me that can even a bit long, my child went "missing" for 20min one day and I was moments away from calling the police before we found her (asleep in a cuboard). It is beyond wrong that Casey did not report her daughter missing for a full month...she had something to do with Caylee's death. But back to the proposed law, you are right that SIDS and things happen and it can be hours before the parents know anything is wrong, but that's not a missing child case. This would be for people like Casey whom cannot necessarily be proven to have commited murder but don't seem to care that there child is gone. I don't see how this can have a negetive effect on good parents. No good, loving parent is going to wait more than 24 hours to report thier child missing.
Also, I could be wrong about reporting the child's death, but I don't think this law would be applied to people whose child died in the middle of the night. Any common sense person will realize that if a child dies unknowingly in the middle of the night the parents won't realize it til morning. To me, so long as the parents report it first thing that doesn't constitute any question of parent neglect...that would come from the actual cause of death. JMO
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
