Thursday, July 14, 2011

Can't prove innocence or guilt!

Here is a link to another juror interview, Jennifer Ford, Juror #3, and the basic message Ford leaves is "How can you punish someone if you don't know what they did?"  She said repeatedly that she didn't know that Casey was innocent, but the State did not prove she was guilty, and whatever bad behavior Casey exhibited, it is not evidence of guilt.  Ford also said that George did not help the State's case, and at one point she said he was dishonest.

Nancy Grace predicted that if any jurors speak out, they will do so only in delicately placed situations and will be given only soft-ball questions.  No they haven't been the kind of hateful pounding-on-the-table drills that drive people to suicide, so maybe that is what Grace meant by soft-ball questions.

I really feel for jurors in these high profile cases where they don't have solid evidence one way or another -- they truly can't determine if the person is guilty or innocent.  But in these situations, the Law and moral justice demands that they acquit.  For doing that, this jury has my utmost respect.

26 comments:

Burkey said...

The way that ended--with Ford saying that guilt must be proved in order to put someone to death--that is what resonates for me.

I'm wondering, everyone talks about Casey's behavior, but what about the little girl? Was there testimony or evidence about how she was feeling, behaving, during the months or weeks leading up to her disappearance? What did people observe about this little girl? Were they paying attention? How was her mood? Could she have been abused? Remember, abusers hide their abuse, and sometimes even close relatives cannot see it. A child, especially a child that young, does not know to tell someone----in fact, a child the age of 10, 11, 12, 13....they know too that they will not be believed if they accuse the person they depend upon for support of abuse.
Someone should really take a look at Caylee, and the thoughts and feelings of this young person during the last months of her life. Maybe that has been done, I don't know.

LA Curry said...

There wasn't any evidence of Caylee's thoughts and feelings during the last months of her life that I saw. I haven't seen any documents referring to anything like that either.

Both the prosecution and defense added the typical general statements about a normal, happy, and active little girl during their opening and closing, and some of those same general statements arose during some of the questioning of various witnesses, but that was all I saw while watching.

Sometimes the first indicator of a child being abused can be changes in their behavior or communication patterns, but other than a couple of references to Caylee being a "well behaved" little girl, there was no detailed testimony.

LA Curry said...

Marlene, I feel for the jury as well. I am glad that only one or two of the tv channels in our area has talking heads that continue to doubt and diss the Anthony jury and their verdict.

I keep seeing how these talking heads choose one or two of the Anthony juror's post trial interview comments and then proceed to make the claim that these jurors used those issues to arrive at their verdict. For example, the heads keep referring to what the jurors have stated they feel about George, or the lack of motive, or cause of death. The talking heads are playing on the juror's words and that just isn't right. There IS, in all probability, a difference on how those jurors personally felt about certain issues and what evidence (or lack of) those jurors used to weigh their decision.

I don't agree that there has to be a cause of death or a motive to find a murder took place under some circumstances...but, to tie one particular suspect to what the prosecution claimed was murder, I honestly believed all along that the prosecution needed to present much more evidence and they didn't do it. The jurors in the Anthony case followed the deliberation instructions and the law as far as I can see. They made the right legal decision.

After watching the testimony concerning "hair banding" in the Anthony case, I cannot help but wonder about that hair they claimed to find in the pliers that were located in the boat in the Peterson case. Was there any evidence of hair banding on that hair? Was it even tested for hair banding? I can't help but believe that if hair banding evidence would have been found in the Peterson case, it would have been testified to during Scott's trial and I do not recall that it was. Thanks in advance if anyone can answer.

One more thing that strikes me as pathetic is how some of the talking heads are continuing to make an issue of how the defense team celebrated the verdict in the Anthony case. I find their behavior even more pathetic in light of everything that happened following the verdict in the Peterson case. After the verdict in the Peterson case was reached, and after the sentence of death was announced, MANY of the public cheered outside the courthouse and the talking heads openly celebrated that verdict and sentence on the air.

Maybe it's just me but I would much rather celebrate a not guilty verdict that results in saving a life over a verdict that gives our legal system permission to take a life. It's a no brainer to me.

Jane said...

This is a link to another interview of Jennifer Ford by Gary Tuchman of CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/crime/2011/07/13/bts.tuchman.ford.juror.cnn?hpt=ju_t1

She says she does not believe the molestation charge. She does not believe the drowning story. She originally was one of the 6 people who voted for aggravated manslaughter.

She also says she could not get the image of what Baez said about George in his opening statement out of her mind.

And I'm afraid that this character assassination of George was believed by many people. Very unfortunate, IMO, because there is no evidence whatsoever that George had any involvement in what happened to his grandaughter.

LA Curry said...

I'd say they had as much evidence that George was involved in this death as they did evidence that Casey was involved in murdering her child. Casey and George were both lying at various times. Other than lying, what evidence did they have on anyone in particular? Lots of possible scenarios but nothing strong enough to send someone to death row.

It's just a good thing the jury took into consideration the evidence (or lack thereof) before reaching their verdict or we might possibly have another possible innocent person being sent to the death chamber.

Marlene Newell said...

The Prosecution was even forced to call Cindy a liar when she testified that she was the one that did the chloroform searches when her work records showed that she was at work.

I agree with La Curry -- there was not enough evidence against anyone to bring this case to trial, much less to seek the death penalty.

But I am lacking in critical information about the case, specifically when Casey moved out and allegedly brough Caylee with her. Did she just up and leave without saying anything to George and Cindy, did she move everything out? What was the explanation given for why she moved out?

Jane said...

Marlene,

This link to 31 days may answer some of your questions.

http://www.acandyrose.com/casey_anthony_31days-061608.htm

Marlene Newell said...

Thanks, Jane -- I read the first few days -- that says what Casey said for the move-out, that her parents were divorcing because George was cheating and that Cindy said Casey couldn't stay. IIRC, Casey said that the very first day.

But what did George and Cindy give as the reason for Casey/Caylee moving out?

I did note that Casey had some phone calls with both George and Cindy on that 1st day.

Also, did they obtain any Walmart surveillance video to back up the one witness who said he saw Casey and Caylee there, with Caylee apparently angry and walking about 10 feet behind Casey? I didn't see this guy's testimony.

The guy next door said...

This morning I logged on to check several websites that I follow requarding missing persons. One of the currently hot topics @one site is the Anthony case and the jury's verdict. It seems some would believe that Anthony should have been convicted on the Scott Peterson precedence alone,that being...odd behaviour is evidence of a crime.

"The state of Florida should have cited the Scott Peterson case among others" or "The cause of death is not necessary, if it was then Scott Peterson would be hopping around as a free man" or my favorite one so far is..."I bet Scott Peterson is kicking himself saying, I should have said Laci went fishing with me and she fell overboard and drowned" there are more, but they are so silly I only looked at 20 of the the most recent posts.

If odd behavior can be used in a court of law to convict a person of a crime then I should have been put in jail or hung a long time ago...just to be safe. I am odd, so now it seems by law I am or would be capable of being a criminal. I have a odd family and a odd cat,I drive a odd car,I sometimes say odd things,or sing odd songs,I have odd friends and we do odd things. Sometimes we go watch TV and the odd things that people do on it. I have worked lots of odd jobs, been the odd man out, and sometimes smell odd. I make odd Art out of odds and ends, I dont eat odd foods or wear odd clothes. My house is not as odd as the guy accross the street,or the other guy next door,or the one around the corner, that guy really is odd. At times I have been beaten by the odds or the odds where in my favor. Isn't that odd?

Would this a be a better world to live in if odd behaviour was defined and controlled by law? Once all of the odd people are jailed, and or put to death...those who are above being odd(try as I may I can't offer you a good sample of who that could be) would be able to sleep at night safe in the their odd visions of sugar plums dancing in their heads.

So ask yourself...am I odd? what kinds of odd behaviours do I project?

If you are saying to yourself that this Guy Next Door is odd, relax...its only a matter of time before they get me.

Marlene Newell said...

I don't blame anyone for being suspicious of Casey in this situation, or of Scott in his. The big problem is that suspicion MUST PRODUCE evidence, and that didn't happen in either case.

My involvement in the Anthony case is minutely minute in comparison to my involvement in Scott's case, but the big difference between the two that I can see is that there was exonerating evidence available to Scott's defense attorneys that they either did not discover or, knowing about it, did not bother to present. So Scott could have been proven factually innocent, whereas I don't know that it will ever be possible to prove Casey is factually innocent, unless someone else confesses.

Jane said...

Marlene, I guess that link doesn't give a very good picture of what happened on June 16 unless you go the depositions of George and Cindy Anthony; and the interview of Amy Huizenga on July 16. Casey lied about everything.

In this link you can type in a name or a topic and see the available material on this site:

http://www.thehinkymeter.com/casey-anthony-murder-trial/searchable-discovery/

Jane said...

Great post, Guy Next Door! Absolutely, there has to be something more than odd behavior to sentence a person to death. I actually don't think Scott Peterson's behavior was odd. He denied having an affair because he didn't want to upset family members unless it was absolutely necessary. He continued talking to Amber because she made him feel guilty. He showed emotion privately, but not publicly--what's wrong with that?

Marlene Newell said...

Jane, thanks for the link, but I don't want to get that involved in this case. Do you, or does someone, know off the top of their hat what George and Cindy said about why Casey moved out with Caylee? That's all I want to know, what reason they gave.

Jane said...

Marlene,
June 16- 12:50 p.m.
This is the last time Caylee is seen alive. (unless you believe the Walmart story which was around 4pm) Casey tells George she is going to work and will be working late, Caylee is going to the nanny’s and they are both going to spend the night at the nanny’s. Casey tells George she has already spoken with Cindy about it.

She didn't move out. She avoided coming home after June 16 unless it was to take gas cans or food from the house when her parents were not there.

Marlene Newell said...

Thanks, Jane.

Marlene Newell said...

Is this the first time that Casey has had someone else take care of Caylee besides herself, George, and Cindy?

Jane said...

No, I think she left her with other family members or babysitters a couple of times a week when George and Cindy weren't available. She had been telling them about Zanny and the other imaginary friends for at least a year.

Bruce Dombrowski said...

SO George anthonys behavior on the stand sent a bad vibe....but casey partying for 31 days knowing full well her baby was in a swamp, that behavior is "at best, questionable" ???? looking forward to the day when casy admits what she did to someone, and she will.....maybe then the baby will get justice...

Burkey said...

Peterson's behavior didn't seem that odd to me in context of what was happening. I think he talked to that woman because he was being frozen out by the people he had in common with Laci. That must have been really hard. Consider--now-I believe him innocent---consider how this would affect an innocent man. He loses his entire family. He has his own family, but he had adopted and moved to town with, and was trying to spend more time with his wife's family, as Grantski testified at the trial. I mean, he told this woman he'd recently met, in these conversations, that finding Laci was his priority. He might also have talked to her because he felt guilty for stringing her along. Who knows--I don't, but reading the transcripts of the conversations, she's the one who seems odd to me. Maybe because she's not being sincere, she's taping him, she's not alone with him as she's pretending to be, etc. Whatever.


Reading Bird's and Rocha's books, I thought both narrators' self-described behavior was odder than Scott's. I found myself really questioning the whole flirting-with-the-babysitter thing. And Bird was so pissed off at Scott's mother, it was like a big red flag all through the book. I remember she used a close-up photo of a locket that Scott's mother had which displayed a very old photo of her mother as a child in her father's arms. That she would publish this in her book seemed like an extremely hostile and invasive action to me. It must have been very hurtful.


The Guy Next Door is right. He really has honed in the essence of the thing: anyone can be portrayed as odd (dangerous). And since people distrust that which is different, it's a smear tactic that works well to convince people who are afraid or otherwise have been through severe trauma.

The fact that this Anthony family was in the process of disintigrating is an interesting new thing for me. I didn't know that. It seems doubtful to me that this didn't have an impact on what happened, whatever happened. Was this examined at the trial?
And, yeah, the partying bugged me..even though I didn't follow this, I couldn't help but feel really freaking disturbed at the long wait to report that child missing, and those wild photographs of Ms. Anthony out on the town. Even though I know, objectively, that photos can be misleading. As not-weird as the vibes are that I get from Peterson, the vibes are weird for me that I get (from afar) from Ms. Anthony. And that's just a purely subjective reaction. I also think the whole thing was nearly an exact duplicate of the vengeance-festival that the Peterson case was, and that's the only similarity that resonates for me. Different families, people, place, time, situation.
Really interesting discussion here..

Marlene Newell said...

Bruce, we don't know that Casey knew where Caylee was -- but yes, her behavior is questionable, even outrageous -- but it's not evidence. George gave bad vibes on the witness stand, but that's not evidence, either. I didn't hear anyone on this jury say they would have convicted George -- they said they didn't have the evidence to prove Casey guilty, and I heard at least one of them say that didn't mean they though she was innocent, they just couldn't convict her because there was no evidence she did anything to Caylee.

Relating this to Scott's case, I very srongly suspect the burglars are the ones responsible for Laci's demise, but I certainly wouldn't convict them based on the evidence I have -- it's just not enough. Suspicion yes, conviction No.

More people need to draw that line in the sand, and thankfully the Anthony jury was able to.

Jane said...

When would circumstantial evidence be strong enough to convict?

Marlene Newell said...

In my opinion, circumstantial evidence has to relate directly to the crime, and can't be inference on inference on inference.

Duct tape found on the nose/mouth
inference--cause of death

Duct tape found attached to hair
inference -- Duct tape must have been on the nose and mouth
inference -- duct tape on the nose and mouth must have caused the death

Some cases just can't be brought to trial because too many inferences are required to come to the desired conclusion.

Suppose she is guilty. Now that she's been acquitted, should evidence surface that proves she's guilty, she can't be retried.

Very bad judgment call to bring a case with such weak evidence to trial.

Bruce Dombrowski said...

Marlene, I think your giving too much credit to the burglars in scotts case, in my opinion, they are waaaaay too stupid to have committed that crime...sure can't wait to hear caseys explanation as to what happened that day..."i was there, caylee drowned, my dad yelled at me for letting her drown, then i went for a pedicure"

Marlene Newell said...

Stupid burglars are more likely to kill an intruder than smart burglars. They just lucked out that the responding officers/detectives fixated on Scott. Even stupid people sometimes get lucky.

Bruce Dombrowski said...

"Stupid burglars are more likely to kill an intruder than smart burglars. They just lucked out that the responding officers/detectives fixated on Scott. Even stupid people sometimes get lucky."

but can stupid burglars keep a pregnant woman hidden for months? then plant the body in the bay, sevral months after the baby is born?

Marlene Newell said...

Much easier than Scott Peterson could have done so -- no one was tailing the burglars, or having their girlfriends record their phone calls, or having their friends spying on them, or being surveilled and wiretapped.

The evidence is definitive that Conner didn't die on Dec 23 or 24, or probably for that matter anytime in December. So the odds are someone OTHER than Scott Peterson had her alive somewhere, and the burglars didn't have to outsmart anyone because no one was looking at them.

As far as putting the bodies in the Bay -- again, no smarts needed there. The whole of America, and much of the rest of the planet, knew where Scott went fishing, no one was tailing the burglars or any of their associates, so it would be VERY easy for them to put the bodies where they needed to be.

And of course we know that Pearce had a car, and we know that Todd/Pearce knew someone that had a van. And we know that 3 burglars haven't even been identified yet. And we know that Pearce was out on bail in short pretty order.

So, none of this takes any smarts -- it just takes being lucky enough to have the cops glued on another suspect.