Casey Anthony Bombshell!

donna723

Well-Known Member
I would hate to have to serve on a death penalty jury too, but as a juror you have to follow the law and if that's what the law stipulates, that's what you would have to do. To be able to do that though, I would have to be so sure that I would never have any lingering doubts about it, no "what if's".

I've been called for jury selection several times but never picked for a jury because I worked for the Dept. of Correction. But I can't imagine having the responsibility of someone's life in my hands! I came very close to being picked for one case though and I was just praying they would excuse me and luckily they did. Our town is so little that it's almost impossible to find jurors who don't know the defendent somehow and this was a trial for serious drug charges against a boy that had gone all through school with my son. I remember him as a little five year old at kindergarten registration! His wife was in the courtroom and their year old baby, and his grandma that raised him was there, the grandma that worked at the elementary school and was known and loved by all the kids. Before the jury selection even started he changed his mind and decided to plead guilty so there was no trial, and he was given several years in prison. Had there been a jury trial and had I been a part of it, I guess I could have done what I needed to but I would have hated it! I can't even imagine how it must be to be a juror on a death penalty case!
 

DammitJanet

Well-Known Member
Back in the mid 80's, I got a summons for jury duty for the first case in SC that was taken to trial without a body. Unfortunately for me, the summons came in the mail while I was out of town and I missed my big chance of a lifetime! Drat that trip to my grandmother.

I heard one of the news commentators talking about this Anthony trial the other night and they said something that made total sense in regard to why we are all so enthralled with watching it. Caylee looks like all of our kids...she could be any of our daughters, granddaughters, nieces, neighbors kids, etc. We all know a Caylee. We dont want to have an almost 3 year old little girl dead at the hands of her mother. It just doesnt sit.

I personally am enraged ever since the opening of the defense because of the whole idea that sexual abuse can cause you to be this heinous monster. It just cuts me in half. I have lived it and it is so personal to me that that lying Jose (now that I know he was a difficult child, I know why I cant stand him!) wants to say she is so unstable that she is just a liar due to abuse but otherwise she is aok...BS!.. makes me want to vomit!

I rant at the TV probably hours on end each day. There is no sympathy from me for Cacey or Biaz.
 

klmno

Active Member
DJ I get where you are coming from. I am somewhere in between as far as the sexual abuse, but lean more toward what you're saying. To me, she very well might have been abused- I don't know- but if she was, I can see that making her a habitual liar. BUT I can't see where her being a habitual liar excuses her murdering her daughter or covering up something to this extent. That is the part that doesn't add up to me. So I still go back to- ok- maybe that's why she's a difficult child- does that make this any less of a crime? I mean, if it made her completely psychotic, then they should have gone for the insanity defense but they didn't. WTH does explaining why she's a liar have to do with getting her off for killing her daughter? There are a lot of liars- my son being one- that has nothing to do with a murderer of one's own child, in my humble opinion. All they are doing with that is trying to explain WHY she lied about it. Whoopee.
 

Marguerite

Active Member
I'm not positive about this since I'm not an expert, but I would think that if Caylee had vomited in the trunk of the car, samples of the carpet would have indicated that.

Not if her mouth and nose had been stopped up with duct tape. Only if vomit got out onto the car would it have been there to be detected.

We haven't had the death penalty in Australia for 50 years or more. I remember the last man hanged - Ronald Ryan. Allegedly a cop killer, a jail break he organised led to one of his group escaping, shooting a cop. He got done for it, because it was his plan to escape. Other than that - he was not a killer, although he WAS an armed robber. I remember thinking at the time, simply because the man who was killed was a cop, should not make the sentence harsher. It's like saying that non-cops are lesser people.

We have since had cases in Australia where the death penalty would have been welcomed. We have a number of nasty sociopaths in our maximum security prisons. We even have a couple of prisons built specifically to house "the worst of the worst". We have a specific category of sentencing, based on "truth in sentencing" where "never to be released" means just that. These people (not all male) make Charles Manson look like a choir boy. Most, if not all of these are people who deliberately went hunting to kidnap, torture and kill (often also raping violently, repeatedly and nastily) purely for the thrill of it. A lot of the victims were children but a number were women walking home from the train after work. Some of our names (Google them if you want) - Martin Bryant, Katherine Knight, Ivan Milat. The killers of Anita Cobby and Janine Balding. Some of these killers were scarcely more than kids, but would have got the death penalty if we still had it.

One issue with our "worst of the worst" - if they were free, would they kill again? Absolutely. Delightedly. With pleasure. Now apply this measure to this case.

When society kills its killers, who is worst?

Also, looking at the financial side - yes, it costs money to keep them locked up and alive. But the continued appeals against the death penalty also cost a lot of money, and time, and angst. While these people live, they can and sometimes have, provided new information about old crimes. Sometimes they provide information about new crimes committed by others. But always, they are a deterrent to other criminals, as much as such nasties can be deterred. I personally feel, having lived in times when we have had both options - this way is working better as a deterrent, and as a society I feel we are 'cleaner' now. Those languishing in prison do not have the glamour of being young, wild and desirable in any way. It is hard to be admired by other inmates when you are wrinkled and drooling... they languish in the "big house" and are well cared for physically. They get the same good health care that the rest of Australia gets. So they don't get to die young. They get to grow OLD. They are also watched to make sure they don't kill themselves. Can't be having that either.

This works. It's not glamorous. We do have our very small subset of idiots who hero-worship the nasties, but it is not something that is in mainstream society. You would get the idiot hero worshippers anyway, who worship these guys dead or alive. The death penalty makes no difference.

In this case - I think there can be sufficient doubt cast on premeditation as well as soundness of mind, to not score the death penalty in this trial. If the death penalty is handed down, I think there will be BIG grounds for appeal. Not tat I'm saying she didn't do it or deserves leniency or anything - but "beyond reasonable doubt" has to apply ten times stronger, when the death penalty is on the table. And a lot of what is happening in this trial, is serving to undermine that. Even broadcasting the trial and groups like us discussing it, are reducing the chances of a fair re-trial, should it ever be needed. Too many people know about it and have an opinion.

If the death penalty were taken off the table, I think you might even get a confession, eventually. But she is in a fight for her life right now, and that is all-consuming.

Marg
 

klmno

Active Member
I don't really think she'll get the death penalty.

But going back to whether or not Caylee vomitted- if the duct tape was placed on her before she vomitted, then she was alive when she vomitted and what does that say? Unless you are referring to the excretions that come out after death......I am trying hard not to become so consumed in this case that I get caught up in details that give me horrid nightmares so it's ok if I don't get an answer to that.

They can say Casey is sitting there stone-faced but to me, she looks soo freaking angry anytime testimony is givein against her, I can't believe it. She just looks like a very angry person anytime things aren't going her way, to me.
 
H

HaoZi

Guest
Do you have to be convicted of first degree murder to get the death penalty in FL?
Yes. It's not an option for second degree, manslaughter, etc. There are other crimes also subject to capital punishment in Florida as well.
Florida - First-degree murder; felony murder; capital drug trafficking; capital sexual battery
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/crimes-punishable-death-penalty

If the death penalty were taken off the table, I think you might even get a confession, eventually.
If she had taken the deal and pled guilty that alone would take it off the table. She would get a life sentence instead.

Also in Florida the judge can override the jury (not a common occurrence, but available). So the jury can decide that she's guilty and they want to give her a life sentence, the judge can decide she deserves death instead, or vice versa.

On the financial side, death penalty cases cost far more than a life sentence because of so many lawyer hours that go into appeal after appeal (not the only cost, but this alone beats out the cost of a life sentence even if they live to be 100).
 
Last edited:
Top