For those watching the Casey A. trial.....

Discussion in 'The Watercooler' started by klmno, Jun 13, 2011.

  1. klmno

    klmno Active Member

    Is there someone online who is really keeping up with this well that I can PM and ask a detailed question that might be a bit too graphic for public view? I'm wondering why the prosecution presented something a certain way and it's driving me crazy! It's about the duct tape.
     
  2. Nancy

    Nancy Well-Known Member Staff Member

    I have been watching it every day. Not sure I can answer your question but I'll give it a try.

    Nancy
     
  3. HaoZi

    HaoZi Guest

    You can PM me, too. I'm not watching it just following it here and there, but I've worked in the industry when I lived in FL and I've seen some pretty graphic stuff so you won't shock me with your question.
     
  4. klmno

    klmno Active Member

    OK- I have PMd- thanks!
     
  5. Malika

    Malika Well-Known Member

    Hope you got your answer, klmno! 'Fraid I wasn't much good to you... By the way, I didn't find your question very graphic so I feel you could post it openly without offending/upsetting anyone :)
     
  6. HaoZi

    HaoZi Guest

    klmno, continuing on earlier convo, it will be interesting to see how long the jury deliberates.
     
  7. Star*

    Star* call 911........call 911

    Is this the new post for starting on the DEFENSE end of this trial?
     
  8. Malika

    Malika Well-Known Member

    lol. I think we could do with that! In terms of the trial, to restate the obvious that has already been stated a thousand times: the purpose of a trial is to decide on someone's innocence or guilt based on the evidence presented. On that basis, there is even a possibility that she could be acquitted, though I think it unlikely to happen. The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming. I think it does present a picture that is beyond reasonable doubt. But still none of it specifically and irrefutably (now I sound like a lawyer:) ) ties CASEY to the death
     
  9. DammitJanet

    DammitJanet Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Thats why they call it circumstantial.

    They dont have to have a smoking gun.

    If you have put a full glass of water in a room, locked the door, walked away. You have one key and your spouse has one key. You come back to the room and the glass is empty. You didnt drink the water but you didnt see anyone go into the room. Now circumstantial evidence would lead us to believe that unless your spouse tells you that he has lost his key, he is the one who went in the room to drink that water.
     
  10. HaoZi

    HaoZi Guest

    No, I was continuing the convo she and I were having in PM.

    Casey had opportunity and means, if the prosecution reasonably establishes motive of any type plus the evidence they do have, that pitted against how wishy-washy the defense has been will likely land a guilty verdict. In criminal cases it's "beyond reasonable doubt," which is not the same thing as "beyond shadow of a doubt" - they are two very different burdens of proof.

    With enough "reasonable proof" you can convict of murder without a body (difficult, but it has been done).
     
  11. DDD

    DDD Well-Known Member

    The most interesting thing today, to me, was the Jury asking to see evidence. As soon as I heard that I thought "how to heck can the Jury decide they want to see anything" because in the "admonitions" (plus my Fl. Juror experience) there is no communication about the trail allowed until they are in the jury room and have been fully instructed. Very weird. DDD
     
  12. klmno

    klmno Active Member

    Well, I've been trying to watch HLN to see what I missed today but all I can see is that they put Cindy on the stand again and the the tatoo guy. What did they ask Cindy about today? Did I miss anything else "big"?
     
  13. donna723

    donna723 Well-Known Member

    I couldn't watch all of it because I had to watch it on the computer and my internet kept going in and out. But from what I could tell, they were just asking Cindy about the laundry bags, and a few other pieces of evidence, and about the duct tape, etc. And they were asking her about what length her hair was at certain times, and Casey's hair and Caylee's, and asking if she or Casey had any processes done on their hair like color, etc. at different times.

    I didn't get to see the tattoo guy at all but I think they were asking him what her mood was when she got her tattoo, after Caylee was already dead, and he said she seemed normal, happy. At least that's what it said on the website I looked at.
     
  14. HaoZi

    HaoZi Guest

    Many times now a jury is allowed to ask questions for clarification, this is more common with the highly scientific nature of evidence these days. They're also allowed to examine the evidence (within reason) because they're basing so much on physical evidence. To do less would be to shirk their duties as jurors unless they were fully satisfied with everything they were shown and fully understood it.
     
  15. Nancy

    Nancy Well-Known Member Staff Member

    The tatoo guy knew her for seven years and she never said anything to him about her daughter. He said she seemed happy and upbeat. They ordered pizza after and ate together. She called the next week to make an appointment for another tatoo but I had to leave then and never found out if she got it, I don't think so. The tatoo says "beautiful life" in Italian.

    I was surprised to see the defense didn't move for a mistrial when the jury asked to see the evidence. I believe they asked after they came back from a recess which means they talked about this among themselves. If they had questions they are suppose to ask in open court, they are not allowed to go back to their jury room and talk and come back and ask. Usually the judge will ask if the jurors have any questions before he releases them for the day. Just another appeal point.

    Nancy
     
  16. HaoZi

    HaoZi Guest

    http://www.floridabar.org/TFB/TFBRe...256B29004BF892/$FILE/Criminal.pdf?OpenElement
     
  17. Nancy

    Nancy Well-Known Member Staff Member

    OK I guess that answers that!

    Nancy
     
  18. DammitJanet

    DammitJanet Well-Known Member Staff Member

    Very interesting on that Haozi...I had that question to as to how they got to ask about the evidence in open court in the middle of the trial when they werent supposed to be discussing the case with each other. I would understand if they said..A juror wants to see the piece but they said THE jury. Or maybe that is just the way the judge worded it. Who knows.

    I know years ago when I was on a little jury, we werent even allowed to come back and ask a question about some evidence and because of that a defendant walked.
     
  19. HaoZi

    HaoZi Guest

    That's why FL rules of procedure put the question through the judge, and then the juror asking it is not identified. I think the juror sends just the question, no name or anything. Florida is one of the few states that does it this way.
    Far as I know jurors are expected to discuss the case with each other to reach a unanimous verdict, just that said discussion is only to happen in the jury room. There's also extra rules and allowances in death penalty cases, because of the possible sentence.
     
  20. DDD

    DDD Well-Known Member

    I guess the semantics of it got me. Like Janet it sounded like the Jury decided that they wanted to review that as opposed to a Juror. One of the hardest parts of Jury duty is you really feel frustrated because you can't discuss or comment on the evidence. The tension just builds and builds. I can't imagine how hard it must be when the trail lasts for six or eight weeks. One weeks was stressful!DDD
     
Loading...