March 28, 2024, 10:48:34 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: NEW CHILD BOARD CREATED IN THE POLITICAL SECTION FOR THE 2016 ELECTION
 
   Home   Help Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Caylee Marie Anthony - JUSTICE DENIED #2 7/09 - 7/10/11  (Read 318006 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
trimmonthelake
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 43428



« Reply #220 on: July 09, 2011, 03:48:03 PM »

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/how-a-casey-anthony-interview-209342#comments
How a Casey Anthony Interview Could Backfire on News Orgs
7:36 PM 7/8/2011 by Marisa Guthrie

"It’s complicated any time you’re paying somebody who everybody thinks is a killer,” says one booker.

Three days after being acquitted of capital murder charges in the 2008 death of her two-year-old daughter Caylee Anthony, Casey Anthony is officially a pariah.
 ::snipping2::
Logged

  ~241~ "The Longer You Love,The Longer You Live,The Stronger You Feel,The More You Can Give."
~ Peter Frampton
theboyzmom
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3465


Brandi is making sure I get around!


WWW
« Reply #221 on: July 09, 2011, 03:51:02 PM »

A jury is a body of persons selected according to the law and sworn to inquire into or determine the facts on a question or questions --- When the facts are added up in this case, I just don't see how common sense did not prevail.   That is what is making people angry--the obvious was ignored.   It is truly frustrating. 

The jury system is the best in the world and accepting a jury's verdict is what we have to do, but this verdict seemed non-sensical to the max.  The Prosecution presented a fine & intelligent case.  The Defense, on the other hand, was chaotic, sensate, and goofy.    Wondering about jury rigging isn't all that much of a leap, in my view.
In my long post on page 2 of this thread, there are links to arguments on the part of certain proponents of jury nullification who assert that violating the juror's oath is acceptable or justifiable perjury, or that the oath is taken under duress and is therefore invalid, or that the oath is illegally given or unconstitutional and is therefore moot.

So some people who endorse JN feel that the oath is meaningless and that their purpose or right to exercise their perceived constitutional 'power' outweighs the little white lie, or forgivable perjury of violating the jurors' oath.

Here is a snippet, but the question of whether it is illegal or unconscionable to violate the juror's oath is discussed in more detail at the link:

"If the wording of the oath poses some conflict with the jury's constitutional prerogative to nullify, it is clear which one must yield the right of way. ..."  http://www.lawandliberty.org/jurynul2.htm


Most JN proponents would take offense at the implication that they are not obeying instructions. Rather, the constitutional power you speak of is the power to keep the government in check. That is the duty of a jury. It is not to get guilty people off the hook - rather it is nullify (or cancel) the laws that do not comport with the Constitution or when a prosecutor fails to charge correctly. JN is very important in today's world as the government, in many cases, has taken to working as if someone is guilty of something so we will charge them with something to put them in jail. It sounds like a noble idea but I strongly believe that charges should match crimes. Take the Leona Helmsley case - she paid 100% of her taxes (in fact more than she should have) but she did not designate them on the right line on the tax forms - so the government charged her with tax fraud - to me that is wrong. If you do not pay your taxes or try to defraud it is one thing, but to pay the right amount and have an accountant screw up and then you go to jail is WRONG.
Logged

We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still. - John Stuart Mill On Liberty, 1859
- George Bernard Shaw
pharlap
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3289



« Reply #222 on: July 09, 2011, 03:53:10 PM »

925,000 and counting............................. an angelic monkey

http://www.change.org/petitions/create-caylees-law?utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition&utm_term=own_wall
Logged

CA = Albatross     Oh no "the fog"           
trimmonthelake
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 43428



« Reply #223 on: July 09, 2011, 03:53:39 PM »

http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anthony_trial/casey-anthony-cash-trial/story?id=14035804
Casey Anthony and Others May Cash in on the Trial, Incensing the Public
By OLIVIA KATRANDJIAN
July 9, 2011

Logged

  ~241~ "The Longer You Love,The Longer You Live,The Stronger You Feel,The More You Can Give."
~ Peter Frampton
pharlap
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3289



« Reply #224 on: July 09, 2011, 04:05:58 PM »

For some reason I can't put up a post in PA and NJersey for caylee's law...both states have said, fueled by verdict anger, push for 'Caylee's Law' starts in Pa., N.J.

So what do I do with the link? and article?

 
Logged

CA = Albatross     Oh no "the fog"           
klaasend
Administrator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 74276



WWW
« Reply #225 on: July 09, 2011, 04:12:41 PM »

For some reason I can't put up a post in PA and NJersey for caylee's law...both states have said, fueled by verdict anger, push for 'Caylee's Law' starts in Pa., N.J.

So what do I do with the link? and article?

 

You need to start a new topic which will open the screen where you will have to put a subject, then you can post the link in the comment section just like a regular post.
Logged
TexasBarMom
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 491


Me Oh My


« Reply #226 on: July 09, 2011, 04:28:52 PM »

From FB - This is a supposed interview with a second cousin of Cindy's in Texas who says that George killed her and there's proof? Hmmm.... I have no idea about the validity of it, but my question is if there is proof then why wasn't it given to police. This woman says Casey and Cindy may be coming to Texas.
http://krbe.com/portals/1/audi​o/rrshow/interviews/070611_CAS​EYANTHONY_familymember.mp3
Logged
trimmonthelake
Monkey Mega Star
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 43428



« Reply #227 on: July 09, 2011, 04:29:56 PM »

http://drdrew.blogs.cnn.com/
Video with Tracy McLaughlin
Inside The Anthony Home
July 9th, 2011
01:59 PM ET
Logged

  ~241~ "The Longer You Love,The Longer You Live,The Stronger You Feel,The More You Can Give."
~ Peter Frampton
pharlap
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3289



« Reply #228 on: July 09, 2011, 04:32:41 PM »

From FB - This is a supposed interview with a second cousin of Cindy's in Texas who says that George killed her and there's proof? Hmmm.... I have no idea about the validity of it, but my question is if there is proof then why wasn't it given to police. This woman says Casey and Cindy may be coming to Texas.
http://krbe.com/portals/1/audi​o/rrshow/interviews/070611_CAS​EYANTHONY_familymember.mp3


OMG......got to be a joke.........
NO one on earth is going to believe that...
How stupid do they think the american public is??????
Get out of town.......
 
Logged

CA = Albatross     Oh no "the fog"           
beth1970
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 925


« Reply #229 on: July 09, 2011, 04:32:59 PM »

Is it possible that Baez worked with ABC for the first juror interview in the event of a not guilty verdict?  The juror(s) were told (obviously I'm reaching here - but could still happen) after selected but before sequestered. That "trip" and others were in the back of their minds.  Or even someone working for ABC etc got to a juror.  Let's face it.  An interview with a "Not Guilty" juror pulls alot more viewers than a "Guilty" one.  I think someone should look into the time they were selected to the time they were sequestered.  Heck look into them all - bank accounts & everything.

Been working on it since I brought it up last night.

as soon as my munchkin goes to sleep tonight I'm going to hit the web too Titch!  What are your thoughts?  Do you think the media got to them before they were sequestered? Baez?  Who else could have?  The Anthonys?
Logged
klaasend
Administrator
Monkey Mega Star
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 74276



WWW
« Reply #230 on: July 09, 2011, 04:34:04 PM »

Unreal
Logged
pharlap
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3289



« Reply #231 on: July 09, 2011, 04:34:19 PM »

From FB - This is a supposed interview with a second cousin of Cindy's in Texas who says that George killed her and there's proof? Hmmm.... I have no idea about the validity of it, but my question is if there is proof then why wasn't it given to police. This woman says Casey and Cindy may be coming to Texas.
http://krbe.com/portals/1/audi​o/rrshow/interviews/070611_CAS​EYANTHONY_familymember.mp3


OMG......got to be a joke.........
NO one on earth is going to believe that...
How stupid do they think the american public is??????
Get out of town.......
 

Another thing, George can be arrested then for murder......
 
Logged

CA = Albatross     Oh no "the fog"           
pharlap
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 3289



« Reply #232 on: July 09, 2011, 04:36:51 PM »

That's one way of getting rid of George so ca doesn't have to give him half of everything when he's in jail and ca divorces him.................
 
Logged

CA = Albatross     Oh no "the fog"           
Titch
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 4433



« Reply #233 on: July 09, 2011, 04:37:49 PM »

Oh, and something else that sets my hinkey meter off about these jurors is the fact that the jurors didn't want to give a press conference immediately following the verdict! Why? The media room was all set up for them and included numbered & named seats for certain media that they approved of! We were told it's bc they didn't feel safe, or they were shaken & had to calm down, or JBP didn't think it was a good idea bc of the public opinion. My question is this: I understand some jurors may not have wanted to come forward, but the jurors that didn't mind going on national news stations immediately following the verdict didn't seem to have a problem...so...Why couldn't those jurors, including the alternates, go to the media room and allow the jurors that wanted to remain anonymous just go home?

Was it because they knew they weren't getting paid if they did the interview in the court's media room instead of by the various media networks?
Logged
beth1970
Monkey Junky Jr.
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 925


« Reply #234 on: July 09, 2011, 04:39:35 PM »

30 minutes ago, on HLN, Jane Velez said 99% of the anger is over, except for a few wing nuts.

I resent that, plus, she is just plain wrong. If I wasn't angry, I would not be signing petitions, researching legal issues, contact state officials, on and on.

It seems like every time she comes on she says something stupid and I don't know why. Vinnie Politan tries to coral her, but he's a nice guy, trying to walk a tight rope, so he can't just say, "Jane, you don't know what you're talking about."

Whew!   

There is a thing called free speech in this country. The MSM does not tell us when to begin or stop our outrage. Unlike the MSM, this is not about ratings. This is about justice for little Caylee, who got none from a Ship of Fools.

The anger we have is not to attack jurors physically, it is it get justice and be pissed that people charged with that duty did not feel it was their job to do so.

JVM can put a sock in it. Go about your sensationsit coverage of the next case ... WE THE PEOPLE will work for Justice for Caylee.


It would appear to me that these 12 jurors who did not learn how to connect the dots in kindergarden are the types of people manufacturers have in mind when they put labels on my products like my hair dryer that says do not use in shower or my hot iron that says do not insert in any orifices, now I know there are really people out there who need these type of instructions, too bad the judge didn't realize that as well. JMO
too funny 
Logged
TexasBarMom
Scared Monkey
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 491


Me Oh My


« Reply #235 on: July 09, 2011, 04:41:34 PM »

From FB - This is a supposed interview with a second cousin of Cindy's in Texas who says that George killed her and there's proof? Hmmm.... I have no idea about the validity of it, but my question is if there is proof then why wasn't it given to police. This woman says Casey and Cindy may be coming to Texas.
http://krbe.com/portals/1/audi​o/rrshow/interviews/070611_CAS​EYANTHONY_familymember.mp3


OMG......got to be a joke.........
NO one on earth is going to believe that...
How stupid do they think the american public is??????
Get out of town.......
 

Another thing, George can be arrested then for murder......
 

yeh, the word "incredible" comes to mind.
Like I said before, they need to GIVE IT UP! Now apparently Cindy has dragged some more family members into this poo....
Logged
ISpy
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 1877



« Reply #236 on: July 09, 2011, 04:44:54 PM »

-- Long Post Warning -- Disclaimer: No disrespect intended toward any political beliefs.

Everyone is puzzling over the odd remarks being made by jurors who have spoken out so far.  Were they stupid?  What can explain their baffling verdict that flew in the face of all common sense, the polls, the pundits' predictions, etc..?  Was there juror misconduct?  A planted "stealth juror" or two?  Jury tampering?  Why did Baez seem so chipper when the jury was sent to deliberate, when he should have been shaking in his shoes?  And so upbeat when court reconvened to hear their verdict?

Well, regarding the "Runaway Jury" Theory, and whether the jurors' actions will be, or should be, investigated, it really stands out to me that the stated goal of the DT was to "save Casey's life:"
**SNIPPED***
Desi-I'm reading you loud and clear. Someone needs to investigate who knows who /who had contact with whom prior to jury selection and after selection, but prior to sequestration. Someone needs to investigate which way our jurors were leaning prior to being chosen, particularly Russell Huekler.  Let me clearly preface this by saying I am not accusing Mr. Huekler of anything.  I am saying that is it is not unheard of in educational circles for an emotionally vested educator to hijack a public event (such as a parade, Veteran's Memorial service, jury duty, court case, etc.) to further their cause or to provoke "public discourse" on a controversial subject.  It is also not unheard for sympathetic supporters of a cause to derail a case. Our constitution needs to be amended to include a law binding jurors to obey judicial instructions to the jury, complete with long-ranging penalties for failure to do so.  The Constitutional delegates, placing a premium on personal honor and integrity themselves, failed to foresee future generations lacking those same qualities (specifically in this case, future jurists). They incorrectly assumed that those same societal values would be taught by one generation to the next. The right to be tried by a jury of one's peers never included those peers deciding to let the offender go free simply because jury members did not want to be inconvenienced.  That's my opinion.
Logged

Forecast for the Day:
God is reigning and the Son is shining.
ISpy
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 1877



« Reply #237 on: July 09, 2011, 04:48:06 PM »

Desi- This was an A+ post!  Thank your for "doing your homework".  It is a pleasure reading your contributions, as always.

Sorry everybody for the drive-by post.  Just had a few minutes to check in.  I look forward to reading you later!  Have a good afternoon!
Logged

Forecast for the Day:
God is reigning and the Son is shining.
Ono
Monkey All Star Jr.
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8933



« Reply #238 on: July 09, 2011, 04:49:30 PM »

A jury is a body of persons selected according to the law and sworn to inquire into or determine the facts on a question or questions --- When the facts are added up in this case, I just don't see how common sense did not prevail.   That is what is making people angry--the obvious was ignored.   It is truly frustrating. 

The jury system is the best in the world and accepting a jury's verdict is what we have to do, but this verdict seemed non-sensical to the max.  The Prosecution presented a fine & intelligent case.  The Defense, on the other hand, was chaotic, sensate, and goofy.    Wondering about jury rigging isn't all that much of a leap, in my view.
In my long post on page 2 of this thread, there are links to arguments on the part of certain proponents of jury nullification who assert that violating the juror's oath is acceptable or justifiable perjury, or that the oath is taken under duress and is therefore invalid, or that the oath is illegally given or unconstitutional and is therefore moot.

So some people who endorse JN feel that the oath is meaningless and that their purpose or right to exercise their perceived constitutional 'power' outweighs the little white lie, or forgivable perjury of violating the jurors' oath.

Here is a snippet, but the question of whether it is illegal or unconscionable to violate the juror's oath is discussed in more detail at the link:

"If the wording of the oath poses some conflict with the jury's constitutional prerogative to nullify, it is clear which one must yield the right of way. ..."  http://www.lawandliberty.org/jurynul2.htm


These are my opinions:

Why take an oath if it doesn't mean anything to the oath-taker.
Laws are crafted and passed in legislatures--state and federal. 

To deliberately falsely take an oath is lying.
Laws should be obeyed unless/until newer laws are replaced.
Nobody is above the law---state or federal.
Logged
Titch
Monkey Junky
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 4433



« Reply #239 on: July 09, 2011, 04:51:17 PM »

Is it possible that Baez worked with ABC for the first juror interview in the event of a not guilty verdict?  The juror(s) were told (obviously I'm reaching here - but could still happen) after selected but before sequestered. That "trip" and others were in the back of their minds.  Or even someone working for ABC etc got to a juror.  Let's face it.  An interview with a "Not Guilty" juror pulls alot more viewers than a "Guilty" one.  I think someone should look into the time they were selected to the time they were sequestered.  Heck look into them all - bank accounts & everything.

Been working on it since I brought it up last night.

as soon as my munchkin goes to sleep tonight I'm going to hit the web too Titch!  What are your thoughts?  Do you think the media got to them before they were sequestered? Baez?  Who else could have?  The Anthonys?

My honest opinion, serious humble opinion, is that several advocates knew this would be a dp case. The media sensationalized this case and the public outcry was fierce. There were, still are, a ton of missing and/or murdered children, yet Caylee became the poster child. Because of how heinous the crime scene was, the dp was added. If the dp wasn't brought to the table, all these human rights groups & legal experts wouldn't have gotten involved to the extent that they did. I think it boils down to everything human rights. They do not believe in the dp no matter how horrific the murder. These activists believe the dp is murder, so they advocate against it.

I think there's more to Casey's dysfunction than what we've seen so far. This entire family gives me the heebie jeebies!  Monkey Devil!
Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Use of this web site in any manner signifies unconditional acceptance, without exception, of our terms of use.
Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC
 
Page created in 2.437 seconds with 22 queries.