Comments on: Casey Anthony Fallout: Details On Juror Silence Bill

By: David Huie Green

David Huie Green — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 15:26:56 +0000

REGARDING:
“Casey goes free without so much as a slap on the wrist”

If it’s any consolation, at least she spent three years in jail awaiting trial. That put a real crimp in her partying and may have saved three more children from being born and abused in the interim.

David trying to comfort the disappointed

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:03:29 +0000

This bill protects jurors like these-who were obviously way over their heads-from the public outcry. Nobody should profit from this child’s death. But on the other hand, the attitude that people should have blind faith in the jury system, not criticize jurors and treat them as if they could do no wrong is just plain dangerous! So it’s nice that they want a law to protect the future jurors from the public – but who is working to protect the future Caylees from jurors like these? This jury FAILED. The system FAILED. Somebody has to look at this travesty, tell the truth about it and try to figure out what needs to be corrected so it doesn’t continue to happen. It was Casey’s responsibility to love and protect this child. Caylee is dead. Casey goes free without so much as a slap on the wrist for ANY responsibility in her daughter’s death and /or leaving her to rot in a swamp. There was absolutely no justice done in this case. None.

By: David Huie Green

David Huie Green — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 20:18:32 +0000

REGARDING:
“The case was a slam dunk. The partying, keeping the baby away from the grandparents, lying to detectives, living with the boyfriend all of a sudden, the tattoo, everything found with the baby’s skeleton came from Casey’s house.”

I figure she probably DID kill her kid, but let’s be honest.

Going to a party is not proof of murder. Women frequently go to parties, often leaving their children unattended.

Keeping children away from grandparents is not proof of murder. Women frequently keep their children away from the grandparents either because they don’t trust the grandparents or because they are trying to manipulate them to do something for them.

Lying to detectives is not proof of murder. Just about every time there’s a shooting or any crime, the people around swear to the detectives that they didn’t see or hear anything. They either don’t trust the police or they DO trust the guilty to punish them for ratting them out. It doesn’t mean they committed murder themselves.

Shacking up is not proof of murder. How do you think the kid got there in the first place?

Even finding the remains of a dead body is not proof of murder or that a particular person committed that murder. Sometimes people die by accident, sometimes others actually committed the murder.

Again, I imagine she committed murder against her own child. I IMAGINE she did. I don’t know for sure. That she is a sorry excuse for a mother or that she covered up the death might be a slam dunk, but that wasn’t the charge.

David for truth

By: SittingInShock

SittingInShock — Sun, 17 Jul 2011 17:01:04 +0000

I personally feel the jurors in the Casey Anthony case did not do their job. I have said from the time they made their verdict, after a period of jaw dropping awe, that they need to be more educated. The case was a slam dunk. The partying, keeping the baby away from the grandparents, lying to detectives, living with the boyfriend all of a sudden, the tattoo, everything found with the baby’s skeleton came from Casey’s house. For all of you George Anthony haters, George did not have had motive, nor the means to dispose of the body. Remember, Casey had her car away from everyone for 31+ days. Caseys phone records showed that as soon as George went to work on June 16th, Casey returned to the Anthony home for several hours. That is the day that the defense themselves had claimed the baby died. I think Orange County had everything necessary to prosecute that girl. This was a case of total mis-justice here!!

By: ccl

ccl — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 17:21:18 +0000

If jurors are paid with taxpayer funds (and that is how they are usually compensated) , they should not be privileged to any special considerations. Their names and other information should be public . They knew they were going to be watched, every day of this high-profile tragedy., along with the attorneys, judge and the “defendant.” I’m sure they had the opportunity to decline jury duty, even if it was not a legitimate reason.

By: David Huie Green

David Huie Green — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 16:31:43 +0000

regarding:
” YOU DO NOT NEED A CAUSE OF DEATH FOR A MURDER CONVICTION. ENOUGH CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. YOU DON’T EVEN NEED A BODY”

A jury needs what a jury decides it needs. Nobody can tell the jury what to decide or you don’t have a jury; you have a rubber stamp. It’s easier to convince a jury a person is dead if you can show a dead body. It’s easier to convince them they were murdered if you can show how they died.

They don’t have to make me or you happy with their verdict. They have to decide what they can live with.

I totally agree with Common Sense Mom as well in the belief jurors should be allowed freedom of speech after their service. In fact I believe everybody should be able to profit from their actions as long as those actions weren’t based on their own criminal activities. For example, a murderer shouldn’t make money telling how he murdered someone, a rapist shouldn’t make money describing how he raped. (The worst part is that people would pay to learn how they did it for their own sick pleasure.)

Beyond that, it’s petty to try to punish a jury because you didn’t like what they decided. Every member of every jury was acceptable to the judge, prosecutor and defense.

David for perfect justice
and what we have in the mean time

By: Patti Lesando

Patti Lesando — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 12:39:50 +0000

Ditto Lucy Nathan. The whole trial should have been based on why Casey didn’t report her baby missing for 31 days. She probably was waiting for Caylee’s body to decompose thinking there would not be any evidence left.

By: Rob D. Blind

Rob D. Blind — Sat, 16 Jul 2011 03:05:41 +0000

Daddy Frank very well thought out responce. However you want a jury to convict because they assume she did it. Or you say she must have done it because they don’t have any other suspects or somebody has to pay for this little girls death.That is what your circumstantial evidence creates in the jury. Thinking like that is very dangerous to our court system That very thinking is why people as we speak sit on death row for crimes they did not commit. You do not need a cause of death but evidence of who caused the death would be something you do need. That puzzle you gave the jury with one pice missing, the piece missing was not the cause of death, it was the face of the killer. I think given the evidence the jury had, they returned the only decision they could. Do I think she did it?
It would only be my opinion and NOT EVIDENCE so that makes it irrelevant.
To me circumstantial evidence alone is never enough to over come reasonable dought.

By: Agree

Agree — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 21:07:39 +0000

@Common Sense Mom: Thanks for your comments We can agree to disagree I guess as my intention on posting my comment on this particular site was not to get into an extensive debate. Suffice it to say that my husband is both a constitutional scholar by profession and an expert on J.S. Mill, having published extensively on his writings, so I will have to beg to differ with your perceptions as expressed regarding Constitutional freedoms of speech/the press, in regard to this subject matter. Thanx!

By: Common Sense Mom

Common Sense Mom — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 19:26:16 +0000

@Agree: Whether jurors are profiting or not is irrelevant. Restricting their rights is still unConstitutional. The First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” By including freedom of the press, speech for profit is specifically protected by the Constitution. Unless we believe that the founders meant to create an elite protected class (reporters), then we must conclude that jurors also enjoy the freedom to sell their views and experiences after the trial (on those very rare occasions when their jury experiences are marketable). As for the publicity seekers who might sit on a jury, not only are there already laws that allow prosecution for juror misconduct (as I stated earlier), there is an extensive screening process during jury selection. (Did either of the attorneys in this case even think to ask potential jurors if they were contemplating book deals?) To deprive jurors, as a class, of their Constitutional rights, just because a few of them might be in a position to exploit their service, sets a dangerous precedent. This bill is a bad law.