|
Since: Feb 09
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
My question applies to anyone that LE can't find.
"If LE can't locate XX, is that proof that XX doesn't exist?"
There is an answer to what I asked. Forget I used ZFG as an example. It was a brain teaser on an IQ test.
Forget about it....it was a serious question that fell flat.
|
|
Dirtyshoes
Sugar Land, TX
|
Maria wrote: <quoted text>
I'm not confused. I know who you are, Kristi/Missy. Don't forget Liz and Mona
|
|
CaresforCasey
Landers, CA
|
ngrace wrote: <quoted text>
As my post started with G-U-I-L-T-Y, you must be referring to me.
If so, I did not copy that post from anyone.
HOWEVER, in the interest of keeping this site free of rumors and down right untruths, please feel free to direct us to the post you are referring to because I would like to meet my cerebral double.
Better yet, why not just copy and paste what you have called the "original"?
(Just think.....that would mean there are two of us "loons" for Kojack to write nasty letters to). Here I am!!! I am your cerebral double!
|
|
Classroom Monitor
United States
|
Students put on your thinking caps. The teacher can't brainwash the potential jury pool if no one is paying attention. Let's call on the ventriloquist and his dummies or the brainy other attorney. Maybe they know the answer.
|
|
pat
AOL
|
Dirtyshoes wrote: <quoted text>When she says
"I will be back in a few to start writing", that's code for I have to go find more post to plagiarize. dirty, it also means she has to get on another computer.
|
|
Teachers Pet
United States
|
Maybe the nanny is lost in the forest and LE can't see her because the trees are in the way. You think?
|
|
Learned Hand II
Cleveland, OH
|
ngrace wrote: I asked this before and I'll ask it again. It's one of those questions you have to "think" about.(Like Thomas J. Watson did when he founded IBM Corporation and made this the company motto: "THINK").
So far, not one person has actually understood the specific question or answered the specific question I asked.
(re-post_:
A ramdom question OT.
LE has said Zenaida does not exist because..... they couldn't locate her.
The question is: because they couldn't locate her, how does this prove she doesn't exist?
It's similar to the riddle: if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make any noise when it falls?
Think about it I'll differ with you on this angle: I don't believ the "Zenaida theory" is a valid defense tactic. What I do think it shows -- combined with her other medacities -- is the defendant's disconnect with reality. I believe the sheer amount of deception used by the defendant is indicative of a diminished mental capacity or other psychological disorder. While the defendant possess average or above intelligence, in my eperience, this amount of deception is highly unusual. It doesn't extend merely to the alleged crime, it permeates every aspect of her life after a certain known time-line. Let's posit that the child died due to natural causes -- a drowning, left in a hot car, choked on food, whatever -- and the defendant suffered a psychotic break from reality. Much of her behavior could be explained in such a manner. The manner is which the child's body was disposed tends to show an unplanned death (otherwise, the body would have been taken further away and not to a previously frequented place -- and the heart-shaped sticker evinces remorse. These factors are much more indicative of an unforeseen occurence. The problem with using such a defense is to perfect it, the defendant would likely have to take the stand. I could see the defense using a limited alternate version in which they use only defense experts to attack the ME's conclusion of death via homicide, since placing the defendant on the stand would (probably) have unpredictable results and would definitely open the door to intense cross-examination. While the jury pool is definitely tainted in Orlando, I suspect we will see a jury brought in from elsewhere rather than moving the trial. If a jury is brought in from elsewhere, there will be more ability to control access to outside media sources (bags can be searched for Internet-devices, etc., and the jury would be somewhat separated from their usual media sources.(Internet access has become an increasing problem in many high-profile trials, and some courts have considered petitioning the FCC to change the laws prohibiting cellular phone blocking hardware.) I have never seen the FL Sunshine law used in such a fashion in a criminal trial before, and it is quite possible we'll see some modification of it when it comes to future trials. This case has so many interesting facets. It's somewhat sad that people cannot view the topic rationally and dispassionately (as lawyers do or should), but it does go to show why we (attempt) to control the so-called average citizen's influence in such matters. Many of the posters on here seem to think a jury decides the law, when the jury is only the fact-finder and can only consider those facts presented in the courtroom. These wild rantings about jury nullification and how the "people and not the law" will control this trial are naught but the fevered dreams of lunatics and conspiracy theorists. In some cases, it's a quick ticket to being booted off a jury and a criminal contempt citation (or an order to show cause, at least). ngrace: I would be interested in learning more about your background one of these days. Unfortunately, in this forum, it is unwise to reveal too much about oneself.
|
|
Since: Apr 09
Glen Carbon, IL
|
Please wait...
ngrace wrote: I asked this before and I'll ask it again. It's one of those questions you have to "think" about.(Like Thomas J. Watson did when he founded IBM Corporation and made this the company motto: "THINK").
So far, not one person has actually understood the specific question or answered the specific question I asked.
(re-post_:
A ramdom question OT.
LE has said Zenaida does not exist because..... they couldn't locate her.
The question is: because they couldn't locate her, how does this prove she doesn't exist?
It's similar to the riddle: if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make any noise when it falls?
Think about it Sounds like a question on a exam relating to a logic course. In your example, zenaida has not been proven or disproven to exist.
|
|
|
Since: Apr 09
Glen Carbon, IL
|
Please wait...
Learned Hand II wrote: <quoted text>
I'll differ with you on this angle: I don't believ the "Zenaida theory" is a valid defense tactic. What I do think it shows -- combined with her other medacities -- is the defendant's disconnect with reality.
I believe the sheer amount of deception used by the defendant is indicative of a diminished mental capacity or other psychological disorder. While the defendant possess average or above intelligence, in my eperience, this amount of deception is highly unusual. It doesn't extend merely to the alleged crime, it permeates every aspect of her life after a certain known time-line.
Let's posit that the child died due to natural causes -- a drowning, left in a hot car, choked on food, whatever -- and the defendant suffered a psychotic break from reality. Much of her behavior could be explained in such a manner.
The manner is which the child's body was disposed tends to show an unplanned death (otherwise, the body would have been taken further away and not to a previously frequented place -- and the heart-shaped sticker evinces remorse. These factors are much more indicative of an unforeseen occurence.
The problem with using such a defense is to perfect it, the defendant would likely have to take the stand. I could see the defense using a limited alternate version in which they use only defense experts to attack the ME's conclusion of death via homicide, since placing the defendant on the stand would (probably) have unpredictable results and would definitely open the door to intense cross-examination.
While the jury pool is definitely tainted in Orlando, I suspect we will see a jury brought in from elsewhere rather than moving the trial. If a jury is brought in from elsewhere, there will be more ability to control access to outside media sources (bags can be searched for Internet-devices, etc., and the jury would be somewhat separated from their usual media sources.(Internet access has become an increasing problem in many high-profile trials, and some courts have considered petitioning the FCC to change the laws prohibiting cellular phone blocking hardware.)
I have never seen the FL Sunshine law used in such a fashion in a criminal trial before, and it is quite possible we'll see some modification of it when it comes to future trials.
This case has so many interesting facets. It's somewhat sad that people cannot view the topic rationally and dispassionately (as lawyers do or should), but it does go to show why we (attempt) to control the so-called average citizen's influence in such matters. Many of the posters on here seem to think a jury decides the law, when the jury is only the fact-finder and can only consider those facts presented in the courtroom. These wild rantings about jury nullification and how the "people and not the law" will control this trial are naught but the fevered dreams of lunatics and conspiracy theorists. In some cases, it's a quick ticket to being booted off a jury and a criminal contempt citation (or an order to show cause, at least).
ngrace: I would be interested in learning more about your background one of these days. Unfortunately, in this forum, it is unwise to reveal too much about oneself. Very well written. The jury makes decisions based on facts presented, and the Court decides the law based on the constitution and caselaw decisions. I thinl the Sunshine Law is really going to be a problem in this case post-conviction. I see a Constitutional challenge to that law in that the law poisoned the jury and thusly deprived Casey of ger fundamental right to a fair trial by an impartial jury in violation of her Sixth Amendment, and perhaps her Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional rights. I see Casey getting convicted and sentenced to life, and then an appellate court tossing the conviction and remanding for a new trial. Then, after that happens, they will say gee, we need to make changes to the Sunshine Law.
|
|
Since: Apr 09
Glen Carbon, IL
|
Please wait...
The jury makes decisions based on facts presented, and the Court decides the law based on the constitution and caselaw decisions. I think the Sunshine Law is really going to be a problem in this case post-conviction. I see a Constitutional challenge to that law in that the law poisoned the jury and thusly deprived Casey of her fundamental right to a fair trial by an impartial jury in violation of her Sixth Amendment, and perhaps her Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional rights. I see Casey getting convicted and sentenced to life, and then an appellate court tossing the conviction and remanding for a new trial. Then, after that happens, they will say gee, we need to make changes to the Sunshine Law.
|
|
Since: Apr 09
Glen Carbon, IL
|
Please wait...
sorry, my computer or this site is really stupid this morning. It was not letting me post. Then I thought gee, there is too much here so I cut it back. Then both posted.
|
|
Since: Apr 09
Glen Carbon, IL
|
Please wait...
Sorry about the double post.
|
|
LizW
AOL
|
chuckycheez_68 wrote: The jury makes decisions based on facts presented, and the Court decides the law based on the constitution and caselaw decisions. I think the Sunshine Law is really going to be a problem in this case post-conviction. I see a Constitutional challenge to that law in that the law poisoned the jury and thusly deprived Casey of her fundamental right to a fair trial by an impartial jury in violation of her Sixth Amendment, and perhaps her Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional rights. I see Casey getting convicted and sentenced to life, and then an appellate court tossing the conviction and remanding for a new trial. Then, after that happens, they will say gee, we need to make changes to the Sunshine Law. You seem to forget that many others has been convicted and sentenced over the years without changes to the Sunshine law. I can't see where you are getting the Idea that Casey is so important! The case is well known because of the actions of Casey and her parents! And the Nancy Grace Show
|
|
Learned Hand II
Cleveland, OH
|
chuckycheez_68 wrote: The jury makes decisions based on facts presented, and the Court decides the law based on the constitution and caselaw decisions. I think the Sunshine Law is really going to be a problem in this case post-conviction. I see a Constitutional challenge to that law in that the law poisoned the jury and thusly deprived Casey of her fundamental right to a fair trial by an impartial jury in violation of her Sixth Amendment, and perhaps her Fourteenth Amendment Constitutional rights. I see Casey getting convicted and sentenced to life, and then an appellate court tossing the conviction and remanding for a new trial. Then, after that happens, they will say gee, we need to make changes to the Sunshine Law. I concur with your Due Process argument. The question of conviction is a difficult one, and I can see challenges based upon the tainted jury pool; however, the court has not been very receptive to tainted jury-pool arguments in the past unless they are eggregious and can be proven to exist. I'd have to do a Westlaw or Lexis search to see how many cases are on point. This case has the potential to bring a lot of issues to the court's attention about the Sunshine Law's conflicts with a defendant's Due Process guarantee. I'll have to review a treatise -- if one has been written about such an under-developed subject -- to see how the issue has been attacked before. I doubt the grandparents will have any success blocking the autopsy's release; there are parallels in child-visitation (family law) cases in which it has been clearly delineated that grandparents have no legal rights in such matters. Additionally, the autopsy results will be released at trials, so they are merely postponing the inevitable. I would hope that Lyon's arrival will bring some order to the media chaos. The grandparents seemingly have no idea about what should and should not be said to the media, and if called as witnesses, I believe their often-conflicting comments will affect their credibility. I doubt jurors will understand the emotional rubic that causes those affected in such cases to be perceived as poor historians. In fact, the uninformed opinions that the grandparents and other participants should be charged with obstructing the investigation and accessories is evidence of how they may be perceived. It is the stuff of a John Grisham novel...
|
|
Learned Hand II
Cleveland, OH
|
LizW wrote: <quoted text>
You seem to forget that many others has been convicted and sentenced over the years without changes to the Sunshine law. I can't see where you are getting the Idea that Casey is so important! The case is well known because of the actions of Casey and her parents! And the Nancy Grace Show You are missing the point: An individual defendant is not important in the grand scheme, but the Constitutional isues certainly are, and the media's use of the Sunshine Law in this case is (in my experience) unprecedented in Florida. You and your brethren are emotionally fixated upon the defendant -- for whatever reason -- but the case's legal and Constitutional issues are complex, and I predict we very well may see this case become one that could even attract the attention of SCOTUS. Cases like this one are truly once in a lifetime events. The issues swirling about -- and this forum is one of them -- will raise concerns about emerging technologies and how we view the public's right to see evidence (and I see none: the Sunshine Law was enacted to prevent government abuses) contrasted with a defendant's right to due Process and an untainted jury pool. If you examine some of the statements made on these forums (I've previously mentioned jury nullification -- please research th term), you can see that this defendant stands a poor chance of obtaining an unbiased jury. I've already read your posts. Let's just say there is a chance this defendant is innocent -- not just found not-guilty -- of all charges. I'm not saying this is reality, just a proposition. How incredible a miscarriage of justice would it be that she was convicted based upon the media exposure and public opinion formed before the trial was held? This is the crux of this issue: The media exposure has generated a lynch-mob mentality that undermines the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. You speak -- like your cohorts -- of how you "feel" about this case and its issues, but this is a legal matter that has been contaminated by "feelings" long before the trier-of-fact has seen the evidence the court has allowed that trier-of-fact to consider. Our judicial system depends upon impartial juries. Not runaway juries or lynch mobs. Frankly, this is why attorneys and judges distrust juries, and other judicial systems do not allow jury trials in some or all cases. That said, I somewhat understand your strong feelings, but they have no place in a courtroom until the allowable evidence has been heard.
|
|
pipkin
Monroe, LA
|
Fact: Casey did not work at Universal Studios for the last 2 years.
Fiction: She was headed to her job at Universal Studios on June 16, 2008
|
|
Since: Feb 09
Location hidden
|
Please wait...
Just hopping on here for a minute; hope to be back later on.
Update: Judge Strickland has denied the grandparent's motion; the autopsy report will be released today. The only consideration he made is the x-rays included in the report will be sealed until trial.
Mr. Baez answered the question I posed last night. He asked the Court to stay the release until he could submit his objection. He stated that the release might prevent his client's right to a fair trail. Judge Strickland, in denying Baez's request, made this comment: "There is nothing in the report that points to your client". At which point, Mr. Baez immediately agreed (with the Judge's comment) but it was very obvious that Mr. Baez was not happy with the decision rendered by the Court and further, it was immediately obvious that Mr. Baez is in over his head. IMO
|
|
pipkin
Monroe, LA
|
Fact: Cindy washed pants that came from the car.
Fact: Cindy knew the car smelled like a decomposing body.
Fact: George knew the car smelled like a decomposing body.
Fact: There were maggots in the trunk and a stain.
Fact: Flies flew out of the car when the door was opened (witnessed by the man at the tow yard).
Fact: Casey is a liar
Fact: Casey is a thief.
Fact: Casey assumed no responsibility for herself or her daughter.
Fact: Casey was pregnant at uncle Rick's wedding
Fact: Casey NEVER called police to report Caylee "missing".
Fact: Cindy called the cops to report Caylee "missing".
Fact: Cindy's FIRST call to 911 did NOT mention Caylee at all
Fact: The day after reporting the child missing, the Anthony's set up a foundation.
Fiction: Tow yard companies do not keep dead bodies laying around to place into cars in their posession.
|
|
pipkin
Monroe, LA
|
Fact: Casey, Cindy, George, and Lee all know the truth....and they aren't going to tell anyone! Scouts honor...pinky promise...etc
|
|
jmho
Dundas, Canada
|
Learned Hand II wrote: <quoted text>
You are missing the point: An individual defendant is not important in the grand scheme, but the Constitutional isues certainly are, and the media's use of the Sunshine Law in this case is (in my experience) unprecedented in Florida.
You and your brethren are emotionally fixated upon the defendant -- for whatever reason -- but the case's legal and Constitutional issues are complex, and I predict we very well may see this case become one that could even attract the attention of SCOTUS.
Cases like this one are truly once in a lifetime events. The issues swirling about -- and this forum is one of them -- will raise concerns about emerging technologies and how we view the public's right to see evidence (and I see none: the Sunshine Law was enacted to prevent government abuses) contrasted with a defendant's right to due Process and an untainted jury pool.
If you examine some of the statements made on these forums (I've previously mentioned jury nullification -- please research th term), you can see that this defendant stands a poor chance of obtaining an unbiased jury.
I've already read your posts. Let's just say there is a chance this defendant is innocent -- not just found not-guilty -- of all charges. I'm not saying this is reality, just a proposition. How incredible a miscarriage of justice would it be that she was convicted based upon the media exposure and public opinion formed before the trial was held?
This is the crux of this issue: The media exposure has generated a lynch-mob mentality that undermines the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.
You speak -- like your cohorts -- of how you "feel" about this case and its issues, but this is a legal matter that has been contaminated by "feelings" long before the trier-of-fact has seen the evidence the court has allowed that trier-of-fact to consider.
Our judicial system depends upon impartial juries. Not runaway juries or lynch mobs. Frankly, this is why attorneys and judges distrust juries, and other judicial systems do not allow jury trials in some or all cases.
That said, I somewhat understand your strong feelings, but they have no place in a courtroom until the allowable evidence has been heard. Couldn't this media circus have been circumvented and the integrity of the Sunshine Laws been upheld with a publicity ban? If I read correctly, the prosecution wanted one and Baez objected strenuously. In the aftermath, lots of people have benefited monetarily from having sold pictures, videos etc. of the victim and the accused. All this could have been avoided if Baez hadn't insisted on creating and stoking the fire. The antics of the "bereaved" grandparents and Baez himself who seems to count on others to do his work haven't helped either. If he had urged his client to plea, she may well have been on the road to serving a much shorter sentence and all this would not have come to pass. I hope to never in my life again read a case like this one where a 2 yr. old is murdered and forgotten in the blitz to make money and a "name" by some unscrupulous, inexperienced lawyer. John Grisham himself wouldn't try to sell this for fiction, it's too unbelievable and ugly. JMHO
|
|
Tell me when this thread is updated:
(Registration is not required)
Add to my Tracker
Send me an email
|
Cancer