TerryJ2
Well-Known Member
No news here, just validation by the ex-fiance': http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43652425
UPDATED:::CATA Group- New thread!
- Thread starter klmno
- Start date
klmno
Active Member
Didn't that alt juror also tell one neswcaster something like he thought most the jurors just thought it had been a terrible accident (meaning maybe no crime was committed) and that there was nothing the prosecution presented that linked Casey to a crime but if no crime was committed and nothing obvious presented, there wasn't any need to consider anything more? So, if I'm speeding on the road, accidentally hit a car or a person, flee and hide and lie about it until someone catches me and takes me to court, no crime has been committed at all- it was all just an accident so there's no point in even deliberating about whether or not I committed it? And if someone in my family knew I'd done this, or speculated that I did, that makes me not guilty?
I think presumption of innocence is one thing but being unable to think a young mother could possibly commit such a horrible crime is another. Talk about denial! And yes, MWM, if this had been a grown man and not a close blood relative, he'd have been tossed in the prison and the key thrown away.
I just got home (worked thru lunch today) and heard Zanny's attny just delievered a civil suit so Casey can't plead the 5th on this one. Of course, if you don't care about whether or not you lie or tell the truth I guess that doesn't matter. However, I wonder if it means she has to stay in that jurisdiction or what happens if she flees?
I think presumption of innocence is one thing but being unable to think a young mother could possibly commit such a horrible crime is another. Talk about denial! And yes, MWM, if this had been a grown man and not a close blood relative, he'd have been tossed in the prison and the key thrown away.
I just got home (worked thru lunch today) and heard Zanny's attny just delievered a civil suit so Casey can't plead the 5th on this one. Of course, if you don't care about whether or not you lie or tell the truth I guess that doesn't matter. However, I wonder if it means she has to stay in that jurisdiction or what happens if she flees?
donna723
Well-Known Member
"I just got home (worked thru lunch today) and heard Zanny's attny just delievered a civil suit so Casey can't plead the 5th on this one"
They were talking about this on TV this morning. Whether she tells the truth or not is anybody's guess (probably not) but she CANNOT refuse to answer because this is a civil matter, not a criminal issue. And I'm assuming she can be prosecuted if she lies in her answers. They said that Zanny's attorney is wasting no time because they want to get the legal wheels turning before Casey can sell her story to the highest bidder for millions. Any money Casey makes off of this should rightfully go to those people whose lives she ruined with her lies.
They were talking about this on TV this morning. Whether she tells the truth or not is anybody's guess (probably not) but she CANNOT refuse to answer because this is a civil matter, not a criminal issue. And I'm assuming she can be prosecuted if she lies in her answers. They said that Zanny's attorney is wasting no time because they want to get the legal wheels turning before Casey can sell her story to the highest bidder for millions. Any money Casey makes off of this should rightfully go to those people whose lives she ruined with her lies.
klmno
Active Member
I was just wondering if Ashton is allowed to talk about anything he learned about the case but couldn't bring out in court now- for instance, what did George and Cindy or anyone say about what happened on July 16.
Wasn't that Yuri Melich (the investigator) at the verdict-reading yesterday? Man, he must be bursting at the seams, too.
Wasn't that Yuri Melich (the investigator) at the verdict-reading yesterday? Man, he must be bursting at the seams, too.
I would like to know what happened in their home the night before Casey left with Caylee, the big fight between Cindy and Casey. It was reported that Cindy even went after Casey physically. It would make sense that Casey took took Caylee and wasn't goign to let Cindy ever see her again. It was said that Cindy threatened that she was going to file for custody. That would be Casey's motive. I dont get why they didn't use that in court. Maybe Cindy feels responsible for Caylee's death.
Nancy
Nancy
klmno
Active Member
They just metnioned that on HLN. Apparently is was Lee that told investigators or someone that, and he'd heard it from someone elseso that would make it triple hearsay. But yeah, I'd like to know too. JVM (whether that's a credible source??) said that Cindy had put her foot down with Casey and told her she had to choose freedom or life as a parent- I took that to mean that they were drawing their boundary and saying "no more" to supporting both Caylee and Casey whil Casey just goes out and parties and expects Cindy to babysit at a moments' notice and at Casey's convenience. If a fight light that took place the night before...well.....
And I think DDD mentioned something about phone calls from Casey to her parents on July 16 that weren't answered by her parents. I wonder if there were texts, too, that could have ended up revealing a little about why Casey was calling. Caylee would have already been dead, right- didn't they have videos of Casey and her boyfriend from the night before, showing them alone in a video store?
And didn't the prosecution have to withold testimony that Casey had drugged her daughter previously in order to go out and party?
And I think DDD mentioned something about phone calls from Casey to her parents on July 16 that weren't answered by her parents. I wonder if there were texts, too, that could have ended up revealing a little about why Casey was calling. Caylee would have already been dead, right- didn't they have videos of Casey and her boyfriend from the night before, showing them alone in a video store?
And didn't the prosecution have to withold testimony that Casey had drugged her daughter previously in order to go out and party?
Mattsmom277
Active Member
In response to this: if Casey makes money from selling her story, the State will also have a claim on it for reimbursement of what the State paid out for her legal representation
Playing devils advocate, can he really believe this is viable and will happen? I mean honestly, again playing devils advocate, let's say I face trial in Florida on a murder charge facing the death penalty. I have no funds for a defense so the state provides the funds for such. I then am found not guilty, lets say because I truly was innocent and the real killer is found, or there was found to be no actual proof of murder happening at all (no body or something silly like that). So I write a book or do a paid interview or whatever, somehow I get income from sharing my story of false imprisonment and my role as a falsely accused person facing a possible death penalty conviction. Somehow that money would be taken to pay the state for the defense that shouldn't have happened because I was found innocent? Of course not. That's like saying the people proved innocent via things like THe Innocent Project should have to pay back for their defense fess on their wrongful convictions.
I don't like to think of ANYONE profiting off this situation. I however highly doubt we will ever see Casey nor anyone at all having to repay their defense funds simply because a jury found them not guilty. Law dictates defendents have a constitutional right to legal defense provided by the state when facing a jury trial, if they can't afford one themselves. Never ever ever does one then have to pay back for the access to the defense team that results in them being not guilty. I don't know why on earth that man was saying such nonsense to the media as its beyond absurd and irrational. Seems to only serve to fuel the anger at the idea that Casey could perhaps receive payment for selling her story in some manner, further fanning the fury of the public who will never believe this jury did their job correctly. But it certainly is NOT a statement based on fact. Why oh why do people make such dumb statements? I mean as a prosecutor for the state he KNOWS this is BS and will never happen. He hates the verdict. Understandable. But this is a bit inflammatory for simply sake of inflaming a situation.
Playing devils advocate, can he really believe this is viable and will happen? I mean honestly, again playing devils advocate, let's say I face trial in Florida on a murder charge facing the death penalty. I have no funds for a defense so the state provides the funds for such. I then am found not guilty, lets say because I truly was innocent and the real killer is found, or there was found to be no actual proof of murder happening at all (no body or something silly like that). So I write a book or do a paid interview or whatever, somehow I get income from sharing my story of false imprisonment and my role as a falsely accused person facing a possible death penalty conviction. Somehow that money would be taken to pay the state for the defense that shouldn't have happened because I was found innocent? Of course not. That's like saying the people proved innocent via things like THe Innocent Project should have to pay back for their defense fess on their wrongful convictions.
I don't like to think of ANYONE profiting off this situation. I however highly doubt we will ever see Casey nor anyone at all having to repay their defense funds simply because a jury found them not guilty. Law dictates defendents have a constitutional right to legal defense provided by the state when facing a jury trial, if they can't afford one themselves. Never ever ever does one then have to pay back for the access to the defense team that results in them being not guilty. I don't know why on earth that man was saying such nonsense to the media as its beyond absurd and irrational. Seems to only serve to fuel the anger at the idea that Casey could perhaps receive payment for selling her story in some manner, further fanning the fury of the public who will never believe this jury did their job correctly. But it certainly is NOT a statement based on fact. Why oh why do people make such dumb statements? I mean as a prosecutor for the state he KNOWS this is BS and will never happen. He hates the verdict. Understandable. But this is a bit inflammatory for simply sake of inflaming a situation.
klmno
Active Member
I don't know- but she was found guilty of lying to police. I would argue that if she caused law enforcement to spend 100s of thousands of dollars going after her wild goose chases, she should have to pay that back. If I call the fire dept/911 and say there's a fire when there isn't, in the state I live in, I can be charged several hundred or close to $1000 just for them coming to my house for 15 mins. So somewhere in all this, the state of Fl might be able to go after her for something. But I do think you make a valid point about the defense team- I just don't know. I would agree 100% with your point except it's Casey's own lies (which have been found guilty) that caused the trial and her need for the defense. If the jury determined it's an accident and Casey had told them that instead of lying, maybe we all wouldn't have gone thru all this.
Mattsmom277
Active Member
Again, I'm merely being devils advocate 
. She KNEW she would be convicted and did NOT defend via a paid legal team at state expense, the charges of lying to police which she WAS convicted on. She in no way defended that, in fact her defense team admitted it fully in court that she lied, therefore no expense was put forth in a effort to defend on the charges she was found guilty on. The only charges her team defended where the ones she was found not guilty of, meaning no right to order repayment of her legal expenses.
. She KNEW she would be convicted and did NOT defend via a paid legal team at state expense, the charges of lying to police which she WAS convicted on. She in no way defended that, in fact her defense team admitted it fully in court that she lied, therefore no expense was put forth in a effort to defend on the charges she was found guilty on. The only charges her team defended where the ones she was found not guilty of, meaning no right to order repayment of her legal expenses.
klmno
Active Member
The part I'm unsure of though doesn't fall along those lines. It was my understanding that she hired the team first, then when her money ran out her family paid them until their money ran out, so the team stayed on in agreement to just use the state allotment for PDs. If that's the case, I'm not so sure that her defense team can't come back on her for money. They could even have had something in their legal contract with her stating as much. Now, if on the other hand, she had NO attny to start out with and he was appointed as a PD right off the batt, then yes, I think you're right. However, I will tell you that parents have to pay for PDs for their kids when at all possible. States and local jurisdictions have all kinds of loopholes.
Marcie Mac
Just Plain Ole Tired
I do believe if she has been declared "indigent" by the court she doesn't have to pay any money back - and the IRS is after her for not paying taxes on the photographs of that baby she had sold
But she will be rolling in money soon as her feet hit the street - wouldn't doubt if she DOESN"T have a business manager already going over offers.
Marcie
But she will be rolling in money soon as her feet hit the street - wouldn't doubt if she DOESN"T have a business manager already going over offers.
Marcie
I heard about the distant relative in Texas too. Also equusearch is going after her for the $100,000 they spent in searching for the child even though she knew she was dead and the IRS is coming after her for $70,000 she owes on the pictures of Caylee she sold. Hopefully any money she makes in the near future will be spoken for.
Nancy
Nancy
Mattsmom277
Active Member
I guess I feel that if they are going to start going after people to reclaim defense costs, they need to also arrest both grandparents for perjury under oath which is a slam dunk case, as well as taking both defense and prosecutors to task for violating policies of conduct in the court proceedings, etc. I can see her paying back the cost of the search for her daughter when obviously she admits she died the day she was last seen, therefore the search was wasted state resources. The defense portion doesn't wash with me though. I also do not care if the grandparents were selling out their daughter, or trying to oddly help her case to cast doubt or whatever their motive is. The bottom line is regardless of motive and intention, they lied through their teeth, were caught out under oath and impeached. The court is NOT meant to be a circus, sick enough the media is no longer something that holds integrity and impartial reporting, but a court of law to stand firm on upholding law should not sick back and allow impeachment to go unpunished regardless of intent of the person who perjured themselves. And by that rationale, they too should be obligated to repay a portion of state resources spent in chasing down the truth behind their ever changing stories and conflicting statements. But no that won't happen. The public had a opinion about all of this long before anything came out in a court hearing and that is all the prosecutors office will focus on. Regardless of guilt or innocence, justice or no justice being served in the process, I am shocked to not hear outrage from Americans for the perversion of the justice system where people in death penalty murder trials can get away with blatant perjury without recourse. Sympathy for grieving family members is NOT excuse for committing crimes, they did too commit crimes. This whole family is sick and damaged and if the public wants to portray the mindset of justice for this little girl, ALL players should be held accountable for their role in this farce, as I do believe this became a farce and a spectacle and it ended up being not at all about justice for a dead toddler, and all together too self serving for many players. I have seen few level heads who can loathe a person they believe harmed a child but who can also want the justice system to work as gauranteed to accused persons, to victims etc. This entire thing is a tragedy that extend far beyond the original tragedy of a dead 2 year old whose life was cut short. The emotion in all of this I think truly causes many rational people to be unable to see the other misuse of the system that happened in this case. It certainly made a heck of a lot of people richer than hades though.
klmno
Active Member
There are tons of people that are just seriously disgusted with this outcome and I'm sure some of them must work for government, companies that tried to help when it was all just a lie, etc. I can't help but think that at least a few from the jury might second-guess their decision at some point- not that it can be changed and not that this would happen any time soon. But I bet if their son walked in with Casey on his arm saying she was going to have his baby, they would cringe.
