Casey Anthony

Turtwig

Killer Wench wrote: »

OJ Simpson is a good example:

http://articles.cnn.com/1996-09-16/us/9609_16_simpson.case_1_murder-trial-sharon-rufo-ronald-goldman?_s=PM:US

Sorry I don't understand the relevance of OJ to this. How does been found not guilty not equal innocent?

UrbanSea

sensibleken wrote: »

Lies!

your location say sligo! why would you lie ya big liar

OutlawPete wrote: »

Never mind that, is Mickey Mouse really as big he looks?

zuroph wrote: »

Brag brag brag, no recession round here!

Alas,a rare venture into the forum in the hope of a half serious discussion ends in despair.

UrbanSea

Have to disagree Mark. Being over here and watching it,it's safe to say everyone knows she did it,it just couldn't be proved.
She didn't report her child missing for thirty days.
There was decomposition in the trunk.
The child's hairs were there too.
She was found with duct tape over her mouth. Why would she cover her mouth with duct tape if she had drowned in the pool in a tragic accident,as she claimed?
There were over 80 searches for chloroform and neck breaking on her computer,with traces of chloroform in the boot. The big thing here was the mother claimed she searches this,as she had been looking up chlorophyll,but couldn't explain how it had been searched so many times.
She would have got done but the prosecution couldn't prove that the mother was at work when she claimed she wasn't as she was on a salary job,not one where she clocks in. It was well believed that she was at work but it couldn't be proved.
She claimed before the trial she didn't know anything about what happened the child. It genuinely sounded a last resort to say she drowned,simply because they couldn't give a cause of death,but a general consensus was that she was suffocated with the duct tape.

A juror came out today and said that "finding her not guilty doesn't mean she didn't think she didn't kill the child,but that they couldn't show how she had died,and couldn't sentence her not knowing how the girl died"

Mark200 wrote: »

To be honest I find it quite disgusting that people who watched very little or none of the trial are saying that the 12 person jury who sat through every second of the trial and listened to every single piece of evidence have made such a blatant mistake. It seems to be a case of trial by media - the news organisations decided she was guilty before the trial even started, and now can't understand how a group of people who were separated from the media hype/excitement completely disagreed with them after actually listening to evidence. Fox News interviewed one of the alternate jurors yesterday (a juror who sat through everything that the other jurors sat through but wasn't involved in the deliberations at the end) and he said that he completely agreed with the jury's decision and would have voted for the same results himself.

A lot of people said the parents might have been involved, so just because evidence was found in Caseys house does not mean that she was involved. Anyway, it's better that a guilty person goes free than an innocent person be locked up for the rest of their lives (or be executed).

UrbanSea

Malty_T wrote: »

Sorry I don't understand the relevance of OJ to this. How does been found not guilty not equal innocent?

Everyone over here is comparing this case to O.J's,basically "they got away with it but did it" mentality

ColeTrain

Can't say I know too much about the case except from what I've read over the last week or two.

Still have to say that I find it sickening how she walked. Fair enough the defence did a good job and prosecution didn't but if you look at the evidence it's fairly clear that she did it.

hatrickpatrick

How is not reporting your child's disappearance for 30 days not a FELONY of child neglect or even child abuse?

I'm not even suggesting murder here, I'm simply saying that very issue IN ITSELF of a child going missing and the parent not reporting it should ITSELF be a crime, and an extremely harshly punished one at that.

Turtwig

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How is not reporting your child's disappearance for 30 days not a FELONY of child neglect or even child abuse?

I'm not even suggesting murder here, I'm simply saying that very issue IN ITSELF of a child going missing and the parent not reporting it should ITSELF be a crime, and an extremely harshly punished one at that.

Um she did get punished for that.

hatrickpatrick

Malty_T wrote: »

Um she did get punished for that.

How so?
The only charges I saw her get convicted on were counts of lying to the police.

UrbanSea

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How is not reporting your child's disappearance for 30 days not a FELONY of child neglect or even child abuse?

I'm not even suggesting murder here, I'm simply saying that very issue IN ITSELF of a child going missing and the parent not reporting it should ITSELF be a crime, and an extremely harshly punished one at that.

Malty_T wrote: »

Um she did get punished for that.

No she didn't. They're pushing over here now for Caylee's law,which would make it a crime.

Turtwig

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How so?
The only charges I saw her get convicted on were counts of lying to the police.

Which could amount to a year in prison we'll know on sentencing but she could still get punished for those. The only thing is she has already served 3 years in prison. Two years now for apparently a crime she didn't commit I could easily see her causing further outrage by claiming some form of compensation. (If that's allowed in US law.)

Mr Freeze

hooradiation wrote: »

No, some people here would present speculation on those three questions as fact. This is entirely different to being able to answer those three questions.

Yes, speculate is a much better choice of word.

It did in fairness appear to be an open and shut case, but that is the impression we got from the media, and they were wrong.

I do still think she did it though.

Killer Wench

Malty_T wrote: »

Sorry I don't understand the relevance of OJ to this. How does been found not guilty not equal innocent?

In a criminal case, the prosecutor has to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the alleged committed the crime. In the Casey case, the state did not meet that burden.

However, if a civil case was to arise (which is highly doubtful), then the burden is much less as you only have to prove beyond a preponderance of evidence that Casey was responsible for the death.

In the OJ case, OJ was found not guilty in the criminal case. However, in the civil case, he was found liable for the deaths of Nicole and Ron. To be innocent implies being blameless; with a lesser burden, OJ was found to be liable for their deaths.

Das Kitty

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How is not reporting your child's disappearance for 30 days not a FELONY of child neglect or even child abuse?

I'm not even suggesting murder here, I'm simply saying that very issue IN ITSELF of a child going missing and the parent not reporting it should ITSELF be a crime, and an extremely harshly punished one at that.

She was charged with neglect prior to the child being found dead, this was dropped when they discovered she had been dead and charged her with murder and the other charges as they were more appropriate naturally.

Turtwig

Killer Wench wrote: »

In a criminal case, the prosecutor has to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the alleged committed the crime. In the Casey case, the state did not meet that burden.

However, if a civil case was to arise (which is highly doubtful), then the burden is much less as you only have to prove beyond a preponderance of evidence that Casey was responsible for the death.

In the OJ case, OJ was found not guilty in the criminal case. However, in the civil case, he was found liable for the deaths of Nicole and Ron. To be innocent implies being blameless; with a lesser burden, OJ was found to be liable for their deaths.

You missed the point though. You are assuming there will be a civil case and until there is a civil case she is innocent. Not 'not guilty'. To imply that someone who has been acquitted of the charges isn't legally innocent is rather shameful really. The state said she's not guilty of the felony charges accused. As she was innocent until proven guilty and her guilt has yet to be proven there is only one possible description you can give here. Otherwise it's an illogical slippery slope where a person is innocent until they are found not guilty which just makes no sense whatsoever. The OJ similarity doesn't apply until the civil case has come and run its verdict.

Mistyeyes321

Mark200 wrote: »

To be honest I find it quite disgusting that people who watched very little or none of the trial are saying that the 12 person jury who sat through every second of the trial and listened to every single piece of evidence have made such a blatant mistake. It seems to be a case of trial by media - the news organisations decided she was guilty before the trial even started, and now can't understand how a group of people who were separated from the media hype/excitement completely disagreed with them after actually listening to evidence. Fox News interviewed one of the alternate jurors yesterday (a juror who sat through everything that the other jurors sat through but wasn't involved in the deliberations at the end) and he said that he completely agreed with the jury's decision and would have voted for the same results himself.

A lot of people said the parents might have been involved, so just because evidence was found in Caseys house does not mean that she was involved. Anyway, it's better that a guilty person goes free than an innocent person be locked up for the rest of their lives (or be executed).

This say's it all for me tbh ^^^ Trial by media is just what this was..

Killer Wench

Malty_T wrote: »

You missed the point though. You are assuming there will be a civil case and until there is a civil case she is innocent. Not 'not guilty'. To imply that someone who has been acquitted of the charges isn't legally innocent is rather shameful really. The state said she's not guilty of the felony charges accused. As she was innocent until proven guilty and her guilt has yet to be proven there is only one possible description you can give here. Otherwise it's an illogical slippery slope where a person is innocent until they are found not guilty which just makes no sense whatsoever. The OJ similarity doesn't apply until the civil case has come and run its verdict.

No. I didn't miss the point. Perhaps we are having a conversation on two different levels.

My original post said that being found "not guilty" does not equate to being found "innocent". Known guilty people have gotten away with crimes in the past; much like known innocent people have wrongfully served prison sentences or were executed. When the foreman reads the verdict, they say "Not Guilty" because the state has failed to meet the burden required for that charge; they don't read off "Innocent". In some cases, a person could be simultaneously found "Not Guilty" of Murder, but "Guilty" for Manslaughter depending on the circumstances of the death. Not Guilty means simply that the state failed to prove their case; it does not mean that the individual was blameless of the crime committed.

This guy will probably do a better job of laying out the distinction than I ever could:

http://www.oregoncriminalattorney.com/Innocent-v-Not-Guilty.shtml

Turtwig

Killer Wench wrote: »

No. I didn't miss the point. Perhaps we are having a conversation on two different levels.

My original post said that being found "not guilty" does not equate to being found "innocent". Known guilty people have gotten away with crimes in the past; much like known innocent people have wrongfully served prison sentences or were executed. When the foreman reads the verdict, they say "Not Guilty" because the state has failed to meet the burden required for that charge; they don't read off "Innocent". In some cases, a person could be simultaneously found "Not Guilty" of Murder, but "Guilty" for Manslaughter depending on the circumstances of the death. Not Guilty means simply that the state failed to prove their case; it does not mean that the individual was blameless of the crime committed.

This guy will probably do a better job of laying out the distinction than I ever could:


http://www.oregoncriminalattorney.com/Innocent-v-Not-Guilty.shtml

I still think you are missing the point or we having this conversation on two different levels. I know the state can never say you are innocent, but to reiterate what I am saying is that the presumption of the state is that you innocent until proven guilty. When you are acquitted of a charge that means in the eyes of the state you are still innocent until proven guilty of that charge. Obviously the notion that actual innocence can be proven is ridiculous.

I agree with that link btw.

Beefy78

UrbanSea wrote: »

Have to disagree Mark. Being over here and watching it,it's safe to say everyone knows she did it,it just couldn't be proved.
She didn't report her child missing for thirty days.
There was decomposition in the trunk.
The child's hairs were there too.
She was found with duct tape over her mouth. Why would she cover her mouth with duct tape if she had drowned in the pool in a tragic accident,as she claimed?

Was her claim not that her Father had discovered the child drowned and had then covered the whole thing up to make it look like an abduction/murder? Hence the duct tape. Decomposition/hair (none of which were scientifically proven to mean anything in Court, btw) doesn't conclusively prove that the child was murdered and certainly doesn't prove that she was murdered by her mother.

Yes they all point to that and we all suspect that but you can't execute someone without actual proof they are guilty and not the unfortunate victim of circumstantial evidence.

Captain Darling

If she did it, why did she do it? Was she a nutbag?

AnnyHallsal

Captain Darling wrote: »

If she did it, why did she do it? Was she a nutbag?

The prosecution's theory was that she wanted to party and that the child interfered with a burgeoning romance. The defence did not dispute that she knew the child was dead, and she did indeed party substantially in the weeks following the death. The defence also did not deny that she's a habitual liar, but claimed it stemmed from being sexually abused by her father and brother.

One thing I don't get is, if the defence consisted of pinning the blame on the grandparents, will they not now be tried? Why not?

The possibility of the death penalty was chilling. It's impossible to believe that she didn't have some involvement with the death, but to kill her on the basis of a raft of circumstantial evidence? Better to let a guilty person go free than execute an innocent one surely.

Chairman Meow

This is just OJ & Nicole for the new millennium. Theres no doubt about it that fi she didnt physically kill the kid, she certainly had a hand in it somehow.
Decomposition in the car boot? Massive traces of Chloroform? Google searches about how to make chloroform? And what mother would honestly be out partying and getting tattoos when her 2 year old is missing? Most women i know wouldnt be able to function nevermind party.

This isnt trial by media, the media just blew up the story cause shes an attractive white woman who more than likely had a hand in her death and was publicly posting incriminating evidence on Facebook at the time. If they had had a more competent prosecution, theres no doubt shed either have been sent down for murder or accomplice to murder. OJ got away with murder and everyone knows hes guilty as hell now. Im sure in 15 years we'll see 'if i had done it' by Casey anthony coming out.

Orando Broom

If she was black she'd be heading for the arm cocktail. Sad but true. The media would also excoriate her.

AnnyHallsal

When she was first arrested and questioned she said a made-up Nanny had kidnapped the child a month previously.

When this was easily discredited her defence consisted of claiming that the child had been accidentally killed at her parents' house. But it was her parents who alerted the police when the child hadn't been seen for a month and they were distressed by the smell emanating from a car she'd abandoned.

What did she imagine would happen? She must have known she'd have to account for the child's absence eventually. Assuming she's not guilty, she's callous. Guilty, she's inept and detached from reality.

pickarooney

I still don't understand how you can put someone in prison for three years before you even try them for a crime.

prinz

Chairman Meow wrote: »

If they had had a more competent prosecution, theres no doubt shed either have been sent down for murder or accomplice to murder.

No matter how competent the prosecution is sometimes that missing key piece of evidence never materialises (unlike CSI, Law & Order etc). Short of fabricating one, what more can a prosecution team do in those circumstances. They can only work with what they have.

Sticky_Fingers

pickarooney wrote: »

I still don't understand how you can put someone in prison for three years before you even try them for a crime.

There may be a number of reasons for this, in some cases the defense forgoes the right to a speedy trial in order to help their case. This is called distancing, the defense hopes that witnesses memories will fade, move away, perhaps evidence will be misplaced etc.

The prosecution also uses this tactic in order to help make a deal with the defendant. By prolonging the pre-trial incarceration some defendants will be more willing to plead guilty to a lesser charge and thus avoid a trial. From the documentary I heard this on it was stated by a retired prosecutor that if every case went to trial then the system would simply collapse under the pressure. He also claimed that he knew of cases where innocent people plead guilty to a lesser charge just to get it over with and get out of the pre-trial prison limbo.

goose2005

Orando Broom wrote: »

If she was black she'd be heading for the arm cocktail. Sad but true. The media would also excoriate her.

Or a man.

karma_

pickarooney wrote: »

I still don't understand how you can put someone in prison for three years before you even try them for a crime.

I believe that in the American justice system, the defendant can opt to do this themselves, for strategic reasons for their defence.

Achtung! Bono

For anybody who is interested, a 48 hours mystery special about the case.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7372384n&tag=contentMain;contentBody

AckwelFoley

Poll Results

Do agree with the jury's verdict that Casey Anthony was not guilty of murdering her daughter, Caylee?

Yes. 87%
No. 3%
I'm not sure. 10%

Trial by internet.