Casey Anthony, Not guilty!

The civil trial begins in August - "Zanny the nanny" does, in fact, exist. She doesn't, however, know who the fuck Casey Anthony is and is suing her for defamation.
 
No matter what, the jury delivered its verdict. It is what it is. There is no right or wrong; justice has been served, American-style.
 
Give it 2 years... Casey Anthony will be on Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew. The guilt or the people condemning her (she could really be not guilty) will eventually get her to side with drugs to cope.
 
Circumstantial evidence is enough to convict. I'm not saying the evidence in this case was enough; The state seeking murder 1/death penalty sealed that fate, they shouldn't have gone for the slam dunk. However, so many comments about this case seem to say "It was all circumstantial, of course she got off!" The world doesn't work like CSI, where every case has a hard and fast DNA sample as evidence.

I can understand why she got off, and I blame the prosecution for not going for a lesser charge. I think it's clear to most people that Casey Anthony didn't want that child, and the child was raised by her grandparents. The least damning possibility is that Caylee's death was truly an accident, and no one tried to purposely kill her. If that is to be true, how is it not considered some kind of neglect or abuse that the girl was allowed to be in such a situation that she could drown? More importantly, I don't know much about laws, but I have to imagine sitting on a dead two year old for 31 days before calling the police is breaking some sort of law.

That is what truly baffles me in this case. I know why she didn't get 1st degree murder, and I agree with the jury's decision. But how she isn't guilty of some form of neglect or abuse for allowing the girl to supposedly accidentally drown and not reporting anything for 31 days is beyond me.
 
[quote name='Rocko']Circumstantial evidence is enough to convict. I'm not saying the evidence in this case was enough; The state seeking murder 1/death penalty sealed that fate, they shouldn't have gone for the slam dunk. However, so many comments about this case seem to say "It was all circumstantial, of course she got off!" The world doesn't work like CSI, where every case has a hard and fast DNA sample as evidence.
[/QUOTE]

I don't think any (or at least many) have said that. We've said that the circumstantial evidence in this particular case did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

You're 100% right that a lot of cases are built on circumstantial evidence and it is often enough to convince a jury of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However the evidence was weak this time, further weakend--from what I've read--by some exposed lies by authorities, and apparently wasn't argued as well as possible by the prosecution.

So it wasn't enough to prove her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It certainly didn't prove her innocent either--but that's how are legal system is thankfully set up. You're presumed innocent and the state has to prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt--rather than being presumed guilty and having to prove your innocent.

[quote name='Rocko']
I can understand why she got off, and I blame the prosecution for not going for a lesser charge. I think it's clear to most people that Casey Anthony didn't want that child, and the child was raised by her grandparents. The least damning possibility is that Caylee's death was truly an accident, and no one tried to purposely kill her. If that is to be true, how is it not considered some kind of neglect or abuse that the girl was allowed to be in such a situation that she could drown? More importantly, I don't know much about laws, but I have to imagine sitting on a dead two year old for 31 days before calling the police is breaking some sort of law.

That is what truly baffles me in this case. I know why she didn't get 1st degree murder, and I agree with the jury's decision. But how she isn't guilty of some form of neglect or abuse for allowing the girl to supposedly accidentally drown and not reporting anything for 31 days is beyond me.[/QUOTE]

Well negligent manslaughter, failure to report (if that's a low down their) etc. are all much more minor charges. The time she's served thus far would probably meet or exceed the sentence (or at least time before parole) she would have gotten if convicted of those lesser charges anyway so it's kind of moot.

You don't see negligent manslaughter charged often for things like a kid sneaky off and drowning in a pool etc. as accidents happen. It's more reserved for really idiotic cases of neglect like locking the kid in a hot car in the sun while shopping and having them die etc. Most accidents with kids are usually involved to some level of negligence, but that's just life. It's near impossible to keep eyes on a child 100% of the time, so I wouldn't really want a system that was too free about charging negligence.

Granted, this case is different on that front given that if it was an accident there was the cover up etc. which makes it far worse than just calling the authorities as soon as they found the body.
 
Short of "Pretty White Girl" syndrome, is there any particular reason this case got so much media attention pre-verdict?

I understand the up-roar post-verdict, but I don't fully get the reasoning for the daily updates beforehand...
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Short of "Pretty White Girl" syndrome, is there any particular reason this case got so much media attention pre-verdict?

I understand the up-roar post-verdict, but I don't fully get the reasoning for the daily updates beforehand...[/QUOTE]

Pretty White Girl + Cute White Baby
 
[quote name='chiwii']I thought her mom (cindy?) claimed that she, not Casey, was searching for chlorophyll. However, the searches were conducted on Casey's computer and, according to the prosecution, they were conducted when Cindy was at work.[/QUOTE]

Yup.
 
The verdict is the only one that could have been reached in my opinion. No cause of death, time of death, or solid/credible motive doomed this case. If you are going to rely solely on circumstantial evidence in a murder 1 case, the evidence better be overwhelming. An internet search on computer is actually pretty weak evidence in a trial for murder 1, especially when someone else says they did the search. The evidence just wasn't there.
 
[quote name='Rodimus']Can't they go after her for something else now? I know 1st degree murder is out of the question but there are obvious crimminal activities outside of lying to police. What's the punishment for severe negeclt and dumping the body and letting it rot? Somebody needs to be held acountable.
[/QUOTE]

Doubtful, I am not sure the exact statutes for double jeopardy in California, but usually a person cannot be tried on a lesser charge involving the same incident a person already has been acquitted of if the lesser charge involves one of the same criminal elements. Also, a civil wrongful death suit is unlikely because I believe the only party that would have a claim would be the child's father.

The verdict is the only one that could have been reached in my opinion. No cause of death, time of death, or solid/credible motive doomed this case. If you are going to rely solely on circumstantial evidence in a murder 1 case, the evidence better be overwhelming. An internet search on computer is actually pretty weak evidence in a trial for murder 1, especially when someone else says they did the search. Also, the trash bags found in her garage are supposedly very common. Strange behavior is not enough evidence to give someone the death penalty. The evidence just wasn't there for the chosen charges.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Short of "Pretty White Girl" syndrome, is there any particular reason this case got so much media attention pre-verdict?
[/QUOTE]

Because she has a nice rack? :whistle2:k
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='caltab']Doubtful, I am not sure the exact statutes for double jeopardy in California, but usually a person cannot be tried on a lesser charge involving the same incident a person already has been acquitted of if the lesser charge involves one of the same criminal elements. Also, a civil wrongful death suit is unlikely because I believe the only party that would have a claim would be the child's father.[/QUOTE]

The US Attorney can still prosecute her based on the same conduct, but you're pretty much right otherwise.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Short of "Pretty White Girl" syndrome, is there any particular reason this case got so much media attention pre-verdict?

I understand the up-roar post-verdict, but I don't fully get the reasoning for the daily updates beforehand...[/QUOTE]

Slow news cycle, not enough 9/11 going on right now so we need to find some other BS story to prop up on the 24hr news channels for water cooler conversation based ratings.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']The US Attorney can still prosecute her based on the same conduct, but you're pretty much right otherwise.[/QUOTE]

You sure about that? What federal law would the US Attorney prosecute her under? If it has all the same elements as the state law, double jeopardy has got to apply, right? Otherwise what would be the point of double jeopardy if you can be acquitted by a state court but then the feds could turn around and prosecute you for essentially the same thing?
 
[quote name='kodave']You sure about that? What federal law would the US Attorney prosecute her under?[/QUOTE]

Some broad applicability civil rights statute, I'd guess. (e.g. 18 USC 241). Though I can't speculate as to how successful they'd be.

[quote name='kodave']If it has all the same elements as the state law, double jeopardy has got to apply, right? Otherwise what would be the point of double jeopardy if you can be acquitted by a state court but then the feds could turn around and prosecute you for essentially the same thing?[/QUOTE]

I agree it doesn't make much logical sense, but that's how the separate sovereigns exception works.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']The US Attorney can still prosecute her based on the same conduct, but you're pretty much right otherwise.[/QUOTE]

This isn't really true in this case because there is no applicable federal statute that would apply involving the death. You are correct that the fed government is a separate sovereign, but they dont have any jurisdiction over the incident. A recent example where the fed does have jurisdiction in addition to a state would by the Giffords shooting in AZ. It's pretty rare for multiple sovereigns to have jurisdiction of an alleged murder of a normal citizen.
 
[quote name='HeSaveDave']She's already being offered porn jobs. Here we go. I wanna see her cooch.[/QUOTE]

There will be a "tell all" book ghostwritten by some Oprah Staffer long before you'll see her spread about, shit I doubt we even get her in our free PBs (thanks to the mousin thread...) for a couple of years.
 
[quote name='nasum']There will be a "tell all" book ghostwritten by some Oprah Staffer long before you'll see her spread about, shit I doubt we even get her in our free PBs (thanks to the mousin thread...) for a couple of years.[/QUOTE]

Oh I know that. Also, numerous interviews with Barbara Walters types.
 
[quote name='HeSaveDave']She's already being offered porn jobs. Here we go. I wanna see her cooch.[/QUOTE]

Did you actually read this at a reputable source? :lol:
 
[quote name='caltab'] It's pretty rare for multiple sovereigns to have jurisdiction of an alleged murder of a normal citizen.[/QUOTE]

Yep. Very few unless it's a government official or a murder involving a conspiracy that crossed multiple states or involved foreign nationals etc.

Federal laws are pretty narrow--again due to social contract reasons when setting up our legal system and constitution.

The founding fathers were very weary of federal power, given they were revolting against the British empire, and thus powers like the power to punish citizens were mostly delegated to the states where citizens can have more influence over the government.

You see it particularly in the set up of the police system where we have over 18,000 different police agencies (not counting private security) where as many countries only have one agencie with different branches around the country.

We want that law enforcement as accountable to us as possible, so we keep things and the city and county level when possible, then up to the state level, and leave as little as possible to federal law enforcement agencies and the federal courts.
 
It appears that the jury may thought that the State had the who, but not enough in their minds to convict for the lack of the how, when and why.
 
[quote name='caltab']This isn't really true in this case because there is no applicable federal statute that would apply involving the death. You are correct that the fed government is a separate sovereign, but they dont have any jurisdiction over the incident. A recent example where the fed does have jurisdiction in addition to a state would by the Giffords shooting in AZ. It's pretty rare for multiple sovereigns to have jurisdiction of an alleged murder of a normal citizen.[/QUOTE]

Yep, unless they could show something like she had transported the body across state lines an ordinary run of the mill murder is "beneath" the federal government.
 
[quote name='Rocko']Circumstantial evidence is enough to convict. I'm not saying the evidence in this case was enough; The state seeking murder 1/death penalty sealed that fate, they shouldn't have gone for the slam dunk. However, so many comments about this case seem to say "It was all circumstantial, of course she got off!" The world doesn't work like CSI, where every case has a hard and fast DNA sample as evidence.

I can understand why she got off, and I blame the prosecution for not going for a lesser charge. I think it's clear to most people that Casey Anthony didn't want that child, and the child was raised by her grandparents. The least damning possibility is that Caylee's death was truly an accident, and no one tried to purposely kill her. If that is to be true, how is it not considered some kind of neglect or abuse that the girl was allowed to be in such a situation that she could drown? More importantly, I don't know much about laws, but I have to imagine sitting on a dead two year old for 31 days before calling the police is breaking some sort of law.

That is what truly baffles me in this case. I know why she didn't get 1st degree murder, and I agree with the jury's decision. But how she isn't guilty of some form of neglect or abuse for allowing the girl to supposedly accidentally drown and not reporting anything for 31 days is beyond me.[/QUOTE]

You can have "non-CSI" direct evidence though. A good example of direct evidence that isn't science based would be eye witness testimony. I don't think its necessarily that it was mostly circumstantial evidence in this case but rather the fact that the circumstantial evidence was so incredibly weak that it could hardly even be considered circumstantial evidence. An internet search is very, very weak evidence for murder. Stacking that evidence with other evidence strengthens it but the prosecution lead with it.

The neglect or abuse is difficult to show because child swimming pool drownings happen every year with alarming frequency. If every parent of a child who drowns accidentally in a pool was charged with a crime, there'd be lots of parents in jail. As far as the late reporting that's why she was convicted of the 2 charges. Tying the late reporting into neglect or abuse is difficult because well, frankly you can't abuse someone who's already dead.
 
[quote name='HeSaveDave']She's already being offered porn jobs. Here we go. I wanna see her cooch.[/QUOTE]

Vivid offered her a contract or a shoot before....

....but Vivid recalled their offer because a fuckton of people in the industry were getting really pissed off at them for doing it. Between this and the amount of parody porns out, a lot of people think Vivid is a joke anymore, and now it seems they're trying to get some reputation back.

Oh, and a lot of people thought it was really shitty to offer them a job seeing how many think she's guilty.

Short version - She was offered a job to be in porn, then the offer was pulled.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']Man, this guy is serious about his porn.[/QUOTE]

LMAO yeah I was like wtf. It's not THAT important. At least not to me. lol
 
[quote name='david12795']i just know that if your child is missing for 31 days and you haven't reported missing, that makes you guilty.[/QUOTE]

Nope. It makes you a suspect for sure as it's suspicious as hell.

But that alone isn't enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was murder and not just a psycho reaction to an accident by panicking and trying to cover it up.
 
[quote name='Shimrra']If you ever get the chance you should read up on Anthony Cumia's twitter.
http://twitter.com/AnthonyCumia

He is loving the fact that he is pissing off all the moms against Casey Anthony.
http://twitter.com/AnthonyCumia/status/88507097217638400[/QUOTE]

I use to be a pest. Got bored with Opie's uncaring BS. He doesn't give a shit about the show and it showed. Has he changed at all? I always wished Opie would leave and Ant and Jimmy would do it without him. Ope was unfunny and a complete asshole.
 
[quote name='david12795']i just know that if your child is missing for 31 days and you haven't reported missing, that makes you guilty.[/QUOTE]

...of being a terrible mother, at the very least.
 
Sounds like she got sentenced to 4 years in prison, but shockingly is getting out in just about a week due to "good behavior"? Who did she sleep with to get that much time off with 90% of people think she is guilty of mudering a 2-year old in the first place?...?
 
[quote name='Thekrakrabbit']Sounds like she got sentenced to 4 years in prison, but shockingly is getting out in just about a week due to "good behavior"? Who did she sleep with to get that much time off with 90% of people think she is guilty of mudering a 2-year old in the first place?...?[/QUOTE]

She's already been in jail for 3 years. That time counts.
 
Yep, and the sentence was for the 4 counts of lying to the police, so a 4 year sentence is more than most would get for that type of offense anyway.

Prisons are extremely over crowded, pretty much everyone gets out way early unless it's a serious crime and their are mandatory minimum sentences etc. attached.

In any case, the muder, manslaugher and abuse charges she was acquitted of could legally have no impact on her sentence or time off from it. It doesn't matter than 90% of people think she murdered her child, that can legally have no bearing on sentencing or release decisions since she was acquitted.
 
[quote name='bvharris']She's already been in jail for 3 years. That time counts.[/QUOTE]

Thats true, even though that was during the pending investigation. Its not a TON of time off considering how long she's already been in jail, but I'm shocked they gave her any time off her sentence. I guess the system just wants to get rid of her and wait for her to commit another crime...
 
[quote name='Thekrakrabbit']Thats true, even though that was during the pending investigation.[/QUOTE]

It's still timed served, so it should pretty much always get applied to any sentences a person gets IMO.

Again, she's spent 3 years behind bars, and pretty much no one just convicted of those 4 counts of lying to the police would ever spend that much time actually in prison in a normal case that didn't involve a long investigation and trial. There misdemeanor charges (IIRC) so in all probability, most people charged only with those offenses she was convicted of would have just gotten probation as they pretty seldom give jail or prison time for misdemeanors these days. Especially for non-violent misdemeanors.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's still timed served, so it should pretty much always get applied to any sentences a person gets IMO.

Again, she's spent 3 years behind bars, and pretty much no one just convicted of those 4 counts of lying to the police would ever spend that much time actually in prison in a normal case that didn't involve a long investigation and trial.[/QUOTE]
Since you're apparently now the resident criminology theorist on this board, how would you rate the scale of legal fail in this thread between 1 and 10. 1 being a little fail and 10 being All Aboard the FAIL Boat! fail? And would you give extra points for sociopathy?
 
It's pretty high on the scale, not a 10 though as that's reserved for the people protesting and making death threats etc.

And the fail is balanced out by about an equal number of people posting who understand reasonable doubt etc. :D

So I guess I'd put it around a 6 putting taking those into consideration.
 
The fail in this thread isn't as high as the fail on Facebook... There's a staggering lack of knowledge of how the criminal trial system works. I can't believe the amount of people lashing out at the jurors or the defense attorneys and not the prosecution for failing to do their job...

Along those lines I just don't get all this feigned outrage on behalf of the public. Children are actually killed by the parents EVERY SINGLE DAY and yet this woman is treated as the worst person in history since Hitler? Hell, even if she had killed the kid the way the prosecution contended she did its a hell of a lot more humane than a lot of the horror stories of how parents have killed their children. Suffocation by way of chloroform is nothing compared to beating a child to death, shaking a child to brain damage or death, putting baby in an oven/microwave, shooting them in cold blood, drowning them in the bathtub, drowning them in a lake while they're strapped into their car seat, etc.

Where were all these people when those killings happened?
 
[quote name='Thekrakrabbit']Thats true, even though that was during the pending investigation. Its not a TON of time off considering how long she's already been in jail, but I'm shocked they gave her any time off her sentence. I guess the system just wants to get rid of her and wait for her to commit another crime...[/QUOTE]

...or releasing the fox to the hounds. I'm glad I'm on the other side of the country away from the crazies ready to satisfy their Dark Passenger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top