Casey Anthony, Not guilty!

I saw that. I thought it was a case of her looking guilty as hell but the prosecution pretty much sucked in the direct evidence department. In that respect it reminded me of the movie "Presumed Innocent" with Harrison Ford.
 
As someone who has served on a criminal jury and acquitted someone whom I truly believed to be guilty, I can empathize with the jurors. Until you've been in that position, you can't really understand what its like. I'm sure people will blame the jury, but it's not the responsibility of the jury to make the state's case for them.
 
Same as OJ, bitch probably did it but there was little to no actual evidence linking her to it. The entire case was based on circumstantial evidence, namely the fact that she didn't report her daughter as missing. Does that make you look guilty as fuck? Hell yeah. Does it make you guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt? Sadly, no. The problem is that being weird and looking guilty doesn't translate into actual guilt. They had a pathetically weak case that made me question why they were charging her in the first place. The prosecution charged her with 1st degree premeditated murder but presented almost no evidence at trial of pre-meditation. Sloppy lawyering as all hell.

Sad to say people but sometimes people do get away with murder.
 
From the little I followed of the case, it did seem like the evidence didn't prove her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as it seemed to be mostly circumstantial evidence.

Hard to see how that could refute beyond a reasonable doubt the defenses argument that it was an accidental drowning that they panicked and covered up.
 
[quote name='metaphysicalstyles']She'll be dead in a month. Somebody out there was likely emotionally invested in the outcome of that trial... and will seek vengeance.[/QUOTE]

We can only hope
 
[quote name='metaphysicalstyles']She'll be dead in a month. Somebody out there was likely emotionally invested in the outcome of that trial... and will seek vengeance.[/QUOTE]

This is sad.,
 
[quote name='metaphysicalstyles']She'll be dead in a month. Somebody out there was likely emotionally invested in the outcome of that trial... and will seek vengeance.[/QUOTE]

damn how sad is that that i also thought the same thing as soon as i saw the verdict. its funny all those news stations ( especially hln) who swore up and down shed be found guilty and now that shes not theyre still going on and on about it.

from the little i saw of the trial and the evidence i didnt see how any of it could really be connected to her without there being any doubt. that said her fucking family is nuts and i think theres a bigger story there with them.
 
[quote name='metaphysicalstyles']She'll be dead in a month. Somebody out there was likely emotionally invested in the outcome of that trial... and will seek vengeance.[/QUOTE]

This is sad. Everyone falls right in line with what tv tells them. The states attorney failed to prove murder. I'm not saying she is innocent & I'm not saying she's guilty. Yes she is a horrible mom but that does not prove murder. This is what happens when you go to trial on weak evidence.
 
[quote name='Oaxan']Am I the only one who believes it was the father who did it?[/QUOTE]

i always felt like ti was either the mom or the dad since it seems kinda obvious casey was a shit mom who was more into partying then parenting. i just wonder if it was really an accident or not. also if hes really the kind of guy whod molest his daughter is it a stretch to think hed molest the granddaughter?
 
Also being discussed here: http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=298659

I'll just paste my post from there.

From the little I followed of the case, it did seem like the evidence didn't prove her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as it seemed to be mostly circumstantial evidence.

Hard to see how that could refute beyond a reasonable doubt the defenses argument that it was an accidental drowning that they panicked and covered up.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114'] it did seem like the evidence didn't prove her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as it seemed to be mostly circumstantial evidence.[/QUOTE]

end of story.
 
I havent followed this much at all. Did she get charged with anything besides murder? I heard someone saying something about her "at least getting charged with four counts".
 
Casey Anthony, 25, was charged with seven counts -- first-degree murder, aggravated child abuse, aggravated manslaughter of a child and four counts of providing false information to a law enforcement officer in Caylee's 2008 disappearance and death.
Click to expand...

She was found guilty of the 4 counts of lying to the police and acquitted of the other 3 charges.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']She was found guilty of the 4 counts of lying to the police and acquitted of the other 3 charges.[/QUOTE]

Sooo is anyone asking if she didn't do it then who did? Or is the case shut now because they know she did it but can't prove it?

What does lying to police in a death/disappearance get you nowadays anyway? any jail time?
 
[quote name='Knoell']Sooo is anyone asking if she didn't do it then who did? Or is the case shut now because they know she did it but can't prove it?

[/QUOTE]

I'm wondering the same thing.
 
She murdered her little girl, I think most everyone will agree with that. But like most here are saying the prosecution did not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Her attitude and lying throughout the case certainly paints her as a killer, but it proves nothing.

What baffles me is the jury took only a day and a half to deliberate and come back with the not guilty. Which means every person on the jury had to agree on the verdict. Now I don't know every single piece of evidence presented but that seems awfully quick to me.

[quote name='Knoell']Sooo is anyone asking if she didn't do it then who did? Or is the case shut now because they know she did it but can't prove it?[/QUOTE]

The defense passed it off as an accidental death. Saying the girl drowned in the family pool and the mother covered it up, which does not constitute as first degree murder. As a result she can not receive the death penalty.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Rodimus']
What baffles me is the jury took only a day and a half to deliberate and come back with the not guilty. Which means every person on the jury had to agree on the verdict. Now I don't know every single piece of evidence presented but that seems awfully quick to me.
[/QUOTE]

That usually means that most of them were in agreement when deliberation began, and those who weren't were not terribly entrenched in that position. I sat on a criminal jury (attempted murder in my case) where we ended up acquitting in about a day, even though to a person every single juror expressed the belief that the defendant had committed the crime.

Believing someone did something and believing it beyond a reasonable doubt are two incredibly different concepts, and any defense attorney worth their salt will spend as much of the trial as possible hammering that point home to jurors.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What??!? Daughter rotting in a field? I'm busy gettin' my party on!
casey-anthony-0002.jpg
 
I'd hit it.

Also, this whole case was a massive exhibition of media propaganda at work. I'd seriously acquit based on the principle of "hey peeps, innocent until proven guilty ya?" if I were sitting on the jury. That said, I blew up my ankle a few weeks ago, and with nothing better to do and no ability to do it, actually watched a couple days of the trial. The evidence was pretty weak, and the prosecution may have been even worse. The defense had them dead to rights in the closing arguments, there's simply no other way to put it.
 
[quote name='Rodimus']
The defense passed it off as an accidental death. Saying the girl drowned in the family pool and the mother covered it up, which does not constitute as first degree murder. As a result she can not receive the death penalty.[/QUOTE]

Yep, there's no need to ask who did it. It's pretty clear she either killed her or it was an accidental death that they tried to cover up.


[quote name='bvharris']That usually means that most of them were in agreement when deliberation began, and those who weren't were not terribly entrenched in that position. I sat on a criminal jury (attempted murder in my case) where we ended up acquitting in about a day, even though to a person every single juror expressed the belief that the defendant had committed the crime (attempted murder in this case).

Believing someone did something and believing it beyond a reasonable doubt are too incredibly different concepts, and any defense attorney worth their salt will spend as much of the trial as possible hammering that point home to jurors.[/QUOTE]

Yep. It was quick as it was all very weak, circumstantial evidence and the defense did a good job of hammering home that the evidence had to prove her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt if they were going to convict her.

That's just the way the system is designed. And it's a good thing as it's better to risk some guilty people getting off than it is to risk innocent people being convicted due to having a lower burden of proof.
 
RE: The "mom" partying and whatnot while the tot was apparently rotting in a field
Everyone deals with stress differently. Some people hope to find happiness in a bottle, others just cry uncontrollably, others need to bang a hooker or at the very least engage in questionable acts with self harm a great outcome.
To deny anyone their grieving and/or denial because it is different than yours is kind of pitiful.

Having said all that. Milf. She just has to lay off the heavy facial makeup and she's actually a rather comely young thing.
 
dmaul: Aren't you a PhD in criminal justice or a related field? Can you maybe share or post some links that explain what the prosecution's argument was and why it was so shitty that she was found not guilty?
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']dmaul: Aren't you a PhD in criminal justice or a related field? Can you maybe share or post some links that explain what the prosecution's argument was and why it was so shitty that she was found not guilty?[/QUOTE]

Yep, but we don't really study or learn about criminal law directly--that's what a law degree is. I've never had or taught a class on criminal law or courtroom procedure etc. as that kind of stuff wasn't offered. We're more focused on theories of why people commit crimes, whether the CJ system is effective in reducing crime etc. than things like evidence and legal arguments, etc. that are the domain of law schools.

I'm especially unqualified to give anything more than a personal (and not professional take) on this issue since I focus my research on policing and criminological theory. So I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the court system beyond basic structure and some research I studied for Ph D comps (mostly focused on racial disparities in sentencing and impact of sentencing policies on crime rates). :D

Someone who's got a law degree and works in criminal law would be the better person to ask about the specifics of this case.

But in a nutshell, as just a personal opinion, it was just all circumstantial evidence. To my knowledge there was no physical evidence or witness testimony that could refute beyond a reasonable doubt that it was just an accidental death that they tried to cover up. Just a lot of he said/she said arguments with clear lies by both her and the authorities that made it hard to tell who was telling the truth.
 
Seems like the evidence wasn't all there, but the failed coverups and exposed lies would be more then enough to get her convicted of AT LEAST manslaughter. The fact that she gets off essentially scott-free is just sad, especially in case as serious as this one. People have been convicted with less going against them, yet Anthony gets off in a case where she relentlessly lied and got exposed. Hmmm...the lack of evidence is what got her off the hook, but IMO there was enough lies and coverups to convict her. The jury must have been in a reeeal good mood today.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']
I'm especially unqualified to give anything more than a personal (and not professional take) on this issue since I focus my research on policing and criminological theory. So I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the court system beyond basic structure and some research I studied for Ph D comps (mostly focused on racial disparities in sentencing and impact of sentencing policies on crime rates). :D
[/QUOTE]

pgUl8.gif


;)
 
[quote name='Thekrakrabbit']Seems like the evidence wasn't all there, but the failed coverups and exposed lies would be more then enough to get her convicted of AT LEAST manslaughter..[/QUOTE]

Again, just personal opinion on the case--I doubt it. From what I've seen those don't cast reasonable doubt on the death just being an accident. They'd have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was serious neglect or abuse that caused the death to get a manslaughter conviction.

If they can't prove it wasn't just a tragedy where a child drowned in a pool (which is something that happens all the time, it's one of the most dangerous things you can have around your home if you have kids) and that they panicked and tried to cover it up then they can't even get a manslaughter conviction.

All they can get is what they got--charges related to the cover and lying to police etc.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']
pgUl8.gif


;)[/QUOTE]

:D

Sorry to disappoint! It's a common misconception that criminologists are experts on criminal law. The one's that are usually have JDs in addition to their Ph Ds, as that legal stuff just isn't covered at all in most doctoral programs in criminology and criminal justice.

We're just sociologists who focus exclusively on studying crime. :D
 
I understand that they didnt have enough evidence to convict, but it doesnt make it any less hard to swallow. Its obvious this p.o.s. did it, and I wouldnt mind seeing justice paying her a visit outside of the courtroom.
 
[quote name='nasum']RE: The "mom" partying and whatnot while the tot was apparently rotting in a field
Everyone deals with stress differently. Some people hope to find happiness in a bottle, others just cry uncontrollably, others need to bang a hooker or at the very least engage in questionable acts with self harm a great outcome.
To deny anyone their grieving and/or denial because it is different than yours is kind of pitiful.
[/QUOTE]

I agree completely. I've seen enough grief in my life to know that people all deal with it differently. Well said.
 
The media needs to stop hyping the shit out of trials like they did with this. My facebook has been blowing up for the last 4 hours with people who think they know everything about this case, when in reality they've probably seen 13 minutes of CNN coverage and none of the actual trial itself.
 
[quote name='MillerTime2523']The media needs to stop hyping the shit out of trials like they did with this. My facebook has been blowing up for the last 4 hours with people who think they know everything about this case, when in reality they've probably seen 13 minutes of CNN coverage and none of the actual trial itself.[/QUOTE]

You're not the only one. Tons of people on my FB page are condemning the jury.
 
A verdict like this actually makes me feel good about the justice system. Look at what happened with Casey Anthony and compare that with what happened to Amanda Knox. The prosecution needs to meet a burden of proof and they clearly didn't do it. A smell in a car and the accused actions after their supposed misdeed aren't substantial enough to convict someone of a crime.
 
A verdict like this actually makes me feel good about the justice system. Look at what happened with Casey Anthony and compare that with what happened to Amanda Knox. The prosecution needs to meet a burden of proof and they clearly didn't do it. A smell in a car and the accused actions after their supposed misdeed aren't substantial enough to convict someone of a crime.
 
[quote name='HeSaveDave']What??!? Daughter rotting in a field? I'm busy gettin' my party on!
casey-anthony-0002.jpg
[/QUOTE]

Great job, you just did the same job as the prosecution.

They presented evidence of her at parties and even shopping after her daughter went missing. PLENTY of evidence that shows she is probably mentally disturbed or at the very least doesn't mourn the same as the rest of us.

The only problem? If you base your entire case on that, such as the prosecution in this case did, then it makes your case look VERY weak because it makes it look like the entire thing is based not on your evidence but rather her odd, irregular reaction to the incident.


Its kind of funny, I was watching some news reports on it as the verdicts were being read. The Talk specifically said they had not seen the verdict but that they were receiving information that she was smiling as the verdict was read. Then I watched the verdict being read, no smile. Figures.
 
[quote name='CaseyRyback']A verdict like this actually makes me feel good about the justice system. Look at what happened with Casey Anthony and compare that with what happened to Amanda Knox. The prosecution needs to meet a burden of proof and they clearly didn't do it. A smell in a car and the accused actions after their supposed misdeed aren't substantial enough to convict someone of a crime.[/QUOTE]

Yep. While it sucks that sometimes people who are probably guilty get off, it's much better than having a lower burden of proof with more risk of innocents being wrongly convicted.

The smell thing was particularly weak since tests of the car trunk didn't turn up any traces of chloroform or decomposition.
 
"Beyond reasonable doubt" - That's the problem with the justice system. There will ALWAYS be doubt in ANY court case. She did it and the jury knows she did it, but they wouldn't convict her because of doubt. Our country is a fucking joke...
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Great job, you just did the same job as the prosecution.

They presented evidence of her at parties and even shopping after her daughter went missing. PLENTY of evidence that shows she is probably mentally disturbed or at the very least doesn't mourn the same as the rest of us.

The only problem? If you base your entire case on that, such as the prosecution in this case did, then it makes your case look VERY weak because it makes it look like the entire thing is based not on your evidence but rather her odd, irregular reaction to the incident.


Its kind of funny, I was watching some news reports on it as the verdicts were being read. The Talk specifically said they had not seen the verdict but that they were receiving information that she was smiling as the verdict was read. Then I watched the verdict being read, no smile. Figures.[/QUOTE]

lol thanks man. I was only playing though. I have no idea if she is guilty or not obviously. I was just being silly.
 
[quote name='crushtopher']"Beyond reasonable doubt" - That's the problem with the justice system. There will ALWAYS be doubt in ANY court case. She did it and the jury knows she did it, but they wouldn't convict her because of doubt. Our country is a fucking joke...[/QUOTE]

Reasonable doubt. Reasonable.
 
[quote name='camoor']Reasonable doubt. Reasonable.[/QUOTE]

"Reasonable" can mean alot of things to alot of different people. "Reasonable" might mean "I didn't see it happen" to some juries. and to others "I saw it but it could be his evil twin".
 
[quote name='crushtopher']"Beyond reasonable doubt" - That's the problem with the justice system. There will ALWAYS be doubt in ANY court case. She did it and the jury knows she did it, but they wouldn't convict her because of doubt. Our country is a fucking joke...[/QUOTE]

Hopefully the members of the jury don't feel the same way if you are ever wrongfully charged with a crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top