Casey Anthony, Not guilty!

[quote name='RedvsBlue']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]

I've never heard of somebody putting a baby in a microwave, I think you made that one up!

P.S. It makes no difference anyway, she (probably) still killed her 2 year old. It doesn't make a difference HOW you do it after its already done...
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']
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.
[/QUOTE]

I know it's a tired metaphor, but it's because people are sheep. For the most part they care about what they're told to care about, or what their neighbor cares about. We also have a tremendously short attention span as a culture, and this is our outrage du jour. In a few years most people will likely have forgotten what Casey Anthony is even known for. In a few more she will have been forgotten completely, especially once the next distraction comes along.

To use a video game analogy, it's kind of like Operation Rainfall. While I fully support that cause, I'm sure a healthy majority of the people who do never cared one iota about localization until they were told that they should. Once those games are localized, or they aren't, people will forget all about it and move on to the next cause.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing necessarily. It's just the way things are in modern society where we have so much information about such a wide variety of things available to us every day. In some ways it's entirely arbitrary what people will choose to care about.
 
I don't necessarily think it is terrible of people to be outraged that casey anthony did what she did. I mean I heard the 911 call from her mom on the news yesterday, and she was saying crap like "my daughter finally told us our granddaughter is missing" and "we just found her car and it smells like a dead body".

I mean guilty or innocent I am simply outraged at whatever she was attempting to do with the body. I am still not aware of all the facts as I have somehow stayed away from this whole thing, but the 911 call kind of killed the poor casey anthony defense for me.
 
[quote name='Thekrakrabbit']I've never heard of somebody putting a baby in a microwave, I think you made that one up!

P.S. It makes no difference anyway, she (probably) still killed her 2 year old. It doesn't make a difference HOW you do it after its already done...[/QUOTE]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290110,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1593777...urts/t/mother-accused-microwaving-baby-death/

(Whadya know, there's more direct evidence in that case too...)

Here's another one:

http://www.click2houston.com/news/13329125/detail.html

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5626207.html

Here's one from less than a month ago

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/06/22/3718306/sacramento-mother-arrested-in.html

Should I continue? that Google is a hell of a thing, isn't it?

[quote name='bvharris']I know it's a tired metaphor, but it's because people are sheep. For the most part they care about what they're told to care about, or what their neighbor cares about. We also have a tremendously short attention span as a culture, and this is our outrage du jour. In a few years most people will likely have forgotten what Casey Anthony is even known for. In a few more she will have been forgotten completely, especially once the next distraction comes along.

To use a video game analogy, it's kind of like Operation Rainfall. While I fully support that cause, I'm sure a healthy majority of the people who do never cared one iota about localization until they were told that they should. Once those games are localized, or they aren't, people will forget all about it and move on to the next cause.

I'm not saying it's a bad thing necessarily. It's just the way things are in modern society where we have so much information about such a wide variety of things available to us every day. In some ways it's entirely arbitrary what people will choose to care about.[/QUOTE]

I guess its just disappointing to see people so easily manipulated by the media. Clearly this case demonstrates why potential jurors are screened for their media exposure to the case and are kept shielded from outside information during the trial.
 
Many people kill their children but do many people kill their children, not report them missing for a month, lead the police on a wild goose chase, have mysterious circumstances like a trunk smelling like decomposition, and then having the remains found in the backwoods? All while the cops can't pin for sure who did it or how?

Mom microwaves baby. Mom drowns children. Dad shoots kids. Dad smothers children. The vast majority of them seem to be clear and straight forward. This case was anything but that even though the circumstantial evidence heavily points to Casey.

Once the parents turned hostile on the prosecution, they should have buried the whole family alive as a group of liars. I'm certain the mom lied on the stand about the Google searches, possibly to try to save whats left of her family even if her daughter did kill her granddaughter. Its some really sick shit going on between Casey and her parents and I think that really muddled the whole aspect of proving who did it and why, just enough so that the verdict reached was plausible.
 
[quote name='kodave']Many people kill their children but do many people kill their children, not report them missing for a month, lead the police on a wild goose chase, have mysterious circumstances like a trunk smelling like decomposition, and then having the remains found in the backwoods? All while the cops can't pin for sure who did it or how?

Mom microwaves baby. Mom drowns children. Dad shoots kids. Dad smothers children. The vast majority of them seem to be clear and straight forward. This case was anything but that even though the circumstantial evidence heavily points to Casey.

Once the parents turned hostile on the prosecution, they should have buried the whole family alive as a group of liars. I'm certain the mom lied on the stand about the Google searches, possibly to try to save whats left of her family even if her daughter did kill her granddaughter. Its some really sick shit going on between Casey and her parents and I think that really muddled the whole aspect of proving who did it and why, just enough so that the verdict reached was plausible.[/QUOTE]

I agree, as I have said I am still unclear on the facts, but at one point didn't casey anthony have the defense tell story of her sexual abuse by her father? If it were true, I feel terrible for what she went through, but how is it at all relavent to the case? I know you can't object in closing/opening arguments, but sheesh I wonder if the jury saw through that blatent attempt to make them feel sorry for her.

If my facts are screwed up correct me. I am just hearing bits and pieces of this whole thing.
 
[quote name='Knoell'] I know you can't object in closing/opening arguments, but sheesh I wonder if the jury saw through that blatent attempt to make them feel sorry for her.[/QUOTE]

You can (and sometimes should), but it's rarely done.
 
The defense wasn't allowed to mention the sexual abuse allegations in closing arguments. I know that much for sure.

But I assume the jury heard them at another time? Maybe they didn't. I don't know if the judge had to rule on the relevance of the questions to Casey's father about the sexual abuse allegations.
 
Those abuse questions were no more irrelevant than all the time the prosecution spent on how she was partying days after Caylee's disappearance etc.

None of that kind of character evidence does anything to prove guilt or innocence.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,290110,00.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/1593777...urts/t/mother-accused-microwaving-baby-death/

(Whadya know, there's more direct evidence in that case too...)

Here's another one:

http://www.click2houston.com/news/13329125/detail.html

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5626207.html

Here's one from less than a month ago

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/06/22/3718306/sacramento-mother-arrested-in.html

Should I continue? that Google is a hell of a thing, isn't it?
[/QUOTE]

Ouch, wasn't hoping to see anyone prove me wrong. :shock:
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Those abuse questions were no more irrelevant than all the time the prosecution spent on how she was partying days after Caylee's disappearance etc.

None of that kind of character evidence does anything to prove guilt or innocence.[/QUOTE]

Well, I can assume they were relevant for establishing her motive for the crime. She wanted to go party and stuff, the kinds of things she couldn't (in theory) do if she was bogged down with a small child as a single mother.

The defense countered with her friends who said she was a loving mother, a major point for not only rebutting that motive but for showing her character as a peaceable one when charged with a violent crime.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Those abuse questions were no more irrelevant than all the time the prosecution spent on how she was partying days after Caylee's disappearance etc.

None of that kind of character evidence does anything to prove guilt or innocence.[/QUOTE]

They were trying to show her father has a pattern as an abuser and they don't have to prove innocence.
 
[quote name='Thekrakrabbit']Ouch, wasn't hoping to see anyone prove me wrong. :shock:[/QUOTE]

Yeah, there's some sick fucks of parents out there.

[quote name='Cerebral_One']She not only killed Caylee but she tried to frame a woman for kidnapping her. An innocent woman could have sat in jail.[/QUOTE]

If they could have found a Zanny the Nanny I'm sure they could have cooked up an equally laughable case as they did against Casey.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']If they could have found a Zanny the Nanny I'm sure they could have cooked up an equally laughable case as they did against Casey.[/QUOTE]

There is a Zanny the Nanny and she's suing Casey for defamation.
 
[quote name='Dead of Knight']She's out of jail in two days. fuck an appeal.[/QUOTE]

The appeal probably has to do with the civil lawsuit against her. I believe one of the lies she got a misdemeanor conviction for was lying to the police and naming Zanny the Nanny as the one who kidnapped her kid.

Zanny is suing her for defamation. When that lawsuit gets rolling, a defense to defamation is truth. She's not going to be able to pull that card when Zanny the Nanny's lawyers introduce record of her conviction for lying to the police SPECIFICALLY about a lie involving Zanny the Nanny. She was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt about making that lie to the police. The standard in civil court is much lower. So if Zanny's lawyer presents whatever the prosecution presented regarding the lies, and if the plaintiff introduces evidence, transcripts, and the convictions from the criminal trial - boom, defense of truth quashed. Casey is likely going to lose.

But if an appeals court threw out those convictions, then there are no more convictions for Zanny the Nanny to try and bring into the civil lawsuit as evidence of the falsity of Casey's statement.

But that's just the convictions. I'm not sure what limitations, if any, there would be against the court records, transcripts, and evidence of Casey's statements if Zanny the Nanny tries to bring them in even if the convictions are overturned. She might still be able to introduce something like the defense's theory that the daughter drowned and the death was covered up - which would make Casey's allegation about Zanny an outright lie. I really don't know if that could be excluded, but Casey's lawyer is going to do everything he can to exclude as much potential evidence as he can. He's going to drag this thing out for years in discovery alone. But then again, the delay will only help Zanny when she eventually wins a money judgment, as I'm sure Casey will sign some kind of book deal and get a shit ton of cash, Zanny will at least have a chance of enforcing the judgment and grabbing some of that money unless Casey blows it all immediately.

Appealing and overturning her criminal convictions for lying isn't necessarily going to get Casey off in the civil case, but it's really something she has to do if she wants to have a prayer of muddling the issues for another jury.

More generally though, having misdemeanors on her record may affect some rights and privileges in Florida - maybe owning a gun or something, it definitely affects any adoption dreams (as if her name alone wouldn't kill those). So she'd want them cleared for that reason as well.
 
Ah, good old Civil Procedure issue preclusion.

Like kodave kind of mentioned, she's already lost the civil case because she was convicted criminally (a higher degree of guilt) of lying to police about Zanny the Nanny. In fact, since the issue has already been litigated at a higher degree of guilt, they wouldn't even need to repeat presenting all the evidence at the civil trial (if Florida allows for issue preclusion). The whole reason issue preclusion came about is essentially because someone has already been given their day in court (and lost). Jurisdictions can handle it with some important differences though. Most importantly is that issue preclusion typically involves the same 2 parties which it obviously wouldn't in this civil case.

This civil trial begs the question though. Zanny the Nanny might be able to prove defamation but the difficult problem is what kind of damages is she going to be able to show. The potential for future income is very difficult to prove in court particularly in a situation like this. I'm interested to see what happens with this civil trial and I guarantee you the media will be on it like stink on shit but more than likely it won't go anywhere.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']This civil trial begs the question though. Zanny the Nanny might be able to prove defamation but the difficult problem is what kind of damages is she going to be able to show. The potential for future income is very difficult to prove in court particularly in a situation like this. I'm interested to see what happens with this civil trial and I guarantee you the media will be on it like stink on shit but more than likely it won't go anywhere.[/QUOTE]

The problem is, the civil trial is going to take years to get rolling, and I doubt Casey will have to be present there for much of it, if any of it at all. No point in doing crazy coverage of it.

I believe it was just postponed to allow her lawyer to handle his other non-Casey Anthony work load. Then her lawyer is going to drag things out forever probably as a tactic to cause Zanny the Nanny to go broke on her own legal fees - and like you said, the amount of damages based on the kind of losses to Zanny the Nanny are going to be a big deal to prove.

Not to mention, I don't know what Florida's specific laws are, but if her conviction for lying is on appeal, Zanny the Nanny may not be able to introduce it until all appeals are final. That may put Zanny at the disadvantage of not being able to use the convictions, or Zanny might try to draw out the suit until the convictions are final on appeal so she can use the convictions.

So its going to be a long while, and its not going to be very interesting, especially with Casey off in Ohio or Puerto Rico or where ever she's being stashed.
 
A key issue about the zany the nanny defamation suit will be whether the statement was actually about the plaintiff. I believe the prosecutors alleged that Anthony actually made the person up. You cannot defame a fictional character. Also, I believe Anthony's mother claimed that the zany they found was the wrong person. You cannot win a defamation suit just because you share someone's name. In my opinion, it will be incredibly difficult for the plaintiff to prove the statements were of and concerning her. I believe the plaintiff and Anthony have never even met and it's not like the plaintiff is a famous figure people would have known the statements were concerning. I also read something saying there are 9 other people in the area with the plaintiffs name. I haven't followed the case that closely though, any info I have is just off memory from second hand reporting.

IMO, Saying that she lost the civil case because of the criminal conviction could not be further from the truth. All it does is potentially eliminate the truth as a defense, which shouldn't be argued anyways. I would be absolutely shocked if her lawyers argued that her statements were true. The much safer and stronger legal tactic would be to say they were entirely fictional and had nothing to with the plaintiff. Assuming what I have read about the prosecutors criminal case is accurate, the conviction could actually back up an argument that the statements were not about the Plaintiff. Again, my facts could be off....but even if they are, I still think the conviction would be of little consequence in the hands of a decent defense team.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is what I think happened. Casey regularly drugged Caylee with chloroform to knock her out so she could go clubbing. The last time she did this it was too much and accidentally killed Caylee so then she had to cover it up.
 
[quote name='caltab']A key issue about the zany the nanny defamation suit will be whether the statement was actually about the plaintiff. I believe the prosecutors alleged that Anthony actually made the person up. You cannot defame a fictional character. Also, I believe Anthony's mother claimed that the zany they found was the wrong person. You cannot win a defamation suit just because you share someone's name. In my opinion, it will be incredibly difficult for the plaintiff to prove the statements were of and concerning her. I believe the plaintiff and Anthony have never even met and it's not like the plaintiff is a famous figure people would have known the statements were concerning. I also read something saying there are 9 other people in the area with the plaintiffs name. I haven't followed the case that closely though, any info I have is just off memory from second hand reporting.

IMO, Saying that she lost the civil case because of the criminal conviction could not be further from the truth. All it does is potentially eliminate the truth as a defense, which shouldn't be argued anyways. I would be absolutely shocked if her lawyers argued that her statements were true. The much safer and stronger legal tactic would be to say they were entirely fictional and had nothing to with the plaintiff. Assuming what I have read about the prosecutors criminal case is accurate, the conviction could actually back up an argument that the statements were not about the Plaintiff. Again, my facts could be off....but even if they are, I still think the conviction would be of little consequence in the hands of a decent defense team.[/QUOTE]
I understand your point of view but when it comes to issue preclusion the judge can order as a matter of law they cannot argue the issue of whether she lied to the police. It is of actually of great consequence to the civil case and issue preclusion can, and does, make or break a civil case.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']I understand your point of view but when it comes to issue preclusion the judge can order as a matter of law they cannot argue the issue of whether she lied to the police. It is of actually of great consequence to the civil case and issue preclusion can, and does, make or break a civil case.[/QUOTE]

Right...but my point is the conviction and fact that she lied to the place doesn't really hurt her because she may have been entirely fabricating a story or at least talking about someone else. You can't defame a figment of your imagination, even if some random person shares the name. Thus, the conivicton wouldn't really hurt her defense at all. Sure it could be used to show her bad character and tendency to lie, but this is a really weird case were being a liar doesn't devastate her.

I am not saying that in general a criminal conviction doesn't hurt you in a subsequent civil case, but rather in this really weird defamation case it shouldn't be of much consequence. I don't see her legal team arguing her statements were true, but instead the exact opposite that they were entirely fictional.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think I may have read conflicting things or possibly untrue things, like Casey met this Zanny the Nanny once.

Its also possible that all Zanny the Nanny's could have a small group defamation claim against Casey provided they have the appropriate damages. All the Zannys would have to do is introduce some evidence that it was more likely than not that Casey opened a phone book and randomly picked out an ethnic name to blame. Or at least they'd have a better chance of doing it than a group of "John Smiths." Whether its just one Zanny or a small group, finding some shreds of evidence to convince a judge or jury that its more probable that she found this name and decided to defame it rather than she made up a name from her imagination has to be easier than what the prosecution tried to prove in the criminal trial.
 
[quote name='kodave']I think I may have read conflicting things or possibly untrue things, like Casey met this Zanny the Nanny once.

Its also possible that all Zanny the Nanny's could have a small group defamation claim against Casey provided they have the appropriate damages. All the Zannys would have to do is introduce some evidence that it was more likely than not that Casey opened a phone book and randomly picked out an ethnic name to blame. Or at least they'd have a better chance of doing it than a group of "John Smiths." Whether its just one Zanny or a small group, finding some shreds of evidence to convince a judge or jury that its more probable that she found this name and decided to defame it rather than she made up a name from her imagination has to be easier than what the prosecution tried to prove in the criminal trial.[/QUOTE]

There absolutely could not be a small group claim. The alleged defamatory statements were not about a group, they were about a specific person, which many would argue did not exist. You do not have a defamation claim because you share someone's name. Zany has the burden of proving the statement was specifically of and concerning her and not someone else with the same name. In most defamation cases this really is not an issue because either the people know each other or it's someone famous. In this case I'm pretty sure they actually have never met and the person isn't even remotely famous. It will be a very interesting defamation case, ,perhaps the type you eventually end up reading in a case book.

Edit: I took a few minutes to see if I could find some facts about the claim and found this little article that says that Anthony claims it was a different zany that drove a different car and had a different number of children. If the info about the car or kids is reflected in the police reports about her original statements it would really hurt the nannys case. There seems to be some conflicting info about the statements and nanny though. The article also makes the point that damages will be hard to prove because of Anthony's total lack of credibility.

http://blogs.findlaw.com/injured/2011/07/casey-anthony-faces-nanny-defamation-lawsuit.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top