Casey Anthony Trial (merged)

Kerfuffle

New member
Joined:
Jul 12, 2010
Posts:
1,417
Liked Posts:
0
We need a thread on this. I'm pretty upset today hearing this woman was found NOT guilty. She murdered her innocent little 2 year daughter. Some things to consider:



1) Motive - she wanted to be free again and live the young life of a 22 year old bar hopping patron - as evidenced by the photos of her dancing in clubs after her daughter was already missing. Any other mother would be freaking out in tears and having candlelight vigils and volunteer searches for their missing child.

2) Circumstantial Evidence - and yes you can convict on that. She did not report her daughter missing for a month. A month!!

3) Lying to police - She told them she dropped the baby off with a babysitter who later turned out never existed.

4) Chloroform searches - they did find choloform searches (many of them) on her computer hard drive. Her mother then lies about it in court and says she was doing the choloform searches herself.
 

Tater

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
13,392
Liked Posts:
5,207
Another "O.J." type jury no doubt.
 

Kerfuffle

New member
Joined:
Jul 12, 2010
Posts:
1,417
Liked Posts:
0
Another "O.J." type jury no doubt.

Agreed. They were going to talk to the media right after but then declined. Everyone is interested to see why they had 'doubt'. Some of the news stations are reporting that Casey will become a celebrity after this with book and movie deals in the works. Sickening.
 

genefoley

New member
Joined:
May 16, 2010
Posts:
564
Liked Posts:
0
Location:
Blue Island, IL
Aren't there a few lawyers on this board? I'd love to hear their take on this. I don't know much about law but it seems everything going against Casey was all circumstantial. The state couldn't prove that it was Casey who killed Caylee. I think she should get the death penalty for the fact that she was out partying while her daughter was missing, along with the tattoo--whether she did it or not. I just wanna know who did it at this point.



She's so guilty its not even funny but the prosecution couldn't prove it was her. I just want to hear her explain why she searched chloroform and neck breaking.
 

Variable

New member
Joined:
Jul 24, 2010
Posts:
3,023
Liked Posts:
122
Like I said, when you're trying pin down a Murder 1 charge, you need concrete evidence. They didn't have it. She wasn't on trial for being a bad mother or lying to the police. It's not the same. You can't depend on that for a guilty verdict on what you're charging her.
 

TSD

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 14, 2010
Posts:
5,014
Liked Posts:
4
Location:
Plainfield, IL
Its not about what the jury has doubts about. Its about what doubt OBJECTIVELY the evidence creates. I think shes guilty as sin too, but everyone thrown in jail wrongly convicted that were later freed with new evidence, or still in jail people thought that way too.



I called this verdict a couple weeks ago. I think based on the evidence it is the correct one whether I believe she is guilty or not, the evidence leaves room for the possibility she isn't, plain and simple.
 

R K

Guest
It was all very circumstantial evidence. They even used a "google search" which was submitted. Thats how far they were reaching at evidence.



Beyond a reasonable doubt. Obviously the Jury, who was unanimous (which OJS wasnt) on all decisions thought there was not enough evidence. Most "experts" said this was exactly what would happen. Which is why she did NOT testify.



No suprise.
 

R K

Guest
Like I said, when you're trying pin down a Murder 1 charge, you need concrete evidence. They didn't have it. She wasn't on trial for being a bad mother or lying to the police. It's not the same. You can't depend on that for a guilty verdict on what you're charging her.





actually she was also on trial for being a bad mother. (neglect) They found her not guilty of that too. The ONLY thing she was found guilty on were four counts of lying to law enforcement agents.
 

Kerfuffle

New member
Joined:
Jul 12, 2010
Posts:
1,417
Liked Posts:
0
Like I said, when you're trying pin down a Murder 1 charge, you need concrete evidence. They didn't have it. She wasn't on trial for being a bad mother or lying to the police. It's not the same. You can't depend on that for a guilty verdict on what you're charging her.

You can convict on circumstantial evidence. This case as the prosecutor said should not remove itself from 'common sense'. And when someone doesn't report their kid missing for a month and has a dead body in the car, lies to police about everything, it's pretty clear what happened.
 

Kerfuffle

New member
Joined:
Jul 12, 2010
Posts:
1,417
Liked Posts:
0
The most prison time she can serve after today is 1 year. The four counts of lying to police each carry 1 year. But since she has spent the last 3 in prison, those count as time served. So the judge can either give her up to 1 more year or let her go. He will probably just sentence her to time served and she walks like OJ. Mind boggling.
 

JOVE23

New member
Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
Posts:
2,458
Liked Posts:
0
They were shooting for the moon with Murder 1 and the chair. If they would have settled for negligent homicide or Murder 2 or some lesser charge it would have stuck. The DA never even tried to go after any charge apart from Murder 1.



Additionally, if those worthless cops would have gone into the woods and found her body earlier on and preserving the physical evidence that would have nailed her to the wall.
 

TSD

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 14, 2010
Posts:
5,014
Liked Posts:
4
Location:
Plainfield, IL
as I said a hundred times before, I would rather thousands of guilty people go free than one innocent person be punished for a crime they did not commit, especially a capitol crime.





I know many people don't share that view, but you would be changing your tune if a wad of circumstantial evidence connects you or a loved one to a murder you/they did not commit.
 

R K

Guest
They were shooting for the moon with Murder 1 and the chair. If they would have settled for negligent homicide or Murder 2 or some lesser charge it would have stuck. The DA never even tried to go after any charge apart from Murder 1.



Additionally, if those worthless cops would have gone into the woods and found her body earlier on and preserving the physical evidence that would have nailed her to the wall.





Yup. No, Jury is going to convict anyone to Murder 1 and or the Death Sentence with circumstancial evidence. It's BEYOND THE REASONABLE DOUBT, which apparently they felt this was not since the verdict, unlike the OJ Trial, was 100% unanimous according to the forman.



Again this is exactly why she chose NOT to testify.
 

TSD

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 14, 2010
Posts:
5,014
Liked Posts:
4
Location:
Plainfield, IL
You can convict on circumstantial evidence. This case as the prosecutor said should not remove itself from 'common sense'. And when someone doesn't report their kid missing for a month and has a dead body in the car, lies to police about everything, it's pretty clear what happened.



A Jury can convict on whatever they want.



You shouldnt convict on circumstantial evidence though whether you can or not. End of story. Innocent people will go to prison for crimes they did not commit, and I just cant tolerate that.
 

BiscuitintheBasket

CCS Donator
Donator
Joined:
May 15, 2010
Posts:
3,802
Liked Posts:
0
They were shooting for the moon with Murder 1 and the chair. If they would have settled for negligent homicide or Murder 2 or some lesser charge it would have stuck. The DA never even tried to go after any charge apart from Murder 1.



Additionally, if those worthless cops would have gone into the woods and found her body earlier on and preserving the physical evidence that would have nailed her to the wall.







Bingo, and mom's slip up while on the stand played into it as well.
 

Kerfuffle

New member
Joined:
Jul 12, 2010
Posts:
1,417
Liked Posts:
0
The first OJ trial (criminal case in 1995) the jury was unanimous that he was NOT guilty - otherwise it would have been a hung jury. The second OJ trail (civil case in 1997) the jury was not unanimous but in that case they didn't need to be cause it was strictly a monetary judgement and no prison time.
 

R K

Guest
A Jury can convict on whatever they want.



You shouldnt convict on circumstantial evidence though whether you can or not. End of story. Innocent people will go to prison for crimes they did not commit, and I just cant tolerate that.



Neither could George Ryan.
 

JOVE23

New member
Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
Posts:
2,458
Liked Posts:
0
The first OJ trial (criminal case in 1995) the jury was unanimous that he was NOT guilty - otherwise it would have been a hung jury. The second OJ trail (civil case in 1997) the jury was not unanimous but in that case they didn't need to be cause it was strictly a monetary judgement and no prison time.



And in civil cases you must render a judgment on the preponderance of the evidence and not reasonable doubt.
 

Kerfuffle

New member
Joined:
Jul 12, 2010
Posts:
1,417
Liked Posts:
0
A Jury can convict on whatever they want.



You shouldnt convict on circumstantial evidence though whether you can or not. End of story. Innocent people will go to prison for crimes they did not commit, and I just cant tolerate that.

No system of justice will ever root out 100% of the innocent. There will always be a few that unfortunately get guilty verdicts when they are innocent. But I believe a case as strong as this one was clearly beyond a reasonable doubt and that she was guilty. Dead body in the trunk, lying to police, not reporting baby missing for a month, borrowing shovel from neighbor, cholorform and neck breaking search.
 

JOVE23

New member
Joined:
Jun 15, 2010
Posts:
2,458
Liked Posts:
0
No system of justice will ever root out 100% of the innocent. There will always be a few that unfortunately get guilty verdicts when they are innocent. But I believe a case as strong as this one was clearly beyond a reasonable doubt and that she was guilty. Dead body in the trunk, lying to police, not reporting baby missing for a month, borrowing shovel from neighbor, cholorform and neck breaking search.



And the prosecutor failed to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that it added up to capital murder.



You don't send someone to the death house on circumstantial evidence.
 

Top