Casey Anthony Trial (merged)

[Kerfuffle]

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.

You sure can send someone to death row on circumstantial evidence. And there's plenty of it in this case. I would have had no problem doing it here. This was another OJ jury at it's finest where common sense is overlooked and unless there's video of the actual murder they just can't come around to convict.

 

[TSD]

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.

No it wasn't the evidence did not prove she killed the child. Based on the evidence the possibility exists she did not do it. I think you dont know what beyond a reasonable doubt means. It isnt something that means different things to different people. If you look at the evidence objectively you should not convict in this case.



Dead body in the trunk?



ORLANDO, Fla (Reuters) – A research chemist testified on Wednesday that he found evidence of gasoline in air samples from Casey Anthony's car trunk but nothing to indicate that a dead body had been stored there.



Maureen Bottrell, an FBI geologist, testified on Wednesday that she tested 22 pairs of shoes from the Anthony home, a shovel, debris from the trunk of Casey's car, and dirt samples from the scene where Caylee's body was discovered.

She said the tests did not connect any of the articles with the crime scene.



then this:



Vass's lab later reported a higher result for chloroform. Vass previously testified that the air sample he tested had the strong smell of human decomposition.



so he smelled something, but no solid evidence.



http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110622/us_nm/us_crime_anthony_6





So your dead body in the trunk theory isnt exactly backed by the science.

 

[JOVE23]

There was never a cause of death determined. That makes it much harder to convict.

 

[Kerfuffle]

There was never a cause of death determined. That makes it much harder to convict.

I didn't feel it mattered. We all know that 2 year old babies don't wind up in forest preserves by themselves. The dead body smells in the trunk along with borrowing a shovel from a neighbor says a lot too.

 

[R K]

Actually, and not to vear the thread off the thread, Jeanette Harris said they were Hung in the OJ Trial all the way to the end. The "only" reason he was aquitted is that they never would have gotten the conviction of guilt and wanted to go home.



I'm pretty sure there are several jurists that have books on their time in the OJ jury and most disagreed with each others reasoning.



Apparenlty that was not the case here and the verdict was ASAP. Unlike the many days it's taken in other controversial cases.

 

[R K]

I actually agree with Fluff and think she was Guilty. I didn't see much of the trial other than the fact they had said there was very little evidence. And UNLESS she testifyed, would walk.



I also wasn't on the jury so my opinion means dick.

 

[JOVE23]

I didn't feel it mattered. We all know that 2 year old babies don't wind up in forest preserves by themselves. The dead body smells in the trunk along with borrowing a shovel from a neighbor says a lot too.

It absolutely matters. How can you with a clear conscience condemn someone to die for allegedly murdering someone if the deceased could have just as easily drowned in a swimming pool?

 

[Kerfuffle]

OJ Criminal Trial was 9 months of testimony/case and 4 hours of deliberation. That was part of the outrage by the public that after so many months and so much evidence, the jury came out so quickly with acquittal.

 

[TSD]

You sure can send someone to death row on circumstantial evidence. And there's plenty of it in this case. I would have had no problem doing it here. This was another OJ jury at it's finest where common sense is overlooked and unless there's video of the actual murder they just can't come around to convict.

You are completely missing the point. What people are saying is not that you cant, but that it is unethical to condemn someone to death on circumstantial evidence.

 

[Variable]

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.

I think you're confusing it being a strong case with strong emotions felt towards the case. For what they were going after, it wasn't a strong case.

 

[Kerfuffle]

It absolutely matters. How can you with a clear conscience condemn someone to die for allegedly murdering someone if the deceased could have just as easily drowned in a swimming pool?

I think we both know that she didn't drown in a swimming pool. The defense came up with that theory cause they had to find something to explain her death. And of course they took down George Anthony in the process which I don't believe the judge should have allowed. From the baseless claims of abuse, to covering up the drowning, it was just out of hand.

 

[Kerfuffle]

You are completely missing the point. What people are saying is not that you cant, but that it is unethical to condemn someone to death on circumstantial evidence.

Unethical is a personal feeling. Maybe to you it's unethical but to me it is. I personally would have no problem convicting her to death based on this circumstantial evidence. I believe it was a pretty strong case. You are dismissing circumstantital evidence as being absolutely baseless and not even worthy of consideration here.

 

[TSD]

I actually agree with Fluff and think she was Guilty. I didn't see much of the trial other than the fact they had said there was very little evidence. And UNLESS she testifyed, would walk.



I also wasn't on the jury so my opinion means dick.

I believe she may have killed the kid, or at the very least neglected the kid and the kid drowned in the pool and tried to cover up her responsibility. What I think doesnt matter though, its what the evidence says definitively.

 

[LordKOTL]

I'm with Jove on this. Whether or not you *think* they're guilty is irrelevant--you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was, and that meant providing enough evedince that there is no doubt in their mind that she was guilty.



Now, whether that means that the prosecution didn't meet a reasonable proof of guilt, or if the jury found the defense's half-truths and innuendoes easier to stomach than the prosecution's, the tangible proof wasn't there.

 

[R K]

I believe she may have killed the kid, or at the very least neglected the kid and the kid drowned in the pool and tried to cover up her responsibility. What I think doesnt matter though, its what the evidence says definitively.

It'll be interesting what the jury has to say because they found her guilty on NOTHING but the four counts of lying. It must have been pretty compelling that not even the charge of child endagerment carried a verdict other than aquital.



Again they had NO hard evidence. Period. They've been saying this for weeks. How someone can be surprised of this outcome is a mystery. Unless they've had their head burried in the sand.

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

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.

She was also found not guilty of 2nd degree murder, aggravated child abuse, and aggravated manslaughter.



My link

 

[R K]

I believe she may have killed the kid, or at the very least neglected the kid and the kid drowned in the pool and tried to cover up her responsibility. What I think doesnt matter though, its what the evidence says definitively.

agreed.

 

[R K]

She was also found not guilty of 2nd degree murder, aggravated child abuse, and aggravated manslaughter.



My link

This is what I find most compelling. I listened to the judges remarks. They'll be a movie or book rights sooner or later. Would be interested to watch the 60 minutes once the jury starts talking.

 

[JOVE23]

She was also found not guilty of 2nd degree murder, aggravated child abuse, and aggravated manslaughter.



My link

Yeah, but the DA never bothered to make a case for any of those charges, they were just throw ins in case Murder 1 didn't stick.



Let me be clear, I think she did it, but the DA failed to prove its case.

 

[TSD]

I think we both know that she didn't drown in a swimming pool. The defense came up with that theory cause they had to find something to explain her death. And of course they took down George Anthony in the process which I don't believe the judge should have allowed. From the baseless claims of abuse, to covering up the drowning, it was just out of hand.

um, no you don't. You are mixing up what you think, with what you know. The fact is you do not know how that kid died, and neither did the jury. Therefore, they couldnt convict.