21
   

Casey Anthony found not guilty of murder

 
 
Mame
 
Tue 5 Jul, 2011 01:29 pm
Wow. She will face more time for lying to prosecutors but that's it. Amazing.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 21 • Views: 14,011 • Replies: 266
Topic Closed

 
Linkat
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jul, 2011 01:43 pm
@Mame,
"...Instead, she was convicted of only four counts of lying to investigators looking into the June 2008 disappearance of her daughter Caylee. ..."

"...Anthony will be sentenced by the judge on Thursday and could receive up to a year in jail for each lying count. She has already spent almost three years in jail awaiting trial..."

So it looks like the most she will serve after this is another year.

People like this though do end up doing themselves in some way eventually.

0 Replies
 
PUNKEY
 
  2  
Tue 5 Jul, 2011 02:44 pm
Another hanging chad from Florida . . .
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jul, 2011 03:35 pm
I haven't really followed along but my mom was a junkie for this trial. When I talked to her last week she said that "for sure she's guilty". Has anyone on the jury said what convinced them she didn't do it?
ossobuco
 
  3  
Tue 5 Jul, 2011 03:52 pm
@boomerang,
Well, it's not that she didn't do it, but they didn't have proof that she was guilty - as I see what a trial is about.
roger
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jul, 2011 04:05 pm
@ossobuco,
Yeah, not guilty is not the same as innocent.
thack45
 
  2  
Tue 5 Jul, 2011 04:10 pm
@roger,
It does sound like a pretty sweet consolation prize though.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Tue 5 Jul, 2011 04:15 pm
@ossobuco,
ossobuco wrote:

Well, it's not that she didn't do it, but they didn't have proof that she was guilty - as I see what a trial is about.
That is what prosecutorial discretion is for, it is not the DA's job to parade every case he can get his hands on in front of a jury to see if he can get a conviction...If he is not pretty damn sure that he can prove his case he should not be in a court room.

Quote:
Charging
Once an arrest is made, a prosecutor screens the case to determine if it should be prosecuted or dropped. The decision to prosecute is based on the following factors:

The sufficiency of the evidence linking the suspect to the offense.

The seriousness of the offense.

The size of the court's caseload.

The need to conserve prosecutorial resources for more serious cases.

The availability of alternatives to formal prosecution.

The defendant's culpability (moral blameworthiness).

The defendant's criminal record.

The defendant's willingness to cooperate with the investigation or prosecution of others.

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Prosecutorial-Discretion.topicArticleId-10065,articleId-10015.html

One of my kids was following this trial, and I saw enough to have serious doubts about the conduct of the Judge and the DA...there was no case here, there should have never been a trial.
djjd62
 
  2  
Tue 5 Jul, 2011 04:20 pm
@hawkeye10,
sure there was, she was charged with some crimes, the murder evidence was circumstantial, but who knows she might have had an attack of conscience and admitted guilt as the trial and evidence was presented (i mean she either murdered or covered up the death of her daughter, i'm pretty sure we all know that)
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jul, 2011 04:28 pm
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

sure there was, she was charged with some crimes, the murder evidence was circumstantial, but who knows she might have had an attack of conscience and admitted guilt as the trial and evidence was presented (i mean she either murdered or covered up the death of her daughter, i'm pretty sure we all know that)
I look forward to the day when the majority of citizens have seen enough misconduct on the part of the state to be willing to use jury nullification more than we do now, and to refuse to seriously consider any argument from the state that is not accompanied by proof. In short we have to do better at taking anything a DA says with a grain of salt than we do now.
djjd62
 
  2  
Tue 5 Jul, 2011 04:44 pm
@hawkeye10,
part of the charges against her were lying to and misleading law enforcement, they got convictions on those, it was worth trying to get convictions on the murder in my opinion, if it had been an out right acquittal on all charges you might have a point
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jul, 2011 04:59 pm
@djjd62,
Quote:
mean she either murdered or covered up the death of her daughter, i'm pretty sure we all know that


Like I said, I didn't follow the trial but I did get basic bits and pieces of it in the regular news. I remember thinking I'd have to be on trial for something and have my google searches used as evidence -- I look up some weird stuff.

That whole bit about her being left with a babysitter made her look completely guilty though.

Can anyone tell me what the deal was with that meter reader who called it in several months apart?
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Tue 5 Jul, 2011 05:17 pm
@hawkeye10,
The problem here Hawkeye is the child disappear under her care and did so for over thirty days before the grandparents force the issue and brought the police into the matter.

The woman then keep lying and in no way aid the police into finding out what the hell happen to the child and then the child remains was found a few months later.

So no matter how you cut it Casey allow her daughter somehow and in some manner to die under her watch and then did everything she could to cover up that fact.

It look like we will never know what happen to this child but whatever happen Casey was involved and did not at the very best do her duty as a parent to this child to say the least.

I am happy I was not on that jury as her behaviors leave a very bad taste in my mouth even if the state could not prove murder by Casey.

0 Replies
 
shewolfnm
 
  3  
Tue 5 Jul, 2011 05:17 pm
we really need to remove public tv cameras from court rooms.

the sensationalism is disgusting and completely unnecessary if not out right damning to cases.
Mame
 
  3  
Tue 5 Jul, 2011 05:42 pm
@shewolfnm,
Totally agree with that. However, if not for the cameras, I'd know next to nothing about this case. It's a long way from where I live. Not that I actually NEED to know. And yeah, I'm guilty of judging her based on her lies/story and behaviour. I do not know what went on in that jury room but I'd give my right arm to know. Apparently they did not take many notes during the trial and deliberated their verdict in 4 hours without asking to see videos, transcripts, etc., so how they came to their decision (already decided?) so quickly is beyond me.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Tue 5 Jul, 2011 05:53 pm
@Mame,
Quote:
how they came to their decision (already decided?) so quickly is beyond me.
The state failed to present evidence of guilt from what I saw, does not take long for twelve people to say "did the state give us anything to consider....we all agree the answer is no?? Ok, lets go tell the judge""
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jul, 2011 06:19 pm
The key phrase is "beyond reasonable doubt." The defense was successful at creating enough doubt. The defendant is supposed to have the advantage since they are assumed to be innocent. Due to the degree of media coverage given to this, most observers entered without the assumption of innocence. I don't think that we can call ourselves impartial observers. In this case, given the circumstances, and many of the comments I've heard leading up to, during and after, I don't think many people were very interested in attempting impartiality on this case.

It's easy to think these kinds of choices are obvious and even easy. I don't believe this is true, not even in a case like this. Jury's have a lot of power and they decide the fate of a person. I think the verdict is questionable, but frankly, given the responsibility to determine if someone lives or dies, my confidence is tempered.

I don't think the jury failed at their duty. The prosecution relied heavily on circumstances which admittedly summon a great deal of anger (and other emotions in me). This was a potent "why" or motive. They did not, however, establish the most basic of details of the how and where of the death. The lack of material evidence in the method, even given a compelling case for her selfish motive, may not warrant a verdict of "guilty" beyond reasonable doubt.

All of this is not saying she didn't do it, but rather that this verdict is not so astonishing.
R
T
0 Replies
 
PUNKEY
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jul, 2011 06:44 pm
There was something said about the jurors not not finding proof of cause of death for the child.

Yes, the child is dead. But was she killed? They failed to prove it.

I guess hiding your dead child in the trunk of the car doesn't count for nuthin'.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  7  
Tue 5 Jul, 2011 06:54 pm
This is a perfect example of being tried by the media. Freakin' Nancy Grace was on about this case for months, salivating over her own miniscule opinions repeatedly. The jury did the right thing.
The prosecutors didn't prove the case and in the USA there is a presumption of innocence till proven otherwise. The sad thing is, they jumped the gun. Eventually the truth will come out, but the state cant prosecute again..
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Tue 5 Jul, 2011 08:18 pm
@Ceili,
Quote:
The sad thing is, they jumped the gun. Eventually the truth will come out,
Just the facts ma'am.....toss your assumption and what you are left with is that the state brought a case into a courtroom that they could not prove. It never should have been before a judge.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Casey Anthony found not guilty of murder
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/14/2021 at 07:56:17