Casey Anthony - Guilty, or not guilty?

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

There's alot of screaming going on on Nancy Grace. They're pissed!

*turns on tv*
*finds Nancy Grace*

[Ice]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Jason Simpson was not a nice kid, he had stabbed himself once in a suicide attempt, he had also threatened multiple woman with knives.

Suppossedly he was really critical of his step moms lifestyle and hated Ronald Goldsmth,

So here's the weirdness, on the night of the murder, Jason prepared a special meal for teh family. Remember this was the night of his half sisters recital which was suppossed to go to OJ's state of mind.

Instead Nicole decided to go have dinner at Goldsmith's restaurant declining to have dinner with Jason and his father.

Tadaa we have a kid with a violent history an expertise level with knives who was trying to bring his family together only to be snubbed by his stepmom and her honky boyfriend.

Ron Goldman, his name was Ron Goldman. He was a waiter at the restaurant, he was only acquainted with Nicole so there was no reason for OJ's son to hate him. I'm still shocked by people who really believe OJ was innocent. But at least get the name of the victim right when you're letting a murderer off the hook.

[CaptainCrunch]

Oh relax, I never said that OJ was innocent, its a theory, it fits well, and he wasn't just acquainted with Nicole, she blew off her family to go have dinner with him.

[killer_carlson]

my mom (retired) called me at work over the fact the jury was coming back so quickly. She was shocked as well, after having watched pretty much the entire thing.

[Parallex]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p04mWOwwH6E

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by trackercowe

Definitely an interesting theory though; one that I had never heard of before. Sounds somewhat contrived, and more of a situation in a movie or TV show. But, I wouldn't entirely discount it if everything is as CC is saying,

And the investigators, prosecutors, and police bungled that case as a whole. So I wouldn't necessarily trust their expertise. The case might of been handled properly if it never became the public trial that it did.

Still shocked to this day that they found OJ not guilty. Believe whatever you want, but most people assumed he was guilty even before they heard the evidence. Once he "fled" the scene in his Bronco he was all but found guilty in the court of public opinion. Which is why it's hard to believe they found 12 jurors who all believed OJ was not guilty.

I wasn't in the least, the trial went on for far longer than any jury could cope with, the defense was limited but sensational and memorable, the prosecution was technical, endless and unmemorable, in the end a jury that was possibly predisposed to find him innocent, individuals on it who were no doubt contemplating book deals and the like after the verdict, went with about all they could remember, Johhny Cochrane and the gloves.

[troutman]

The talk is Oprah is close to getting OJ to admit it.

[puckluck]

The not gulity verdict had only one positive. Anything that pisses off that witch Nancy Grace makes me happy.

Seriously though, horrible that she got away with it.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by Zevo

Except she's not a serial killer.

Dexter doesn't only kill serial killers.

[T@T]

Seems most people here are shocked at the verdict, would you be happier if she was found guilty,sentenced to death without any real evidence she did it?

The prosecutors went for the home run in this case, had they not tried to be hero's and charged her with manslaughter or even 2nd degree murder they probably would have had a conviction. Sadly they forgot it's hard to hit a home run with a nurf ball.

I'm very sad for the little girl and her family but I'm actually glad she got off, cases like this keeps the justice system honest and fair.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by T@T

Seems most people here are shocked at the verdict, would you be happier if she was found guilty,sentenced to death without any real evidence she did it?

The prosecutors went for the home run in this case, had they not tried to be hero's and charged her with manslaughter or even 2nd degree murder they probably would have had a conviction. Sadly they forgot it's hard to hit a home run with a nurf ball.

I'm very sad for the little girl and her family but I'm actually glad she got off, cases like this keeps the justice system honest and fair.

She was charged with manslaughter (in addition to the murder, child abuse and lying to police charges), there simply wasn't strong evidence. This was a case built on emotion and circumstance, and I agree that I'm glad that isn't sufficient to convict.

[CaptainCrunch]

There were a lot of problems with this case.

The prosecutor could never directly link the murder to her. That was the biggest thing. We had the lies, we had the month without reporting, all suspicious behavior, but we didn't have any evidence that had her killing her daughter.

The defense used the confuse them with everything theory. The jury got mesmorized by a lot of theories, including the non existant nanny, the whose the father crap, the accusations of child abuse and insest against Casey's father, Casey's mother being caught in a lie on the stand.

We had the higher then average burden of proof due to the death penalty potential of the case.

We had a jury that was burned out by the end which explains not only the quick verdict, but they didn't request testimony read back or any of the evidence. It sounds like they went into the room voted got hung up on resonable doubt, ordered some chinese and called it a day.

Personally, I have no doubt that Casey Anthony is a monster and potentially a psychopath. But I can't prove that she killed her kid.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

We had the higher then average burden of proof due to the death penalty potential of the case.

.

That's a really good point. The burden of proof should be the same, I think it's human nature that if you are going to send someone to their death, that you would double guess your judgment a lot.

Could the prosecution have taken the death penalty off the table but still go for murder one?

[Coys1882]

It will be interesting to see how her life turns out and if the American public let her drift away from the spotlight.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

That's a really good point. The burden of proof should be the same, I think it's human nature that if you are going to send someone to their death, that you would double guess your judgment a lot.

Could the prosecution have taken the death penalty off the table but still go for murder one?

The jury makes a recomendation on the death penalty during the sentencing phase, they can recommend it if 6 of 12 jurors agree to it. The judge then takes that into account when making the sentencing decision. This procedure has recently been found to be unconstutional but would have been the one used AFAIK as appeals are still ongoing in the case regarding the sentencing procedure.

The burden of proof doesn't change, but I agree that human nature may cause jurors to increase scrutny due to the stakes. However, I don't think that explains what happened here in the least. Remember, the same jury found her not guilty on two other counts in which the death penalty wasn't on the table, including aggravated manslaughter. This was a case of insufficient evidence being presented to meet the reasonable doubt standard.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

The jury makes a recomendation on the death penalty during the sentencing phase, they can recommend it if 6 of 12 jurors agree to it. The judge then takes that into account when making the sentencing decision. This procedure has recently been found to be unconstutional but would have been the one used AFAIK as appeals are still ongoing in the case regarding the sentencing procedure.

The burden of proof doesn't change, but I agree that human nature may cause jurors to increase scrutny due to the stakes. However, I don't think that explains what happened here in the least. Remember, the same jury found her not guilty on two other counts in which the death penalty wasn't on the table, including aggravated manslaughter. This was a case of insufficient evidence being presented to meet the reasonable doubt standard.

If I remember right, once you bring in the capital one murder charge and state your intention as a prosecutor to seek the death penalty. The whole process of jury selection changes and they specifically look for jurors who are not against the Death Penalty. In theory the jurors in this case knew that a guilty verdict would most likely force them to bring about the death penalty.

If you think about it, this should have really been a prosecutors dream jury. They were willing to consider the death penalty. Usually people that are onboard with the death penalty tend to be a little more law and order type with a right wing political stance.

However I think there were some other factors.

If I recall the judges instructions to the jury after the case went to them were fairly restrictive in terms of returning a guilty verdict, it was slightly beyond the resonable doubt theory of an innocent verdict.

For the last 6 weeks they had to look out at a cute 22 year old girl that continually cried and looked terrified. Its easy to strap a guy like me into the chair. But every one in that jury box projected their daughters face onto Casey.

While the prosecution couldn't directly link Casey to the murder, the defense has more leeway and bought up a billion theories from the non existant nanny, to the who's the father theory, to the she didn't report it because she was scared theory.

The defense also did a great job sadly of disarming the prosecutions main thrust of the case which was her bizarre lies and behaviors throughout the investigation. The defense didn't deny it, but they took away the prosecutions biggest weapon by not denying it.

But the 10,000 foot elephant in the room for the prosecution was the complete lack of the smoking gun. They had motive, they had a body, but they couldn't effectively link the body, motive and killer.

In this day and age of DNA evidence there was shockingly little that put the crime on Casey.

Just think of it, if she did do it, this 22 year old party girl has done something that some incredibly bright criminals have failed to do. She pulled off the perfect crime, and she's going to get rich because of it.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Coys1882

It will be interesting to see how her life turns out and if the American public let her drift away from the spotlight.

I would expect at least a million bucks from Oprah for an exclusive first interview.

A movie of the week staring some vacant starlet like that stupid chick from Twilight.

A couple of million for a book deal.

Don't forget a lawsuit for a few mil for the loss of income and pain and suffering.

She's going to strike while the iron is hot.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If I remember right, once you bring in the capital one murder charge and state your intention as a prosecutor to seek the death penalty. The whole process of jury selection changes and they specifically look for jurors who are not against the Death Penalty. In theory the jurors in this case knew that a guilty verdict would most likely force them to bring about the death penalty.

If you think about it, this should have really been a prosecutors dream jury. They were willing to consider the death penalty. Usually people that are onboard with the death penalty tend to be a little more law and order type with a right wing political stance.

However I think there were some other factors.

If I recall the judges instructions to the jury after the case went to them were fairly restrictive in terms of returning a guilty verdict, it was slightly beyond the resonable doubt theory of an innocent verdict.

For the last 6 weeks they had to look out at a cute 22 year old girl that continually cried and looked terrified. Its easy to strap a guy like me into the chair. But every one in that jury box projected their daughters face onto Casey.

While the prosecution couldn't directly link Casey to the murder, the defense has more leeway and bought up a billion theories from the non existant nanny, to the who's the father theory, to the she didn't report it because she was scared theory.

The defense also did a great job sadly of disarming the prosecutions main thrust of the case which was her bizarre lies and behaviors throughout the investigation. The defense didn't deny it, but they took away the prosecutions biggest weapon by not denying it.

But the 10,000 foot elephant in the room for the prosecution was the complete lack of the smoking gun. They had motive, they had a body, but they couldn't effectively link the body, motive and killer.

In this day and age of DNA evidence there was shockingly little that put the crime on Casey.

Just think of it, if she did do it, this 22 year old party girl has done something that some incredibly bright criminals have failed to do. She pulled off the perfect crime, and she's going to get rich because of it.

Jury selection is always a process that takes into account the relaities of the case, this would have been no more a dream prosecution jury than any other. The defense has just as much say in the composition, that's the whole point of the voir dire process. Both sides are specifically looking for jurors who have characteristics that make them more likely to side with their case, and the opposing side is looking to prevent those people from being considered. The court also involves itself to remove people who hold beliefs that make them unfit for a particular trial.

I didn't hear the judges instructions to the jury, but I highly highly doubt that they altered the burden of proof. Sentencing and guilt are different things, the presence a potential death sentence does not alter the burden of proof required to find guilty.

IMO the prosecution did a poor job of allowing the defense to drag the case into a series of unsupported claims. They didn't push hard enough to demonstrate that the tales being spun by the defense lacked any tangible proof. If they weren't going to really hammer on those issues they should have ignored them and kept the focus on their own case. That said, without the hard physical evidence a conviction was going to be difficult. Relying on new techniques that were hardly scientifically accepted was never going to do the trick.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I would expect at least a million bucks from Oprah for an exclusive first interview.

A movie of the week staring some vacant starlet like that stupid chick from Twilight.

A couple of million for a book deal.

Don't forget a lawsuit for a few mil for the loss of income and pain and suffering.

She's going to strike while the iron is hot.

Against the State? Doubtful. She'd have to show some sort of malicious prosecution or negligence. Nothing indicates that the state was out of line pinning this on her.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

There were a lot of problems with this case.

The prosecutor could never directly link the murder to her. That was the biggest thing. We had the lies, we had the month without reporting, all suspicious behavior, but we didn't have any evidence that had her killing her daughter.

The defense used the confuse them with everything theory. The jury got mesmorized by a lot of theories, including the non existant nanny, the whose the father crap, the accusations of child abuse and insest against Casey's father, Casey's mother being caught in a lie on the stand.

We had the higher then average burden of proof due to the death penalty potential of the case.

We had a jury that was burned out by the end which explains not only the quick verdict, but they didn't request testimony read back or any of the evidence. It sounds like they went into the room voted got hung up on resonable doubt, ordered some chinese and called it a day.

Personally, I have no doubt that Casey Anthony is a monster and potentially a psychopath. But I can't prove that she killed her kid.

Would the 31 days not reporting the child missing be considered a slam dunk in some cases for some juries? Seriously, parents don't let two year olds out of their sight for a nanosecond let alone not report one missing for a month.

Prosecution could have started there and move forward instead of letting the defense confuse the entire story.