Casey Anthony - Guilty, or not guilty?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

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.

Couldn't she point to the fact that there was nothing that specifically linked her to the actual murder and that the state pressed forward with a death penalty case based strictly on circumstancial evidence, rumor and hearsay?

Couldn't she argue that she's been living under the shadow of the death penalty for three years even though she was innocent.

Couldn't she claim, loss of income for three years, extreme pain and suffering and loss of reputation all caused by a "reckless" prosecution team?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

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.

Not in this case, it doesn't prove that she actually murdered the girl, all it proves is bad judgement.

The jury couldn't really convict her on her behavior.

They needed that link that proved without question that she was the one who killed her baby.

They didn't have that. In a lot of ways it felt like they rushed the case, throwing the murder one at her was probably foolish. But I'm baffled about the manslaughter verdict.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Couldn't she point to the fact that there was nothing that specifically linked her to the actual murder and that the state pressed forward with a death penalty case based strictly on circumstancial evidence, rumor and hearsay?

Couldn't she argue that she's been living under the shadow of the death penalty for three years even though she was innocent.

Couldn't she claim, loss of income for three years, extreme pain and suffering and loss of reputation all caused by a "reckless" prosecution team?

People have been convicted with less evidence and acquitted with more. Nothing I'm aware of points to her being unjustly accused of the crime here, there is plenty pointing at her. The fact that it wasn't enough to get over the hump of reasonable doubt doesn't make it actionable. If that were the case any not guilty verdict would be followed by a civil case. If you're going to argue that the prosecution was reckless you have to actually show that, I don't see how anyone could make a persuasive argument to that point unless there is a lot of information out there we don't know about.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Couldn't she point to the fact that there was nothing that specifically linked her to the actual murder and that the state pressed forward with a death penalty case based strictly on circumstancial evidence, rumor and hearsay?

Couldn't she argue that she's been living under the shadow of the death penalty for three years even though she was innocent.

Couldn't she claim, loss of income for three years, extreme pain and suffering and loss of reputation all caused by a "reckless" prosecution team?

The state has the right to take someone to court, the state gets sued if it is shown they did something wrong, hid evidence, beat confesions out of suspects etc.

In this case I doubt a civil jury in the world would award her a penny.

[Shazam]

[Zevo]

If I was busted with, lets say, 5 ounces of cocaine, I would be charged with trafficking or intent to traffic or something along those lines. Even with no no proof that I was selling the stuff, I would be charged with something to do with trafficking. They don't need direct evidence that you are actually dealing.

She didn't report her child missing for a month and partied like it was 1999 for god sakes. To me, that is proof enough that she had something to do with her childs death. Tough to prove first degree murder but at the very least she should have gotten manslaugter. Jury fataed this one up.

[CaptainCrunch]

They don't need to catch you trafficing as the traffic charge is based on the amount that you're carrying.

Even with manslaughter I believe they have to prove that either through direct or indirect actions you caused the death.

I think they should have probably convicted on the manslaughter charges but they can't really prove that she directly or indirectly caused the death.

I'm assuming that one of the board lawyers can tell me if I'm stupidly off base.

I do remember that there was a woman in Calgary who abandoned her babies to go partying and the babies starved to death, and she tossed the body away and she was charged with performing an indignity to a human body. But I don't remember if they tagged her with manslaughter.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

They don't need to catch you trafficing as the traffic charge is based on the amount that you're carrying.

Even with manslaughter I believe they have to prove that either through direct or indirect actions you caused the death.

I think they should have probably convicted on the manslaughter charges but they can't really prove that she directly or indirectly caused the death.

I'm assuming that one of the board lawyers can tell me if I'm stupidly off base.

I do remember that there was a woman in Calgary who abandoned her babies to go partying and the babies starved to death, and she tossed the body away and she was charged with performing an indignity to a human body. But I don't remember if they tagged her with manslaughter.

I always thought that even circumstantial evidence was enough for manslaughter, but who knows.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Zevo

If I was busted with, lets say, 5 ounces of cocaine, I would be charged with trafficking or intent to traffic or something along those lines. Even with no no proof that I was selling the stuff, I would be charged with something to do with trafficking. They don't need direct evidence that you are actually dealing.

She didn't report her child missing for a month and partied like it was 1999 for god sakes. To me, that is proof enough that she had something to do with her childs death. Tough to prove first degree murder but at the very least she should have gotten manslaugter. Jury fataed this one up.

You're talking about two incredibly different crimes as if they are the same thing. Possession and possession with intent to distribute (or whatever they're codified as in a given jurisdiction) is a strict liability offense. You have cocaine in your possession, you are guilty of possession. You have an amount over the prescribed limit, you are guilty of the intent ot distribute crime. There's no need to prove a mental element. Prove the possession and you're done.

Homicide crimes are completely different. You need to prove the action and the mental state, with the degree of intent varying depending upon the degree of homicide crime charged. First degree was never going to apply here, there was absolutely no evidence of premeditation. When you can't even prove a cause of death proving that the accused planned to cause the death is always going to be a massive longshot. The manslaughter charge required showing that the accused was at a minimum the cause of the death, and quite frankly there wasn't anythign that pointed to that. There was circumstantial evidence of bizarre behavior, but nothing that exceeds the beyond a reasonable doubt level. There was an equal amount of concrete evidence to support the claim that girl drowned and the father covered it up, that amount being next to nothing.

Blaming the jury is such garbage. These are people tasked with an incredibly difficult responsibility, pointing the finger at them after they suffered through weeks of brutal testimony and hours upon hours of conflicting and confusing evidence because you read some stories and watched the news is beyond ridiculous.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by valo403

You're talking about two incredibly different crimes as if they are the same thing. Possession and possession with intent to distribute (or whatever they're codified as in a given jurisdiction) is a strict liability offense. You have cocaine in your possession, you are guilty of possession. You have an amount over the prescribed limit, you are guilty of the intent ot distribute crime. There's no need to prove a mental element. Prove the possession and you're done.

Homicide crimes are completely different. You need to prove the action and the mental state, with the degree of intent varying depending upon the degree of homicide crime charged. First degree was never going to apply here, there was absolutely no evidence of premeditation. When you can't even prove a cause of death proving that the accused planned to cause the death is always going to be a massive longshot. The manslaughter charge required showing that the accused was at a minimum the cause of the death, and quite frankly there wasn't anythign that pointed to that. There was circumstantial evidence of bizarre behavior, but nothing that exceeds the beyond a reasonable doubt level. There was an equal amount of concrete evidence to support the claim that girl drowned and the father covered it up, that amount being next to nothing.

Blaming the jury is such garbage. These are people tasked with an incredibly difficult responsibility, pointing the finger at them after they suffered through weeks of brutal testimony and hours upon hours of conflicting and confusing evidence because you read some stories and watched the news is beyond ridiculous.

Thanks for the response...but I'll blame the jury thank you very much. She had something to do with it. You don't behave like she did for the month following and not have something to do with the childs death. If the girl drowned, you call 911, you don't go partying.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Zevo

Thanks for the response...but I'll blame the jury thank you very much. She had something to do with it. You don't behave like she did for the month following and not have something to do with the childs death. If the girl drowned, you call 911, you don't go partying.

That's great, and I agree, but how does that lead to blaming the jury? They're just supposed to ignore the charges filed and the legal requirements of proving each one? The charges weren't proven, and you want to blame the people who actually heard the hours upon hours of testimony based on what? Your watching of Nancy Grace?

[Vulcan]

I only vaguely followed it. Saw it for a couple of moments when channel surfing but the whole train wreck philosophy of the news channels making it their big story, was pretty sickening. The only thing I noticed is the prosecution couldn't prove the cause of death or whether a murder took place. That's an acquittal.

[Zevo]

Originally Posted by valo403

That's great, and I agree, but how does that lead to blaming the jury? They're just supposed to ignore the charges filed and the legal requirements of proving each one? The charges weren't proven, and you want to blame the people who actually heard the hours upon hours of testimony based on what? Your watching of Nancy Grace?

Lol...no can't stand her, even as a side show. Just my opinion that there was enough circumstancial evidence to prove manslaughter. I fully admit that I haven't followed the casa all that closely, and you being a lawyer and all, are most likely right that there wasn't enough physical proof, but c'mon she's guilty as sin. How many murderers go free because of technicalities when you know they are guilty? This one should have gone away.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by valo403

That's great, and I agree, but how does that lead to blaming the jury? They're just supposed to ignore the charges filed and the legal requirements of proving each one? The charges weren't proven, and you want to blame the people who actually heard the hours upon hours of testimony based on what? Your watching of Nancy Grace?

So just because its interesting, do you blame the prosecution for this loss? To me they got knocked off of their game plan early in the proceedings (opening statement, our client is a liar, and immature, but you can't prove that she killed her kid)

Was this case rushed to trial without a proper investigation?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So just because its interesting, do you blame the prosecution for this loss? To me they got knocked off of their game plan early in the proceedings (opening statement, our client is a liar, and immature, but you can't prove that she killed her kid)

Was this case rushed to trial without a proper investigation?

I don't know that I blame the prosecution, they had a tough task without more concrete evidence, but I do agree that it seems they let the defense team take this case in directions that favored them. I can't say I followed the case closely enough to have an opinion on specific moves, but it sure seems like a lot of very shaky defenses were allowed to be placed in front of the jury without being vigorously challenged. I would've expected those claims to have been attacked and exposed as weak excuses made up after the fact and that didn't appear to happen.

As for a rush to trial, I don't know that more time would have changed anything. It seems like the biggest problem is the lack of real tangible evidence, and at this point that's not something that's going to change with time.

Overall it looks like a case with enough small holes in key places to allow a jury to find reasonable doubt. I'm not sure any prosecutor could have patched that up. There's obviously a lot of unanswered questions, which I think explains a lot of the outrage. This was supposed to be a verdict that confirmed what everyone believed to be true, now it's all that much more confusing.

[afc wimbledon]

Listened to a prosecutor a few years ago talking about how juries have come to expect C.S.I Vegas like evidance and it is becominging increasingly difficult for the crown to 'prove' cases to juries who expect concrete forensic evidense even though very few cases don't have some element of circumstantial evidance.

I suspect this is a case that would have been found guilty 10 years ago when juries were expected to use some common sense.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Listened to a prosecutor a few years ago talking about how juries have come to expect C.S.I Vegas like evidance and it is becominging increasingly difficult for the crown to 'prove' cases to juries who expect concrete forensic evidense even though very few cases don't have some element of circumstantial evidance.

I suspect this is a case that would have been found guilty 10 years ago when juries were expected to use some common sense.

I never really followed the case, but from what I gather the problem wasn't that the evidence wasn't CSI level evidence, but the fact the evidence was non-existent.

The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. If there's no actual link to the murder, then reasonable doubt starts to creep up.

The viewing public also saw a lot more than the jury did, and heard more court proceedings than the public did. It's also easy for the public to say "yeah she did it" but the proof has to be there.

What's worse than letting a murder go free?

Convicting an innocent person.

Why lie to the police? Donald Marshall did, he was terrified. Fear makes people do illogical things. Perhaps they think the police will twist the truth, so lying is a better option? No one doubted Marshall's conviction, yet he was the most famous wrongfully accused man of murder in our country until David Milgaard.

Lying to the police does not equal murder. You need (or at least I pray to God you have) more than that to convict.

Again, I'm not defending Casey Anthony, I don't really know the case just responding to a few things I've read here. But, beyond a reasonable doubt needs to be met. From what I'm gathering here, the prosecution wasn't even in the ballpark.

[afc wimbledon]

Kid goes missing, mother does nothing, mother lies repeatedly to her own family members when they want to see the kid long before the cops are involved, in the end the kid turns up dead in a garbage bag with duct tape over her mouth.

enough for me

[FlamesAddiction]

Even if there wasn't enough evidence for a murder conviction, I just don't understand how either having your child go missing and not reporting it for a month or having your child die accidentally and then trying to make it look like a murder, isn't a serious enough offense to send someone to jail for a long time.

To me, those are serious enough to warrant a pretty severe punishment.

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm one of the most hardcore, hang em high justice and security before freedom people on this board, but juries cannot make those leaps of faith to pave over the holes in the prosecutions case.

It would be like me being sentenced for a murder because I had the same kind of peanut butter knife that was used on a victim 10 miles from my house.

There's a pretty good possibility that I did it, but there's no absolute proof that damns me.