Reasonable Doubt - Casey Anthony - Not Guilty

[darin]

(shrug) were does the family of that girl go now...for justice.

[hjmick]

Reasonable doubt. It's a beautiful thing.

Casey Anthony found guilty of lying to law enforcement.

Wow.

[darin]

Threads merged.

[Little-Acorn]

Damn.

Just in case I want to kill anyone, that defense lawyer's card is going in MY rolodex.

[hjmick]

Frankly I'm amazed.

I think her parents are as well. They left the courtroom looking pissed.

With the three years she spent in jail already, who wants to bet all she gets is time served?

[SassyLady]

Speechless..

Jay Leno had a great spiel about this today ... said that Obama's budget committee is now the second most clueless group in America.

and

the jury was originally the OJ jury and had retired to Florida.

[SassyLady]

Heard someone say "for liberals this is just another late, very late, term abortion".

[red states rule]

IMO, she was found not guilty be reason of insanity on the part of the jury

However a few years from now, a movie will be made about her life and the ordeal of the trial

A book will be published smearing the DA

She will make millions

and perhaps run for office as a Democrat - and have a good shot at winning by playing the victim card

[Gunny]

(shrug) were does the family of that girl go now...for justice.

How and why does "the family" deserve "justice"? Your statement isn't about justice. It's about revenge.

Fact is, from a purely legal standpoint as a juror, I would have voted not guilty as well. There IS enough reasonable doubt to not completely ruin whatever the media circus has left of her life.

Dislike for her as a crappy mother does not constitute guilty of murder.

[darin]

How and why does "the family" deserve "justice"? Your statement isn't about justice. It's about revenge.

Fact is, from a purely legal standpoint as a juror, I would have voted not guilty as well. There IS enough reasonable doubt to not completely ruin whatever the media circus has left of her life.

Dislike for her as a crappy mother does not constitute guilty of murder.

I'd ask you not define my statements by what you think they may mean. My statement is about 'justice' in terms of 'the person guilty of killing/causing the death of that girl.' What happens next? Will anyone ever know and tell what they know? Does the killer get caught?

[jimnyc]

I have mixed emotions about this verdict. My gut feeling is that she committed this crime. I truly believe that and think her lying and inconsistent stories go towards "proving" that. I also found it odd that she was out partying the month after Caylee's disappearance. Whether murdered, or drowned, or even just missing, how can someone act in such a manner while they just "lost" their child?

With that said, on to the jury and the trial... The prosecution did not really present any solid evidence at all. Pretty much all they provided was circumstantial evidence. While the defense provided alternative theories, I think they sucked, but they need only get the jurors to believe it was remotely possible. That together with no physical evidence is what lead to this not guilty verdict.

I think in the coming days you will find jurors speaking out that they believed she was guilty in their hearts, but based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, they could not find her guilty at trial.

[Gunny]

I'd ask you not define my statements by what you think they may mean. My statement is about 'justice' in terms of 'the person guilty of killing/causing the death of that girl.' What happens next? Will anyone ever know and tell what they know? Does the killer get caught?

And I will ask the same .... my question/statement pertains to "justice". Justice is equal application of the law.

Pinning the guilt on the most likely suspect is not justice. It's finding someone to blame no matter what, and it happens all too often in all facets of our lives in this day and age.

I do take exception to the "for the family" statement. The family doesn't "deserve" anything. The family WANTS their pound of flesh. That's revenge, not justice.

What happens next? Does the killer get caught? They have yet to prove there actually is/was a killer.

Does a false sense of closure for the family and general public justify condemning the most likely suspect? I think not.

I AM surprised. Casey Anthony is NOT a likeable person nor sympathetic defendant. I expected she would be found guilty regardless the evidence or lack thereof. IMO, she definitely shouldn't be allowed to have children.

Still doesn't make her guilty of murder, and the State of FL had a weak case to begin with.

[Gunny]

I have mixed emotions about this verdict. My gut feeling is that she committed this crime. I truly believe that and think her lying and inconsistent stories go towards "proving" that. I also found it odd that she was out partying the month after Caylee's disappearance. Whether murdered, or drowned, or even just missing, how can someone act in such a manner while they just "lost" their child?

With that said, on to the jury and the trial... The prosecution did not really present any solid evidence at all. Pretty much all they provided was circumstantial evidence. While the defense provided alternative theories, I think they sucked, but they need only get the jurors to believe it was remotely possible. That together with no physical evidence is what lead to this not guilty verdict.

I think in the coming days you will find jurors speaking out that they believed she was guilty in their hearts, but based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, they could not find her guilty at trial.

One of my pet peeves with the legal system and with perception in general is the "she acted this way or that and it ain't right ..." instant classification.

When I was a teen, I got robbed at a gas station where I worked. I got grilled over and over for about 6 hours because I "didn't act like someone who had just been robbed at gunpoint"; therefore, I must have done it myself.

Why? Because I wasn't hysterical or freaking out in some childish manner. Time and again I see the same crap on forensic/crime shows. "He/she isn't acting like such-n-such just happened."

The police are hypocritical about even that. Either you aren't hysterical enough, or you're too hysterical. Either way, you're the suspect.

As I stated previously, Casey Anthony is not a sympathetic defendant at all. From all appearances she's a crappy parent and an all around crappy person. IF she IS guilty and got away with it, I doubt she'll bat anymore of an eyelash over it than OJ did.

If she's not guilty, she doesn't deserve to be in prison or executed for a crime she did not commit.

[jimnyc]

Gunny, in a 100% legal sense, I agree wholeheartedly with you. I don't think people should be convicted just because of the way they acted or reacted. I was simply stating MY opinion, that it was odd the way she acted the month after Caylee was gone. I can't imagine ANY parent not being distraught over the disappearance and/or death of their child.

[Gunny]

Gunny, in a 100% legal sense, I agree wholeheartedly with you. I don't think people should be convicted just because of the way they acted or reacted. I was simply stating MY opinion, that it was odd the way she acted the month after Caylee was gone. I can't imagine ANY parent not being distraught over the disappearance and/or death of their child.

I agree with a parent being distraught. What I don't agree with is judging them by their behavior for it. I just don't agree there's a set standard for grieving.

I most certainly can't agree that people don't go out "partying" -- getting plastered until they can't think -- as a form of grieving. Been there, done that, got the tee shirt, and have known many others in the same boat over the years.

I can't say for a fact she did not do it. Only she and/or the killer if there even is one know for sure. My argument is more against those who are positive she is guilty, even though with all the sensationalism and given Casey Anthony and the case, a jury still could not convict. The evidence doesn't exist.

So, throw her in prison anyway? What is she didn't do it? It all comes back to wanting a murder conviction based on the fact she is a shitty person and even worse mother. Neither are crimes in this country.

[Gaffer]

The media had long ago declared her guilty. They presented the evidence to the viewers and everyone judged. Oops, slight change of plans. but as was mentioned above, there's a book deal, movie deal, maybe a reality show or two out of this.

This murder trial has been brought to you by....

[Gunny]

The media had long ago declared her guilty. They presented the evidence to the viewers and everyone judged. Oops, slight change of plans. but as was mentioned above, there's a book deal, movie deal, maybe a reality show or two out of this.

This murder trial has been brought to you by....

True enough. I painfully watched the jury selection. Talk about crossing topics. THAT was torture.

[darin]

And I will ask the same .... my question/statement pertains to "justice". Justice is equal application of the law.


Right - the person who killed her or aided needs Justice brought to them.



Pinning the guilt on the most likely suspect is not justice. It's finding someone to blame no matter what, and it happens all too often in all facets of our lives in this day and age.

Sidebar comment. Right. I agree.


I do take exception to the "for the family" statement. The family doesn't "deserve" anything. The family WANTS their pound of flesh. That's revenge, not justice.

Speculation.



What happens next? Does the killer get caught? They have yet to prove there actually is/was a killer.

Does a false sense of closure for the family and general public justify condemning the most likely suspect? I think not.

I can't believe I know any reasonable person who would disagree with you.



I AM surprised. Casey Anthony is NOT a likeable person nor sympathetic defendant. I expected she would be found guilty regardless the evidence or lack thereof. IMO, she definitely shouldn't be allowed to have children.


I thought she was pretty hot in some of those pics.


Still doesn't make her guilty of murder, and the State of FL had a weak case to begin with.

So again I ask: What's next? Those who loved Caylee want justice. Where do they find it?

Something to consider:


As a matter of fact, the coverage we did see of the Casey Anthony case leaned heavily in favor of conviction. The photographs of a half-clothed Casey dancing in a Hot Body contest days after her daughter died, getting tattooed with the words “La Bella Vida” (Beautiful Life), Casey’s apparent celebration of freedom now that her baby was dead, the videotape of her spitting fury at her parents while in custody, and most important, her endless lies for a solid month about what had happened to her daughter.

Those lies were—most people agreed (myself included)—the proverbial noose around her neck. What mother sees that her child has drowned in the pool and not only fails to call 911, but then duct tapes her mouth and nose, hides the body in the trunk for days, and then dumps it in the woods? And then goes out to party and lies for a whopping 31 days about where the baby is? Who but a killer mother does that?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/05/casey-anthony-trial-marcia-clark-says-the-verdict-was-worse-than-the-o-j-simpson-case.html

[Gunny]

Right - the person who killed her or aided needs Justice brought to them.



Sidebar comment. Right. I agree.



Speculation.



I can't believe I know any reasonable person who would disagree with you.



I thought she was pretty hot in some of those pics.



So again I ask: What's next? Those who loved Caylee want justice. Where do they find it?

Something to consider:

Speculation? Howso? Again, you say the family wants "justice". Our legal system is not there to provide "justice" for the family. It's to provide justice to the society in accordance with the law. Not just the family.

And you can call it speculation if you want, but in the parameters of "the family wants" or "those who love Kaylee want" ... that's revenge, not justice.

The question "What next?" is asking for speculation. In that regard, you got what you asked for. ;)

[darin]

Speculation? Howso? Again, you say the family wants "justice". Our legal system is not there to provide "justice" for the family. It's to provide justice to the society in accordance with the law. Not just the family.

I didn't say they 'want justice' I asked where the family GOES for justice - where do they look to find the cause of the death of that little girl. I used 'family' because those who loved Caylee have the most interest in justice regardless of what society thinks. Reasonable assumption of the desire for justice, on the part of the family. Our legal system is designed to ENSURE Justice. Justice period. I think you're reading-in to my words.



And you can call it speculation if you want, but in the parameters of "the family wants" or "those who love Kaylee want" ... that's revenge, not justice.

I call it speculation because it's absolutely 100% speculation. Your synonymous use of Revenge and Justice is dishonest.



The question "What next?" is asking for speculation. In that regard, you got what you asked for. ;)

You didn't speculate on THAT part. Where, based on your SPECULATION, do you see this case going?

:beer:

[Little-Acorn]

I also found it odd that she was out partying the month after Caylee's disappearance.

Ditto. And keep in mind that, according to her own story, she wasn't partying after her child disappeared. She was out partying for a solid month right after her child died by accidental drowning. She says she knew about Caylee's death right away, and had panicked, buried the kid, etc. etc.

And then immediately started hitting the party circuit, getting a tattoo about how good life was???

It was no accident. She knew about it way in advance, planned on it, and was relieved when the kid was finally gone. She is as guilty as Cain, and a better liar.

Maybe the jury felt they couldn't hang Murder 1 on her because it wasn't "proven" that she was the one who wielded the murder instrument, whatever it was. In fact, it wasn't "proven" that the child was murdered at all. No definite cause of death was ever established. It is just as conceivable (by DIRECT evidence, of which there was none)that it could have been accidental, as that it could have been deliberate.

This woman's behavior in the days and weeks after she "found out" that her daughter was dead, says more to me than any direct evidence.

[logroller]

Right - the person who killed her or aided needs Justice brought to them.



Sidebar comment. Right. I agree.



Speculation.



I can't believe I know any reasonable person who would disagree with you.



I thought she was pretty hot in some of those pics.



So again I ask: What's next? Those who loved Caylee want justice. Where do they find it?

Something to consider:

I'm sure Al Gore would agree when I answer "Obviously not Florida". Its frustrating when one feels, speculates, or even knows someone got away with something; in a perfect system this wouldn't happen; but our system system of justice (or govt, for that matter) isn't perfect and is prone to error.

Which error is worse; a guilty person set free or an innocent person wrongfully convicted?

[darin]

Which error is worse; a guilty person set free or an innocent person wrongfully convicted?

The latter is worse, I'm sure. :(

[logroller]

The latter is worse, I'm sure. :(

I agree. Is there an acceptable proportion, 10 to 1, 100 to 1?

[fj1200]

I agree. Is there an acceptable proportion, 10 to 1, 100 to 1?

None are acceptable, just a striving to be better.

[Missileman]

I heard an alternate juror talking about the state not establishing cause of death, so the juror felt that the accidental drowning story was a reasonable possibility. My issue with that is, as far as I know, no testimony was given by anyone that an accidental drowning occurred, so this juror was basing his decision on facts not in evidence.

[darin]

As the article I linked-to mentions - I believe the jurors were foolish. They used 'doubt' and called it 'reasonable'. They assume they are reasonable, thus, if they have ANY doubt, that doubt must be, by default, 'reasonable'.

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/tmdsu11070620110706045230.jpg

[Abbey Marie]

Re: the revenge v. justice discussion, the longed-for justice is for Caylee. Not for her family and def. not for society. Humanity cries out for justice for that precious little girl. For her killer to be identified, and to pay some form of debt for it. Revenge can be, but is not necessarily, the same thing.

[red states rule]

Re: the revenge v. justice discussion, the longed-for justice is for Caylee. Not for her family and def. not for society. Humanity cries out for justice for that precious little girl. For her killer to be identified, and to pay some form of debt for it. Revenge can be, but is is not necessarily, the same thing.

Abbey, I believe in my heart her killer was sitting at the defendents table and thus justice for Caylee will be done when Casey faces God

On that day, she will not have a slick lawyer pleading her case. The truth will known and her judgement will be swift

In the meantime she can party, have fun, and God forbid - even have another child

[logroller]

I heard an alternate juror talking about the state not establishing cause of death, so the juror felt that the accidental drowning story was a reasonable possibility. My issue with that is, as far as I know, no testimony was given by anyone that an accidental drowning occurred, so this juror was basing his decision on facts not in evidence.
"Innocent until..." so it stands to reason, even if no evidence is provided of one's innocence, it doesn't make one guilty.


As the article I linked-to mentions - I believe the jurors were foolish. They used 'doubt' and called it 'reasonable'. They assume they are reasonable, thus, if they have ANY doubt, that doubt must be, by default, 'reasonable'.
I think you're confusing tort law and criminal law, To convict someone of a crime it must proved beyond a reasonable doubt; jurors are instructed by the court as to what that means. I think it would be far more foolish to assess guilt without evidence a crime was even committed. Having not seen the evidence, shouldn't we respect their judgment.


Re: the revenge v. justice discussion, the longed-for justice is for Caylee. Not for her family and def. not for society. Humanity cries out for justice for that precious little girl. For her killer to be identified, and to pay some form of debt for it. Revenge can be, but is not necessarily, the same thing.

I hope she enjoys a long life; more time to pay the penance for her wrongdoings; which there undoubtedly were. Whatever freedom she allegedly sought is long gone-- her life is forever marred by her actions, wouldn't you agree? I say justice is already being served.

[Missileman]

"Innocent until..." so it stands to reason, even if no evidence is provided of one's innocence, it doesn't make one guilty.

That wasn't my point. The jury should only be allowed to reach a decision based on the evidence and testimony presented. The defense attorney's opening statement is neither of those, yet, this jury member was using it, in part, to reach a decision.

[logroller]

That wasn't my point. The jury should only be allowed to reach a decision based on the evidence and testimony presented. The defense attorney's opening statement is neither of those, yet, this jury member was using it, in part, to reach a decision.


I've been on a handful of juries, from murder to misdemeanor, and it's the prosecution's duty to assauge doubt, not that of the jury. If anything, esp. during deliberations, alternatives should be voiced and considered. (BTW, wasn't this juror an alternate, not sure on Florida law, but alternates weren't present for deliberations I was a part of.)

Besides, one assumes a defense attorney would introduce doubt, dutifully, which needn't be considered beyond reason.
If the lawyer said aliens abducted the child and brainwashed the mother, a jury of twelve would be less swayed; but unless compelling evidence is presented to the contrary, tomfoolery owns the day.

[Missileman]

I've been on a handful of juries, from murder to misdemeanor, and it's the prosecution's duty to assauge doubt, not that of the jury. If anything, esp. during deliberations, alternatives should be voiced and considered. (BTW, wasn't this juror an alternate, not sure on Florida law, but alternates weren't present for deliberations I was a part of.)

Besides, one assumes a defense attorney would introduce doubt, dutifully, which needn't be considered beyond reason.
If the lawyer said aliens abducted the child and brainwashed the mother, a jury of twelve would be less swayed; but unless compelling evidence is presented to the contrary, tomfoolery owns the day.

I don't pretend to know how the jury reached its decision, I'm only talking about this one alternate who said he was using opening statement info as the basis for his doubt.

IMO, attorney's from both sides should be prohibited from saying anything to the jury that can't be corroborated with testimony or evidence. If the defendant had taken the stand and said that there had been an accidental drowning that at least would be grounds for the jury to hear the theory. As it stands, the defense might as well have been allowed to blame it on aliens.

[darin]

I think you're confusing tort law and criminal law, To convict someone of a crime it must proved beyond a reasonable doubt; jurors are instructed by the court as to what that means. I think it would be far more foolish to assess guilt without evidence a crime was even committed. Having not seen the evidence, shouldn't we respect their judgment.


I'm not - I'm saying I suspect their doubt wouldn't hold up as 'reasonable'.

[Kathianne]

"Innocent until..." so it stands to reason, even if no evidence is provided of one's innocence, it doesn't make one guilty.


I think you're confusing tort law and criminal law, To convict someone of a crime it must proved beyond a reasonable doubt; jurors are instructed by the court as to what that means. I think it would be far more foolish to assess guilt without evidence a crime was even committed. Having not seen the evidence, shouldn't we respect their judgment.



I hope she enjoys a long life; more time to pay the penance for her wrongdoings; which there undoubtedly were. Whatever freedom she allegedly sought is long gone-- her life is forever marred by her actions, wouldn't you agree? I say justice is already being served.

if she's guilty of said crime, hardly. If she's innocent she doesn't deserve it.

[logroller]

if she's guilty of said crime, hardly. If she's innocent she doesn't deserve it.

Which crime? Burying her recently deceased child and providing false information to the fact; She was found guilty on those counts, and deservedly so.

[gabosaurus]

I think she was guilty as can be. But I don't blame the jury. I blame the inept prosecution for not presenting a case that could sway the jury.
Prosecutors left too many holes and did little to counter the insane allegations presented by the defense attorney. Prosecutors also relied too much on hear say evidence and placed too much hope that public sympathy would win over the jury.
Casey Anthony is like OJ. She knows she did it. And now she has to live with it. I believe she will be dead within five years, most likely at her own hand.

[Abbey Marie]

...
I hope she enjoys a long life; more time to pay the penance for her wrongdoings; which there undoubtedly were. Whatever freedom she allegedly sought is long gone-- her life is forever marred by her actions, wouldn't you agree? I say justice is already being served.

Judging by the way she went partying shortly after her little girl "died", I'd say she won't be marred at all. On the contrary, it looks like she will make very lucrative deals and live quite happily. If she killed that little girl, then justice is far from served. More like a travesty.

After her death may be quite another story.

[logroller]

Judging by the way she went partying shortly after her little girl "died", I'd say she won't be marred at all. On the contrary, it looks like she will make very lucrative deals and live quite happily. If she killed that little girl, then justice is far from served. More like a travesty.

After her death may be quite another story.

perhaps we have different definitions of "happily". being known for getting away with the murder of my own child doesn't qualify IMO.

[logroller]

Casey Anthony is like OJ. She knows she did it. And now she has to live with it. I believe she will be dead within five years, most likely at her own hand.

In five years she'll be a blurb, perhaps an obscure reference. I predict drug and alcohol abuse, anything to numb the pain of her miserable existance.

[SassyLady]

In my opinion, the only reason anyone would "panic and hide the body" when a terrible accident like this occurs is because they know they did something wrong that caused the accident. If, in fact, the baby did die by drowning, perhaps mom was out running around, or sleeping off a drinking binge, or just plain irresponsible and talking on the phone or any other myriad of things. I would think she panicked because she knew it would be hard to explain how and why the baby drown.

And, as someone has already stated ... if the baby did drown and they tried to cover it up, then she was out partying knowing that her baby was dead .... and I just cannot fathom how/why anyone would "grieve" by acting like she was celebrating being free of a responsibility.

Why would anyone feel the need to lie about something unless they were trying to hide something they did wrong?

[logroller]

In my opinion, the only reason anyone would "panic and hide the body" when a terrible accident like this occurs is because they know they did something wrong that caused the accident. If, in fact, the baby did die by drowning, perhaps mom was out running around, or sleeping off a drinking binge, or just plain irresponsible and talking on the phone or any other myriad of things. I would think she panicked because she knew it would be hard to explain how and why the baby drown.

And, as someone has already stated ... if the baby did drown and they tried to cover it up, then she was out partying knowing that her baby was dead .... and I just cannot fathom how/why anyone would "grieve" by acting like she was celebrating being free of a responsibility.

Why would anyone feel the need to lie about something unless they were trying to hide something they did wrong?

Me neither Sassy; it really is a shame on the People of FL. They couldn't even prove negligence... a DAMNED SHAME!

On a personal note, as a resident of CA, I hope this will distance Our dilect verdict against OJ closer to obscurity, no later than this one at least. :cool:

[red states rule]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/bg070611dAPR20110706124523.jpg

[sundaydriver]

Many seem to forget why our legal is designed the way it is. I think Dershowitz describes it well.


By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
'This case [is] about seeking justice for Caylee . . ." So argued the prosecutor in the Casey Anthony murder case. He was wrong, and the jury understood that.
A criminal trial is never about seeking justice for the victim. If it were, there could be only one verdict: guilty. That's because only one person is on trial in a criminal case, and if that one person is acquitted, then by definition there can be no justice for the victim in that trial.

Rest at link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303544604576429783247016492.html

[Abbey Marie]

perhaps we have different definitions of "happily". being known for getting away with the murder of my own child doesn't qualify IMO.

That's because you (I assume) and I are normal people with a conscience. You cannot apply that to everyone, and my point is, that from all indications, Ms. Anthony is quite capable of ignoring something as inconvenient as a guilty conscience.

[logroller]

That's because you (I assume) and I are normal people with a conscience. You cannot apply that to everyone, and my point is, that from all indications, Ms. Anthony is quite capable of ignoring something as inconvenient as a guilty conscience.

A valid point; although she may be able to ignore her own conscience (or lack thereof), my point was that she would find it far more difficult to ignore the public perception of her.

[Abbey Marie]

A valid point; although she may be able to ignore her own conscience (or lack thereof), my point was that she would find it far more difficult to ignore the public perception of her.

I doubt it, but I do hope you are right.

[Gunny]

Really. Let' just hang her from the nearest cottonwood tree now.

Witch hunt much?

[DragonStryk72]

I don't pretend to know how the jury reached its decision, I'm only talking about this one alternate who said he was using opening statement info as the basis for his doubt.

IMO, attorney's from both sides should be prohibited from saying anything to the jury that can't be corroborated with testimony or evidence. If the defendant had taken the stand and said that there had been an accidental drowning that at least would be grounds for the jury to hear the theory. As it stands, the defense might as well have been allowed to blame it on aliens.

Then there would be no point to the opening and closing statements. Only things that are relevant to the case are allowed in court proceedings. Without an opening statement, there's no case and no defense.

[Missileman]

Then there would be no point to the opening and closing statements. Only things that are relevant to the case are allowed in court proceedings. Without an opening statement, there's no case and no defense.

That's simply not true...each side should open with a brief summary of their case and then put on witnesses and admit evidence that bolsters that summary. It shouldn't be a forum for wild scenarios for which there is no evidence.

[gabosaurus]

It shouldn't be a forum for wild scenarios for which there is no evidence.

Most defense lawyers would be unable to function if this was the case.

By the way, I saw an ad today for a group that portrays themselves as "Christian Trial Lawyers." That's an oxymoron is there ever was one.

[SassyLady]

Really. Let' just hang her from the nearest cottonwood tree now.

Witch hunt much?

why waste a good rope....let her live with her actions.....society in general will deal with her one way or another.

[logroller]

.....society in general will deal with her one way or another.

For all intents and purposes, she might as well emblazen BABYKILLER and LIAR in scarlet red next to her "freedom" piece.
Edit: The People should have said that during arguments.Now she can cross off BABYKILLER and add not guilty.

[DragonStryk72]

That's simply not true...each side should open with a brief summary of their case and then put on witnesses and admit evidence that bolsters that summary. It shouldn't be a forum for wild scenarios for which there is no evidence.

Um... you mean like the entire opening/closing statement procedure now? The opening statement is where the prosecution lays out the case for the jury, and then the defense comes up and states what their case is for rebutting the charges. Then they start bringing up witnesses and evidence. You can object to an opening statement and get it struck, btw. Yeah, the prosecution could have actually gotten parts of it chucked entirely. A judge can also stop your statement if you're rambling on or some such.

Also, btw, since the prosecution's case was based on entirely circumstantial evidence in this case, the prosecution is pretty much guilty of your charge as well.

[darin]

Most cases are based on the evidence around the circumstances surrounding the alleged crime. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence.

[Missileman]

Um... you mean like the entire opening/closing statement procedure now? The opening statement is where the prosecution lays out the case for the jury, and then the defense comes up and states what their case is for rebutting the charges. Then they start bringing up witnesses and evidence. You can object to an opening statement and get it struck, btw. Yeah, the prosecution could have actually gotten parts of it chucked entirely. A judge can also stop your statement if you're rambling on or some such.

Also, btw, since the prosecution's case was based on entirely circumstantial evidence in this case, the prosecution is pretty much guilty of your charge as well.

The prosecution had, and presented, evidence and testimony to back up their theory...it doesn't matter that most of it was circumstantial. The defense never presented a single shred of evidence or testimony that supported the claim of an accidental drowning. The jury should have been instructed to totally disregard the claim.

[DragonStryk72]

Most cases are based on the evidence around the circumstances surrounding the alleged crime. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence.

Points of circumstance, yes. Entirely built on cirucmstance? No.


The prosecution had, and presented, evidence and testimony to back up their theory...it doesn't matter that most of it was circumstantial. The defense never presented a single shred of evidence or testimony that supported the claim of an accidental drowning. The jury should have been instructed to totally disregard the claim.

They didn't have to. It is the prosecution's job to remove reasonable doubt from the case, to get solid evidence that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the defendant did it. They didn't have that, not even going in, so basically they won that case for the defense.

[logroller]

I believe the correct term is opening and closing "arguments" (Premise, support, conclusion etc), not mere statements. Semantics matter in legal discussions.

[logroller]

The prosecution had, and presented, evidence and testimony to back up their theory...it doesn't matter that most of it was circumstantial. The defense never presented a single shred of evidence or testimony that supported the claim of an accidental drowning. The jury should have been instructed to totally disregard the claim.



The defendant is not required to present evidence or prove anything. -Excerpt of Jury Instructions
http://www.news-journalonline.com/breakingnews/images/2011/07/04/Casey-Anthony-Jury-Instructions-070411.pdf

In your defense,


Whenever the words "reasonable doubt" are used you must consider the following:
A reasonable doubt is not a mere possible doubt, a speculative, imaginary or forced doubt... It is to the evidence introduced in this trial, and to it alone, that you are to look for that proof.

So you are correct in your assertion in considering evidence alone. :2up: However,


A reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant may arise from the evidence, conflict in the evidence or the lack of evidence.
If you have a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. If you have no reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty.

Presumed innocence is such a drag :laugh2:

[Missileman]

-Excerpt of Jury Instructions
http://www.news-journalonline.com/breakingnews/images/2011/07/04/Casey-Anthony-Jury-Instructions-070411.pdf

In your defense,



So you are correct in your assertion in considering evidence alone. :2up: However,



Presumed innocence is such a drag :laugh2:

Look, I understand the burden of proof is on the prosecution and that they failed to prove their case. My objection is solely about either side making totally unsubstantiated statements to the jury.

[darin]

Points of circumstance, yes. Entirely built on cirucmstance? No.



Evidence describes the circumstances. All evidence supports the circumstances; the details of the crime.

[DragonStryk72]

Evidence describes the circumstances. All evidence supports the circumstances; the details of the crime.

No, evidence proves the circumstances to be more than simple coincidence. By your logic, there are millions that are guilty of that child's death. Circumstantial evidence proves nothing, simply putting in the possibility that it's possible.

[gabosaurus]

I keep hearing all this bitter vitriol against the jury for not convicting Casey Anthony of murder. But little animosity toward the incompetent prosecution for not proving its case.
The American jury system is based around deciding cases on facts rather than emotion. This jury did its job.

[red states rule]

I keep hearing all this bitter vitriol against the jury for not convicting Casey Anthony of murder. But little animosity toward the incompetent prosecution for not proving its case.
The American jury system is based around deciding cases on facts rather than emotion. This jury did its job.

She can run for elected office as a Dem Gabby, and play the victim card. Hell, libs like you could simply say she had a late, late, late term abortion and she has rebounded from all the stress the DA inflicted on her

[gabosaurus]

Wow, that was unbelievable. Your idiocy is astounding sometimes.

[red states rule]

Wow, that was unbelievable. Your idiocy is astounding sometimes.

I know how liberals think and how they operate Gabby

[darin]

No, evidence proves the circumstances to be more than simple coincidence. By your logic, there are millions that are guilty of that child's death. Circumstantial evidence proves nothing, simply putting in the possibility that it's possible.

You might want too look in to the definition of circumstantial ;)

[logroller]

The prosecution had, and presented, evidence and testimony to back up their theory...it doesn't matter that most of it was circumstantial. The defense never presented a single shred of evidence or testimony that supported the claim of an accidental drowning. The jury should have been instructed to totally disregard the claim.


You might want too look in to the definition of circumstantial ;)

As per juror instructions, the emphasis is mine:

If you find Caylee Marie Anthony was killed by Casey Marie Anthony, you will then consider the circumstances

I'm guessing that's why the overwhelming circumstantial evidence failed to rally a guilty verdict, there must have been no direct evidence an act of killing occured.

[DragonStryk72]

You might want too look in to the definition of circumstantial ;)

Fine, then since you were probably out of the somewhere in the month that girl was missing, then you likely killed her. The circumstance of you lacking an alibi during that time is clearly enough to take you to trial. I'll just skip on things like genetic evidence, and various other, more solid forms of evidence, and we'll just stick with the vague stuff.

[Gunny]

I keep hearing all this bitter vitriol against the jury for not convicting Casey Anthony of murder. But little animosity toward the incompetent prosecution for not proving its case.
The American jury system is based around deciding cases on facts rather than emotion. This jury did its job.

The prosecution itself was not incompetent. They had no case to prove. The DA should never have taken the case to trial to begin with.

Casey Anthony was tried more on knee-jerk, emotional reaction than any real facts.

[Trigg]

The prosecution itself was not incompetent. They had no case to prove. The DA should never have taken the case to trial to begin with.

Casey Anthony was tried more on knee-jerk, emotional reaction than any real facts.

I agree, the prosecution over reached. I think they could have gotten a conviction if they had gone for negligent homicide.

I firmly believe she only wanted her daughter to sleep, sadly the chloroform killed her. I think she then panicked, and the lies began. She's guilty as sin and she won't serve anymore time, because the prosecution couldn't prove it's case.

[darin]

Fine, then since you were probably out of the somewhere in the month that girl was missing, then you likely killed her. The circumstance of you lacking an alibi during that time is clearly enough to take you to trial. I'll just skip on things like genetic evidence, and various other, more solid forms of evidence, and we'll just stick with the vague stuff.

That doesn't even make sense.

[logroller]

I agree, the prosecution over reached. I think they could have gotten a conviction if they had gone for negligent homicide.

I firmly believe she only wanted her daughter to sleep, sadly the chloroform killed her. I think she then panicked, and the lies began. She's guilty as sin and she won't serve anymore time, because the prosecution couldn't prove it's case.

Not sure what you mean by "gone for", but negligent homicide was in the jury instructions.