# Casey Anthony: NOT GUILTY (of murder)



## Sensei Payne (Jul 5, 2011)

Apparently she pulled an OJ.

Your thoughts?


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 5, 2011)

Sensational trials end sensationaly.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 5, 2011)

Just a couple thoughts...

We are not the jury and do not have access to the information the jury has.  
The verdict does not mean she is innocent; it means that the jury believed that the state did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Since I trust in our justice system, which by and large is the best in the world (IMHO), I am not overly fashed by this.

I didn't really follow the trial; just knew that it existed - it was hard to miss.  I did my best to not get into it.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 5, 2011)

Like Bill, I didn't follow the trial (somwhat of a conscious decision), so what I know about the case is based on my conversation with another intern who has been following it.  What I understand is that all the evidence was circumstantial; it indicated that the child had died at someone in the house's hands, but wasn't enough to prove whose hands they were.  The main indicator among the family members was the Defendant's callous behavior and lack of remorse after the fact.  Sorry folks, but lack of remorse isn't enough to convict.  

It's sad that someone may have (probably did, in fact) gotten away with murder, but I can see how reasonable doubt got planted and prevented a conviction.  Because I can see that, I'm not really as outraged as so many of my friends seem to be (Facebook blew up around 2:25!).  As always, my sympathies to the family of Caylee.


----------



## granfire (Jul 5, 2011)

Nancy Grace failed to deliver....

I am sorry, could not help myself.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Jul 5, 2011)

granfire said:


> Nancy Grace failed to deliver....
> 
> I am sorry, could not help myself.


I can't handle Nancy most of the time; her job is to create an uproar and it will never quite play out like she suggests, given the court room is no place for an uproar.
Sean


----------



## granfire (Jul 5, 2011)

Can't stand her.....but given her 'work' I suppose a lot of people are very disappointed the 'Tod Mom' isn't going to fry...

So maybe the Sheriff calling for people not to riot isn't all that far fetched...


----------



## MBuzzy (Jul 5, 2011)

Personally, I think she did it, but my opinion really doesn't matter much.  Bottom line is that the Jury didn't have access to the sensational media that has been editorializing every breath from the courtroom for the last month.  A lot of evidence was thrown out that we saw as totally true due to the media....It sucks, but sometimes the system does that.  As far as I'm concerned, it would have been better if the media just stayed the hell out of it.


----------



## Thesemindz (Jul 5, 2011)

As far as I can tell, she was a horrible mom and someone in that home probably killed the kid. The problem the prosecution had is they couldn't prove that it was definitely her, and the defense did a good enough job of pointing out how terrible the rest of the family was that the jury couldn't be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that someone else in the home wasn't the killer. I get two takeaways from this.

1. House full of monsters. Let's hope they don't continue to reproduce.

2. If you're going to kill someone, do it as part of a group of people who won't rat you out. Then the prosecution won't be able to prove conclusively who the real killer was and you all walk.


-Rob


----------



## WC_lun (Jul 6, 2011)

It is truly sad that a child died and someone will get away with it.  However, the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the mom killed the child and they did not.  I cannot be upset with the jury working off the information they were given arriving at the verdict they did.


----------



## Sensei Payne (Jul 6, 2011)

Opinions on this matter...don't matter.  The courts found her NOT Guilty.

The Media has indoctrinated everyone to beleive that she was already guilty, before the trail ever started.

I am not going to argue if she did it or not...although it is sad that a little girl did die, and karama is a real deal for whoever did muder her.

But as far as I am concerned...its time for the media to leave Casey alone.

But keep an eye out for Purgery.


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 6, 2011)

The state really went after only proving Murder in the First, there were lesser offenses as well, but they did not really spend any time trying to get the elements of them proved. They also spent MUCH of their time trying to prove motive, which is NOT an element of murder in the criminal sense. Due to the long time between when she "disappeared" and when it was reported you had close to a month that the body sat there. Now you bring in "experts" who contradict the state's experts and you create confusion for the jury because you can't pin down a time of death, nor even the manner in which Cayley died.

Now, you introduce a wild tale that Cayley got out of the house and drowned in the pool and the mother didn't know how to react. Now, you have another seed of doubt. Now, you find traces of cloroform in the car and a search for it on the internet and you have the Grandma saying that she did that due to her job. Another seed of doubt.

Adding all of that the defense was able to put alot of doubt in the jurors minds as to actual evidence. The prosecution relied on ALOT of circumstantional evidence and wanted the jury to connect the dots by using a motive. In the end, it didn't work out for them.


----------



## Jade Tigress (Jul 6, 2011)

My opinion:

I did not follow the case closely. However, from the little I do know, in addition to looking up chloroform on the internet her child was missing for 31 days without being reported, she withheld information from the authorities, and claimed a swimming accident in the pool (the child was found in a swamp). 

I do believe she did it. It may have been an accident, I don't know. But even if it was an accident, why not call 911? If you are innocent why don't you report your 2-year-old child missing? Why do you conceal evidence? Why aren't you doing everything possible to locate your child? 

Again, I am going by the little I do know. There is a lot I don't know because I didn't follow the trial. Still, those few things are enough in my mind to convince me you are not "innocent".


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jul 6, 2011)

> The problem the prosecution had is they couldn't prove that it was definitely her, and the defense did a good enough job of pointing out how terrible the rest of the family was that the jury couldn't be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that someone else in the home wasn't the killer



That about sums it all up. 
If I had listened to the whole trail I might have a better opinon of what happened, but for the whole jury to say not quilty then the prosecution failed to present enough hard facts to convict.
Did she do it, maybe we will never know for sure.
Is the state (police and DA) going to go back to look at facts or search for new evidence now or are they simply going to say "oh well she got away with it."  Who knows if they look again they may actualy find someone else did it or they never find out more


----------



## Balrog (Jul 6, 2011)

Sensei Payne said:


> Apparently she pulled an OJ.
> 
> Your thoughts?


I think she and OJ would make a darling couple.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 6, 2011)

Jade Tigress said:


> My opinion:
> 
> I did not follow the case closely. However, from the little I do know, in addition to looking up chloroform on the internet her child was missing for 31 days without being reported, she withheld information from the authorities, and claimed a swimming accident in the pool (the child was found in a swamp).
> 
> ...



You may be right.  But that is how people got dragged out of their houses and hung from a tree in the bad old days - people went by what they heard and what _"didn't sound right"_ to them.  Not saying you would, just making a comparison.

I know people find it difficult to accept the concept that it is better than 100 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person go to prison, but that's really a fundamental principle of our legal system.  In many (most?) countries, a person accused of a crime is legally presumed to have committed it unless they manage to prove themselves innocent.  If you're innocent but cannot prove it, you are guilty, in other words.  I personally don't think much of that system.

In the USA, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution, because the accused are legally presumed innocent.  The defense has no obligation to prove innocence; they only have to introduce the element of doubt.

Which brings me to the last component of a criminal trial in the USA.  In civil court (lawsuits and such), a _'preponderance of evidence'_ is all that is needed for a conviction, which is commonly explained as 51% if you want to think about it that way.  In other words, if it looks mostly like you did it, you did it.  However, you can't be imprisoned for losing a lawsuit - only made to pay money.

In a criminal trial, the standard of conviction is _'beyond a reasonable doubt'._  That's important, because that's what the defense team attempts to do - sow the seeds of doubt in the jury's mind.

We know that our system is not perfect.  Innocent people still get convicted, guilty people still go free.  Your chances in court often depend not upon the facts, but upon how good your legal team is, or how bad the prosecution is.  And there are always 'technicalities' that can cause a conviction to be overturned and new trials ordered, or a person goes free because of it, etc.  But I still maintain it is the best legal system ever devised.  It works extremely well in the aggregate; our justice system does indeed serve justice.  It's slow, it's complicated, but it works much more than it doesn't.

And whatever Casey Anthony did or did not do, she cannot be retried for the same crime now.  Protection against double-jeopardy means her trials for this murder are over.


----------



## granfire (Jul 6, 2011)

> And whatever Casey Anthony did or did not do, she cannot be retried for  the same crime now.  Protection against double-jeopardy means her trials  for this murder are over.



Also a hallmark of this country.
The state does not get to try and try until they get it right. 
(generally a good thing)


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 6, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In the USA, the burden of proof is always on the prosecution, because the accused are legally presumed innocent. The defense has no obligation to prove innocence; they only have to introduce the element of doubt.



I don't mean to nitpick, and the rest of your post is spot-on, but technically, the defense team doesn't even have to go that far.  The prosecution has to prove every element for guilt to be established; if they fail to do that, then not-guilty is required.  So the defense team could, legally anyway, say absolutely nothing.  

I saw this actually explained to a jury pool by a defense attorney during voir dire (that's the process where a jury is selected) when explaining the State's obligation to prove every element.  They also said, of course, that a defense attorney doing nothing and presenting no counter-evidence is strategic suicide. 

I just wanted to bring that up because your comment brought the moment to mind.  Food for thought and all.


----------



## hongkongfooey (Jul 6, 2011)

If the death of this child resulted from an accidental drowning as claimed by the defense, then why was her body found in a plastic bag, in a swamp, with duct tape wrapped around the her head? If she did drown why not call 911 and let the authorities sort it out?


----------



## punisher73 (Jul 6, 2011)

hongkongfooey said:


> If the death of this child resulted from an accidental drowning as claimed by the defense, then why was her body found in a plastic bag, in a swamp, with duct tape wrapped around the her head? If she did drown why not call 911 and let the authorities sort it out?



That starts to get into motive (although also the basis of obstruction which they did find her guilty of).  The defense did a VERY good job of pointing out how her behavior and lying was consistant with post mortem blues/depression.  Also, link that in with the fact that the state asked a paternity test for her brother and now you have a WHOLE NEW DOOR to walk through for the defense in that she was sexually abused by her father and brother and how could we expect her to make good decisions when she was so messed up already.

A line I have often heard in court, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bs".  Also, heard by alot of attorneys I know..."If the facts are on your side, beat on the facts, if they aren't on your side, beat on the table.".

The defense doesn't have to provide or show *anything *in a criminal trial.  It is all up to the prosecution (As Mr. Mattocks great post pointed out), the defense can sit and do nothing if they choose to, or as in this case took the state's evidence and then poked holes in it so it didn't seem so reasonable anymore.  They brought in their own experts to contradict the other experts and then it is up to the jury which one they believe.  Duck tape around the mouth?  Doesn't show anything when you can't tell how the child died.  Maybe they felt SOOO bad that they did that so bugs wouldn't get in her mouth afterwards.  Defense doesn't have to really PROVE anything about the tape, the prosecution didn't other than it was there so you just put out an explanation that might be believable to the jurors when given other scenarios of how dysfunctional she was.

PS:  I don't know what the defense actually said about the tape, just giving my own hypothetical excuse.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 6, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> I don't mean to nitpick, and the rest of your post is spot-on, but technically, the defense team doesn't even have to go that far.  The prosecution has to prove every element for guilt to be established; if they fail to do that, then not-guilty is required.  So the defense team could, legally anyway, say absolutely nothing.
> 
> I saw this actually explained to a jury pool by a defense attorney during voir dire (that's the process where a jury is selected) when explaining the State's obligation to prove every element.  They also said, of course, that a defense attorney doing nothing and presenting no counter-evidence is strategic suicide.
> 
> I just wanted to bring that up because your comment brought the moment to mind.  Food for thought and all.



Your point is well-taken, and as I hope everyone knows, I am not a lawyer.

In the end, it comes down to the jury, no matter if the defense presents a theory of the crime, offers mitigating circumstances, casts doubt on the prosecution's evidence and testimony or whatever.  The jury either believes that the accused has been proven to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or they do not.  The usual instructions to the jury from the judge generally include information about what 'reasonable doubt' is.

What I meant by my comment is that the defense's job is to establish that reasonable doubt in the jury's mind.  They can do it in a variety of ways, including facts and testimony that tend to establish actual innocence, as well as by contradicting prosecution evidence and witnesses and so on.  Theoretically, if they felt their case was so solid it required no defense, they could certainly sit mute; however, I would suspect that if they had a case that solid for actual innocence, they'd ask for a dismissal with prejudice and get it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 6, 2011)

hongkongfooey said:


> If the death of this child resulted from an accidental drowning as claimed by the defense, then why was her body found in a plastic bag, in a swamp, with duct tape wrapped around the her head? If she did drown why not call 911 and let the authorities sort it out?



I do not know why.  Apparently the jury didn't know why either - or they suspected but did not have enough evidence to support a conviction.  With whom would you argue this?  Nothing you or I say can change what has happened.

Besides, the logic isn't valid.  Lots of people do things that seem incriminating, but they did not commit the crime they are accused of.  Remember Congressman Condit?  He sure looked guilty, didn't he?  Lied, covered up his affair, etc, etc.  Ended up in disgrace - and I suppose rightfully so.  But the same arguments were used on him - if he was innocent of his employee's murder, why not come clean with police?  Well, I don't know why he didn't, but the fact is, he didn't kill her and had no involvement in her death.  You can't argue that a person is guilty because they did things that appear to be the work of a guilty conscience; it may be true, but it doesn't prove anything by itself.

EDIT: And remember, the defense did not have to prove anything they claimed; they only had to claim it and the jury had to decide if it was plausible.  Not that it was true or not - just that it might be true.


----------



## Archangel M (Jul 6, 2011)

My .02.

Shes "guilty" as sin. It just couldn't be proven sufficiently enough for THIS jury. There have been plenty of cases based on circumstantial evidence that resulted in a guilty verdict. Scott Peterson is one that immediately comes to mind. What convicted him was the combination of circumstantial evidence and his demeanor/lies. IMO this woman was worse than him. Party while your daughter is "missing" and unreported. Blame a non-existant nanny for her kidnapping, lie to the police throughought the investigation. Unfortunately there wasn't enough physical evidence for LE and nobody cracked in an interview room.

As an aside, something is "up" with that entire family IMO. If your daughter and grand-daughter lived with you how do YOU let your grand-daughter be missing for a MONTH?!? How did she not at least get a conviction for endangering or child abuse for THAT? This whole case is a tragedy and a little girl is dead.....


----------



## crushing (Jul 6, 2011)

Like Trump's presedential run should have been on the  E! Network and not CNN, this trial should have been on TruTV (or whatever CourtTV is now).  That's my $0.02 anyway.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 7, 2011)

A Facebook friend just posted that she prays that Casey Anthony will get put in general population for the remaining 60-90 days.  Now I'm not a Christian, so maybe I don't understand how prayer works, but doesn't praying for someone's death kinda contradict the whole Christian prayer idea?  

I don't mean to sidetrack the discussion, but I think the question's relevant concerning the popular vehemence towards the Defendant.


----------



## JohnEdward (Jul 7, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> A Facebook friend just posted that she prays that Casey Anthony will get put in general population for the remaining 60-90 days.  Now I'm not a Christian, so maybe I don't understand how prayer works, but doesn't praying for someone's death kinda contradict the whole Christian prayer idea?
> 
> I don't mean to sidetrack the discussion, but I think the question's relevant concerning the popular vehemence towards the Defendant.



I think there is relevance. The prosecution sought the death penalty, Florida as a state is pro death penalty. Because of that Jurors now have a grave and heavy decision to make if they convict. A decision that will wave heavily on the Jury's conscious.  Yet, the public without having any direct and individual responsibility for a person's death works into a furor of blood lust for suitable justice for the crime.  The furor is increased, as we have seen, when the verdict of not guilty was handed down.  The public feels justice wasn't served. Angered by the unfavorable decision, some appeal to a higher authority (God) of which they feel, feels the same way and will enact their sense of justice.  Whereas the Jury, isn't free from arm chair quarterbacking, it isn't water cooler talk, it isn't TV. They don't feel as the public does.  They make the decision according to instructions, and their decision directly and personally effects them. They are less likely to work themselves into a furor of blood-lust. Especially, no one knows how the child was killed. If they did, and the child was killed horrifically that it would move the Jury in good conscious (as our society is so accustom to violence it would not be easy to do) to hand down a death penalty. The jury having the power to put someone to death, and more likely subscribing to Christian philosophy, doesn't pray to God after they make the decision.  This is how I see the relevance to the discussion and the verdict.


----------



## JohnEdward (Jul 7, 2011)

I think the Jury may have convicted her if the death penalty wasn't on the table.  I remember a high profile murder case of Lacy Peterson, a husband who was convicted of murdering his wife and unborn child. Not being a lawyer or knowing details of the case, it seems he was convicted on just as much circumstantial evidence, where the death penalty was not on the table.  It shows that a Jury takes sentencing someone to death a serious and grave conscious decision. The trial, despite all the media attention seemed to stay grounded and on task. I think the Jury made the decision in accordance to the law and did not decide according to public opinion. Even if the Jury felt she was guilty.  I say this, many women kill their children and never get caught living their lives normally without the stigma of public infamy. This women will not, nor will her parents.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 7, 2011)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> A Facebook friend just posted that she prays that Casey Anthony will get put in general population for the remaining 60-90 days.  Now I'm not a Christian, so maybe I don't understand how prayer works, but doesn't praying for someone's death kinda contradict the whole Christian prayer idea?
> 
> I don't mean to sidetrack the discussion, but I think the question's relevant concerning the popular vehemence towards the Defendant.



I don't think it is limited to Christians.  From what little I've read (hard to avoid now), the family has gone into hiding, and when she is released from prison, she will be going into hiding as well.  The defense lawyers report they have received death threats.  While I am fairly certain that much of this is hyperbole and most would not act on such threats, some clearly would - recent incidents of people attacking government offices and officials would tend to indicate that there are still a sizable number of people in the USA who are content to let the justice system work, so long as they agree with the verdict.  If they do not like the verdict, then taking the law into their own hands seems to them to be both appropriate and morally correct.

I mentioned awhile back that the number of incidents of people mailing letters with a 'white powdery substance' in them to various government offices has become epidemic - I do not know why no report has noticed this disturbing national trend; they report on the individual occurrences but ignore the trend.  Anyway, that's both domestic terrorism and an example of this mentality that someone must be made to pay for the perpetrator's rage.  It doesn't really matter whom, just so someone is in pain like those so aggrieved feel they are.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jul 7, 2011)

JohnEdward said:


> I think the Jury may have convicted her if the death penalty wasn't on the table.  I remember a high profile murder case of Lacy Peterson, a husband who was convicted of murdering his wife and unborn child. Not being a lawyer or knowing details of the case, it seems he was convicted on just as much circumstantial evidence, where the death penalty was not on the table.  It shows that a Jury takes sentencing someone to death a serious and grave conscious decision. The trial, despite all the media attention seemed to stay grounded and on task. I think the Jury made the decision in accordance to the law and did not decide according to public opinion. Even if the Jury felt she was guilty.  I say this, many women kill their children and never get caught living their lives normally without the stigma of public infamy. This women will not, nor will her parents.



It depends upon the state.  Some states give more power to to juries than others.  A jury may choose to convict on the original charge, or a lesser, included offense in some cases.  I do not know what the rules were in this case.  Juries may also 'nullify' laws in some states if they find the law itself to blame, a fact which prosecutors dread.  Not that they would have in this case.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 7, 2011)

In Scotland the courts have a choice of three verdicts it can bring in, the two obvious ones and a verdict of 'not proven', it's a very useful one, it means they think you are guilty but there wasn't enough evidence so you don't get a not guilty verdict so you don't get off entirely.


----------



## crushing (Jul 8, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> In Scotland the courts have a choice of three verdicts it can bring in, *the two obvious ones *and a verdict of 'not proven', it's a very useful one, it means they think you are guilty but there wasn't enough evidence so you don't get a not guilty verdict so you don't get off entirely.



I assume one of the two obvious ones is 'guilty', but is the other 'not guilty' or is it 'innocent'?


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 8, 2011)

crushing said:


> I assume one of the two obvious ones is 'guilty', but is the other 'not guilty' or is it 'innocent'?



 Not guilty.


----------

