Sensei Payne
Black Belt
Apparently she pulled an OJ.
Your thoughts?
Last edited by a moderator:
Casey Anthony: NOT GUILTY (of murder)
- Thread starter Sensei Payne
- Start date
Apparently she pulled an OJ.
Your thoughts?
Sensational trials end sensationaly. 
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.
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
Master of Arts
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.
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.
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
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...
So maybe the Sheriff calling for people not to riot isn't all that far fetched...
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.
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
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
Senior Master
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.
OP
Sensei Payne
Black Belt
- Thread Starter
- #11
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.
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
Senior Master
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2004
- Messages
- 3,959
- Reaction score
- 1,062
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.
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.
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".
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".
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
Master of Arts
I think she and OJ would make a darling couple.
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.
RandomPhantom700
Master of Arts
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
Black Belt
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2005
- Messages
- 628
- Reaction score
- 23
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
Senior Master
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2004
- Messages
- 3,959
- Reaction score
- 1,062
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.
Similar threads
