Casey Anthony Not Guilty

[180]

Jury's verdict: Casey Anthony not guilty of murder – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

I just think this is a major failure with our justice system.

She had better get the full 4 years for lying to police.

[VinceG]

They never get you on the crime, they get you on the cover-up | Partial Objects

Casey Anthony is not guilty of the murder of her daughter Caylee Anthony.

However, she is guilty of “providing false information to law enforcement officer“.

It’s something of a cliche that high profile people never go down for their crimes, they go down for the cover up. It was the cover-up of the Watergate break-in that destroyed Nixon’s presidency. It wasn’t oral sex with Monica Lewinsky that got Clinton impeached, it was lying about it under oath. Remember how Martha Stewart went to prison for a year for insider trading? Oh, wait, she didn’t. She went to prison for obstructing justice and lying to investigators...

[Bradman]

Originally Posted by 180

Jury's verdict: Casey Anthony not guilty of murder – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

I just think this is a major failure with our justice system.

She had better get the full 4 years for lying to police.

I'm with you. Make her sit another year, I'd like to see the look on her face if nothing else.

[Bradman]

Originally Posted by VinceG

They never get you on the crime, they get you on the cover-up | Partial Objects

Vince, where did you dream this up? Of course there are cases where there is no physical evidence, it happens all the time, in fact most cases are prosecuted with circimstantial evidence alone, but in today's CSI world, jurors are under the false impression that DNA evidence must exist to convict. Maybe "lying to authorities" shouldn't be a crime since they can lie to you, and maybe, "without reasonable cause" should be re-named "reasonable cause."

I think "reason" gets lost in the confusion. I mean really, have you thought about it? If you know your child drowned in your parents swimming pool, would you not call the police? Would you party for 31 days, then after you get thrown in jail for lying, make up a story about a pretend nanny that kidnapped her? The trunk of your car smells like death, and you were the only one that had access to it. While in jail, you insist you don't know where she is while everyone is looking for her. Eventually her body is found near your home, duct tape around her face. Chloroform is found in the trunk samples. Computer searches of the family computer include "chloroform" "neck breaking" Then during trial you blame your mom/dad for doing it? I'm sure I've left much out, but holy cow!

Really, do you need a smoking gun? A video? DNA from a corpse rotting for six months?

I guess you can now kill anyone, and if there is no DIRECT evidence, you get off! Give me a break! Simply take someone out "hunting" hit em in the head and leave them dead. No worries, you'll never get convicted, just get a jury of complete morons, and walk free. Gotta love it.

PS - keep locking up prostitutes and pot smokers, lord knows these people are dangerous!

[VinceG]

Originally Posted by Bradman

Vince, where did you dream this up? Of course there are cases where there is no physical evidence, it happens all the time, in fact most cases are prosecuted with circimstantial evidence alone, but in today's CSI world, jurors are under the false impression that DNA evidence must exist to convict. Maybe "lying to authorities" shouldn't be a crime since they can lie to you, and maybe, "without reasonable cause" should be re-named "reasonable cause."

I think "reason" gets lost in the confusion. I mean really, have you thought about it? If you know your child drowned in your parents swimming pool, would you not call the police? Would you party for 31 days, then after you get thrown in jail for lying, make up a story about a pretend nanny that kidnapped her? The trunk of your car smells like death, and you were the only one that had access to it. While in jail, you insist you don't know where she is while everyone is looking for her. Eventually her body is found near your home, duct tape around her face. Chloroform is found in the trunk samples. Computer searches of the family computer include "chloroform" "neck breaking" Then during trial you blame your mom/dad for doing it? I'm sure I've left much out, but holy cow!

Really, do you need a smoking gun? A video? DNA from a corpse rotting for six months?

I guess you can now kill anyone, and if there is no DIRECT evidence, you get off! Give me a break! Simply take someone out "hunting" hit em in the head and leave them dead. No worries, you'll never get convicted, just get a jury of complete morons, and walk free. Gotta love it.

PS - keep locking up prostitutes and pot smokers, lord knows these people are dangerous!

The author of the article agrees with you. The purpose of the article was to illuminate why these high-profile celebrity cases always work out this way.

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by 180

Jury's verdict: Casey Anthony not guilty of murder – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs

I just think this is a major failure with our justice system.

She had better get the full 4 years for lying to police.

1) I think she was guilty, but

2) I don't think the prosecution proved that she is guilty. All they proved is that she is a narcissistic human being.

Unfortunately I am going to have to say that I agree with the jurors' decision. In the United States, those who are accused of crimes are innocent until proven guilty, and unfortunately this case had no solid evidence that could prove Casey Anthony had murdered her child.


Although I think the murder is the most reasonable solution to the whole question of "how did she die?", I think there is a small space of "maybe the kid died as an accident, and Casey Anthony also happens to be batshit insane as well" that could be the explanation for why she lied and tried to cover up the death.

[ginkgo]

I have not been following this case but now have a huge interest. Some things do not make sense. For example the defense says that Caylee died in a swimming pool. Now do they say that someone then stole the dead body? Or did they say that they took the body and buried it? If it is the latter, then they would have a dead body in the car to move it according to their story.

Also in Arizona there is like an epidemic of children drowning in swimming pools. So couldn't Casey have just dropped Caylee into the pool and then called EMERGENCY 30 minutes later? I like to brag that I learned how to swim at age 5. But I do not think that Caylee could swim. Then the emergency team would think that it was accidental, not that the mother dropped the child.

Why commit a crime (false information to police) that can easily be proven that can put her in jail for 15 years, to cover up a worse crime? Also you may need chloroform to abduct a kid that is not your own. But once abducted you do not need chloroform to control a child.

Now a parent has no need for chloroform to control a child. Why not do a search for poisons that do not show up later in the body? Or at least I could understand a search for cyanide, strychnine or arsenic. Also the search was 3 months before Caylee dissappeared. So the prosecution was saying that there were 3 months premeditation to come up with such a bad plan?

Also isn't common knowledge that the police are going to search your computer after a crime? I was in an Apple store and I used their ipad for fifteen minutes. The ipad did not require my name or anything. Also I was in a Burger King where there were internet computers for customers to use. Now maybe the above requires too much intelligence.

But Nancy Grace said that part of the reason that Anthony was found innocent of murder was because the prosecution picked a jury of criminals! So does that mean that the prosecution did not know that would not be a good idea? Of does it mean that almost everyone in Florida is a criminal? People compare this trial to OJ but Anthony was not a celebrity before this. Also she was not so rich that she could hire a dream team. In fact Nancy Grace said that Anthony's lawyer did not help Anthony win the case.

[Bradman]

Most likely what happend is mom used duct tape to silence Caylee, and used chloroform to put her to sleep so she could party, too stupid to realize that this could kill the child. That would not make it murder in the first degree, but felony murder instead as was explained by the prosecution. If direct evidence was required like you are suggesting, then almost nobody would ever be conviceted of a crime. I think the prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt, but I guess what is reasonable to some is not to others, or they are simply misconstuing the definition.

She was able to attain a quality defence team because they knew it would be high profile and did it pro-bono, and she did become a celebrity of sorts by the time the case went to trial.

(ps - I think you are meaning "Nancy Grace")

[Criseyde]

I think they were right to acquit her. All the evidence was circumstantial. For a felony, you have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. US law is supposed to operate on the principle "innocent until proven guilty." Who knows what to believe? The media tried, convicted, and hanged Casey Anthony before she ever went to court. There's no way to ignore that bias.

Differences between Civil and Criminal Law

In criminal litigation, the burden of proof is always on the state. The state must prove that the defendant is guilty. The defendant is assumed to be innocent; the defendant needs to prove nothing.

(snip)

In criminal litigation, the state must prove that the defendant satisfied each element of the statutory definition of the crime, and the defendant's participation, "beyond a reasonable doubt."

[Bradman]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

I think they were right to acquit her. All the evidence was circumstantial. For a felony, you have to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. US law is supposed to operate on the principle "innocent until proven guilty." Who knows what to believe? The media tried, convicted, and hanged Casey Anthony before she ever went to court. There's no way to ignore that bias.

Differences between Civil and Criminal Law

So in your opinion, what was the resonable doubt in this case?

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by Bradman

So in your opinion, what was the resonable doubt in this case?

There was no conclusive evidence.

[Bradman]

Do you believe the theory put forth by the defence?

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by Bradman

Do you believe the theory put forth by the defence?

That she drowned in the pool? I don't know. I don't know whether Casey Anthony killed her daughter, and neither did the jury. That's why the verdict is "not guilty" rather than "innocent."

[ginkgo]

Originally Posted by Bradman

Do you believe the theory put forth by the defence?

Thanks for the correction. The trial is a guessing game with only one or 2 people that knew what happened. The defence does not need to show that their theory is probable, only possible. The prosecution needs to prove that their theory is impossible. Otherwise there is reasonable doubt.

Strange things happen in life. People jump out of planes with a parachute that does not open and live. That is almost impossible. People jump off of 6 story buildings and hit the ground and live. So if there is a 1 in 100 chance that Caylee fell in the pool and drowned, then that could be what happened. So a jury does not want spend their life wondering if they sent an innocent woman to prison.

[ginkgo]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

That she drowned in the pool? I don't know. I don't know whether Casey Anthony killed her daughter, and neither did the jury. That's why the verdict is "not guilty" rather than "innocent."

A person is innocent until proven guilty. So not guilty is the same as innocent. There is either guilty or innocent (not guilty), except in some misdemeanor cases where a person can plead no contest. Wiki. says:

Nolo contendere is a legal term that comes from the Latin for "I do not wish to contend." It is also referred to as a plea of no contest.

In criminal trials, and in some common law jurisdictions, it is a plea where the defendant neither admits nor disputes a charge, serving as an alternative to a pleading of guilty or not guilty.

A no-contest plea, while not technically a guilty plea, has the same immediate effect as a guilty plea, and is often offered as a part of a plea bargain.[1] In many jurisdictions a plea of nolo contendere is not a right, and carries various restrictions on its use.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by ginkgo

A person is innocent until proven guilty. So not guilty is the same as innocent. There is either guilty or innocent (not guilty), except in some misdemeanor cases where a person can plead no contest. Wiki. says:

Nolo contendere is a legal term that comes from the Latin for "I do not wish to contend." It is also referred to as a plea of no contest.

In criminal trials, and in some common law jurisdictions, it is a plea where the defendant neither admits nor disputes a charge, serving as an alternative to a pleading of guilty or not guilty.

A no-contest plea, while not technically a guilty plea, has the same immediate effect as a guilty plea, and is often offered as a part of a plea bargain.[1] In many jurisdictions a plea of nolo contendere is not a right, and carries various restrictions on its use.

That's not quite true. As Vince brought to our attention upthread, there are two things at work here: what happened, and the story about what happened. The only people who know what happened are the people who experienced it. Everyone else gets the story about what happened, if they're lucky and there IS only one story. In cases like this, there are multiple stories about what happened.

In "what happened," you're essentially correct: guilty and innocent are a duality, and you can only be one or the other. In "the story about what happened," you can be "not guilty." It's a story. We don't know what Really happened. "Not guilty" doesn't mean "you didn't do it," it means "we can't produce the gun."

It hinges on a simple philosophical question. Which is worse, letting a murderer walk free or murdering an innocent person?

[mainstreetcm]

I didn't follow the case close enough to know if she was guilty or not.

However, I find it odd that the media is now is lambasting Casey Anthony on the assumption that she is going to profit from her story with book and film deals, while completely ignoring the fact that they themselves made millions of dollars in advertising revenue by covering the case, trial and verdict.

Headline news received higher ratings last month than anytime in its history and in the process profited immensely off a little girl's murder and the drama surrounding it. Yet this same news network (and others) that was so quick to launch into a full media assault mode. One that has not seen since the last election period and then they want to point fingers and criticize.

The biggest question is if the media didn't cover this trial, would nearly half the country feel the way they do, or much less even know about the case? It has been reported that more than 200 women murder their children every year. That's almost one murder a day. Where is the coverage on THOSE stories?

Sensationalized reporting at its finest. Tomorrow another congressman (or woman) will get caught with their pants down and the media whirlwind will move on to that... without a care in the world as to why they exploited the murder (accidental death?) of a two year old girl on national television to increase viewer-ship for their cable news channel.

And then you have people saying their disgusted with the outcome of the trial. It's not really any of their damn business in my opinion. Quite honestly they probably wouldn't have an opinion if the news wasn't reporting on the case like they have--in the name of "justice" of course.

Now reports say that Anthony has been served with some lawsuit that will keep her from immensely profiting from her story. If that's the case than a lawsuit needs to be brought against the media companies who grossly profited with their near 24/7 coverage of an event, that according to their own stats happens over 200 times a year.

/rant.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by mainstreetcm

It has been reported that more than 200 women murder their children every year. That's almost one murder a day. Where is the coverage on THOSE stories?

That's what I was wondering.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by mainstreetcm

I didn't follow the case close enough to know if she was guilty or not.

However, I find it odd that the media is now is lambasting Casey Anthony on the assumption that she is going to profit from her story with book and film deals, while completely ignoring the fact that they themselves made millions of dollars in advertising revenue by covering the case, trial and verdict.

Not only that, but she'll never be able to have a "normal" job again. Everyone in this country knows her name and face. That jury had to be sequestered because the media coverage was so ubiquitous. So the only way she can really support herself is by profiting from her story.

I also find the public call for blood really disturbing. Her life is ruined anyway. Enough already. I have a hard time believing that it's really about "justice" -- Casey Anthony violated what people think a mother should be and the response is bloodlust.

[180]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

Not only that, but she'll never be able to have a "normal" job again. Everyone in this country knows her name and face. That jury had to be sequestered because the media coverage was so ubiquitous. So the only way she can really support herself is by profiting from her story.

I also find the public call for blood really disturbing. Her life is ruined anyway. Enough already. I have a hard time believing that it's really about "justice" -- Casey Anthony violated what people think a mother should be and the response is bloodlust.

I don't think her penalty is enough. The fact is she had a daughter, had no idea where she was (if she didn't kill her), and got a tattoo that says "good life". Guilty or not, her callous behavior is indicative that she had some serious problems and doesn't deserve to be a member of society. Socially, we police ourselves and it doesn't seem like we're doing a good job if someone like Casey only gets 4 years for being irresponsible and letting a child die.

If she didn't kill her daughter straight up, she did it through neglect and being irresponsible. That to me is still murder of a child. Just because you don't choke or use a gun, doesn't mean you aren't responsible for a murder. If you don't know where your child is, don't care, or don't search... that's worse than starving a kid, which carries heavier fines.

If someone is dying of thirst and you refuse them water when clearly they are in danger of death, you are guilty of murder. What Casey did was much worse, and we only charge her on lying about it?

Again, I understand "beyond a reasonable doubt" but clearly there are other charges that need to be applied. I somehow doubt our vigilante justice would even be enough. Her notoriety isn't enough penalty to pay for killing a little girl.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by 180

I don't think her penalty is enough. The fact is she had a daughter, had no idea where she was (if she didn't kill her), and got a tattoo that says "good life". Guilty or not, her callous behavior is indicative that she had some serious problems and doesn't deserve to be a member of society. Socially, we police ourselves and it doesn't seem like we're doing a good job if someone like Casey only gets 4 years for being irresponsible and letting a child die.

If she didn't kill her daughter straight up, she did it through neglect and being irresponsible. That to me is still murder of a child. Just because you don't choke or use a gun, doesn't mean you aren't responsible for a murder. If you don't know where your child is, don't care, or don't search... that's worse than starving a kid, which carries heavier fines.

If someone is dying of thirst and you refuse them water when clearly they are in danger of death, you are guilty of murder. What Casey did was much worse, and we only charge her on lying about it?

Again, I understand "beyond a reasonable doubt" but clearly there are other charges that need to be applied. I somehow doubt our vigilante justice would even be enough. Her notoriety isn't enough penalty to pay for killing a little girl.

I don't agree with this. There's no evidence that Caylee was abused or neglected. Accidents do happen.

I do suspect Casey knew her daughter was dead from the get-go, even if she didn't kill her. Nothing she could have done would have brought her back. So essentially, this comes down to judgment for not behaving the way we think a mother should in that situation. That still doesn't make her a murderer.

[180]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

I don't agree with this. There's no evidence that Caylee was abused or neglected. Accidents do happen.

I do suspect Casey knew her daughter was dead from the get-go, even if she didn't kill her. Nothing she could have done would have brought her back. So essentially, this comes down to judgment for not behaving the way we think a mother should in that situation. That still doesn't make her a murderer.

I don't know many people who's first reaction to their dead daughter is to not do anything, not call the police, morgue, or family..... but to go party instead.

That's guilt to me. The fact that she lied is obviously to hide something. If she stuck to one truthful story, maybe we'd believe her. Maybe if she did something for her daughter, besides hitting the clubs, maybe we'd believe her. Maybe if she showed an inch of remorse for her dead daughter, maybe we'd believe her.

If it wasn't her fault in some way, she wouldn't have lied, there's no motivation to lie in an accident. Lying in some way is already an admission of guilt.

Whether directly or indirectly her actions and behaviors are indicative she did do something. We just don't know what. And for this technicality and poor prosecution... she gets off. Hence I understand the not guilty verdict. But we all know intuitively, that Casey played a huge role in her daughters death.

[aelle]

I keep hearing about this case today. Who is this woman and why do we care?

Originally Posted by 180

I don't know many people who's first reaction to their dead daughter is to not do anything, not call the police, morgue, or family..... but to go party instead.

Oh? You know many people whose daughter died?

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by 180

I don't know many people who's first reaction to their dead daughter is to not do anything, not call the police, morgue, or family..... but to go party instead.

That's guilt to me. The fact that she lied is obviously to hide something. If she stuck to one truthful story, maybe we'd believe her. Maybe if she did something for her daughter, besides hitting the clubs, maybe we'd believe her. Maybe if she showed an inch of remorse for her dead daughter, maybe we'd believe her.

If it wasn't her fault in some way, she wouldn't have lied, there's no motivation to lie in an accident. Lying in some way is already an admission of guilt.

Whether directly or indirectly her actions and behaviors are indicative she did do something. We just don't know what. And for this technicality and poor prosecution... she gets off. Hence I understand the not guilty verdict. But we all know intuitively, that Casey played a huge role in her daughters death.

What punishment do you propose?

[wachusettgirl]

I've been following this trial fairly closely (more than I'd care to admit, but not obsessively), and was really let down by the verdict.

Today I watched an interview with one of the jurors and she said they didn't necessarily believe Casey to be innocent, but there wasn't enough evidence to convict her of murder.

She also went on to say that at some point Caylee was "probably in need of some medical care" that Casey didn't attempt to provide, and so she (the juror) wanted to get her on aggravated child abuse or neglect, or something. I honestly sat there watching and thinking you've got to be kidding me, hello?

The only thing they got her on was lying to police? Really?

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by wachusettgirl

Today I watched an interview with one of the jurors and she said they didn't necessarily believe Casey to be innocent, but there wasn't enough evidence to convict her of murder.

This is how I feel. The prosecution didn't prove 1) how Caylee died or 2) that Casey was the one that killed her.

[wachusettgirl]

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

This is how I feel. The prosecution didn't prove 1) how Caylee died or 2) that Casey was the one that killed her.

Okay, I don't agree with you, but they couldn't get her on anything? Casey knew something, she was the last one to see Caylee alive, and she lied and she lied and she lied... Even if it was an accident, why was no one notified?

There is no reasonable doubt here about Casey knowing what happened to Caylee. Yes, as the juror pointed out, at some point some medical help was needed for Caylee... obviously.

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by wachusettgirl

Okay, I don't agree with you, but they couldn't get her on anything? Casey knew something, she was the last one to see Caylee alive, and she lied and she lied and she lied... Even if it was an accident, why was no one notified?

There is no reasonable doubt here about Casey knowing what happened to Caylee. Yes, as the juror pointed out, at some point some medical help was needed for Caylee... obviously.

Well first of all, she was found guilty of 4 counts of lying to police. So she will actually be punished for the lies themselves. However, she has spent 3+ years in jail already just waiting for her trial, so the judge might find that she has spent enough time in jail for those 4 counts of lying to police.

As for the rest, I agree that all of the evidence points to her murdering her child. But none of it "proves" that the murder occurred. Thus, "innocent until proven guilty" prevailed.

[Bradman]

Given that there was 366 pieces of evidence, even if the entire deliberatin was used for reviewing the evidence, that only alots 1.75 minutes of discussion per each piece of evidence. Do you really think the jury discussed all the evidence? How can anyone say there wasn't enough evidence if clearly all of it was never discussed by the jury?

[mainstreetcm]

Originally Posted by Bradman

Given that there was 366 pieces of evidence, even if the entire deliberatin was used for reviewing the evidence, that only alots 1.75 minutes of discussion per each piece of evidence. Do you really think the jury discussed all the evidence? How can anyone say there wasn't enough evidence if clearly all of it was never discussed by the jury?

I don't know if they did or not. And here's why. I wasn't on the jury. So I have no clue what happened behind those doors. I can speculate till the end of time on what did or did not occur in there.

The bottom line is that the jury came to the conclusion there was no proof that she murdered her child. The evidence did not equal the death penalty, which was what the state of Florida was pursuing if she was convicted.

I heard one newscaster state that we are stuck with this "jury system" because there are is no other option. However, there IS another option and its called a witch hunt--which is exactly what the media turned this into.

I contend that many people wouldn't be shocked or even know about the case if it wasn't for the likes of Nancy Grace (and others) leading the charge with sensationalized coverage of this case.

What I find truly disgusting is the fact that this same woman (Grace) wants to further criticize Anthony on the assumption she will profit from her story, when that is exactly what Grace has been doing this ENTIRE time.

Furthermore, unless you actually witnessed this woman murder her two year old daughter than you can't claim she is guilty. Evidence in this case was on the same level as hear-say, rumored truths. You don't convict someone and send them to death row on a hunch.

The justice system worked exactly how it was designed to work. Whether she did it or not I can't comment. I will say that she seems like a very off-kilter young woman, but then again I only know what the media has told me.