Casey Anthony Got Off

[WMR]

I'm dying to read some reaction from the RZ faithful...

Hard to believe, IMO, and how quickly they reached such a verdict!!

[BuckeyeRed27]

I think she probably killed her.

I don't think the prosecution proved that.

[bigredmechanism]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeRed27

I think she probably killed her.

I don't think the prosecution proved that.

Yep. Not beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by bigredmechanism

Yep. Not beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury instructions for reasonable doubt from a trial I had:

"...reasonable doubt is not just any kind of doubt, but is instead doubt that is based upon reason and common sense and not based purely upon speculation..."

People are misunderstanding the burden of the State -- it is not incumbent upon the State to erase all doubt from the minds of the jury or to account for all possible defense theories of the case. The State merely must prove all elements of the offense to such a degree that any common sense doubt or doubt based upon reason is erased from the mind of the jurors.

Doubt exists with everything. Confessions can be doubted. Eyewitness testimony can be doubted. The question is whether or not your common sense and reason, as a juror (or as a armchair juror, sitting at home following from afar), leads you to conclude that doubt exists.

Where is the reasonable doubt in this case? Where is the alternative theory of the case that fits with reason and common sense? Call me biased, but I just don't see it. I can get behind reasonable doubt on the premeditation element of the offense -- I don't know that the State presented enough evidence to convince me that this was all planned out in advanced -- but the underlying crime? Incredibly guilty. I just don't see where the common sense, reasoned doubt exists in this case.

[ervinsm84]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

The jury instructions for reasonable doubt from a trial I had:

"...reasonable doubt is not just any kind of doubt, but is instead doubt that is based upon reason and common sense and not based purely upon speculation..."

People are misunderstanding the burden of the State -- it is not incumbent upon the State to erase all doubt from the minds of the jury or to account for all possible defense theories of the case. The State merely must prove all elements of the offense to such a degree that any common sense doubt or doubt based upon reason is erased from the mind of the jurors.

Doubt exists with everything. Confessions can be doubted. Eyewitness testimony can be doubted. The question is whether or not your common sense and reason, as a juror (or as a armchair juror, sitting at home following from afar), leads you to conclude that doubt exists.

Where is the reasonable doubt in this case? Where is the alternative theory of the case that fits with reason and common sense? Call me biased, but I just don't see it. I can get behind reasonable doubt on the premeditation element of the offense -- I don't know that the State presented enough evidence to convince me that this was all planned out in advanced -- but the underlying crime? Incredibly guilty. I just don't see where the common sense, reasoned doubt exists in this case.

do i think its likely she killed or knows who did or what happened? yes. The problem is the prosecution did not have:

1. cause of death
2. witnesses of the death
3. location of the death
4. murder weapon
5. confession

im not a lawyer, but w/o at least 1 or 2 of those things its pretty much impossible to get a murder conviction, and I pray it stays that way.

[Caveat Emperor]

Originally Posted by ervinsm84

m not a lawyer, but w/o at least 1 or 2 of those things its pretty much impossible to get a murder conviction, and I pray it stays that way.

Murder convictions are obtained, routinely, around the nation with none of the 5 thing you listed.

The only one of the 5 that would give me a moment's pause would be the cause of death, but the circumstantial evidence involved (not the least of which was the fact that the corpse was found with duct tape over her mouth) would lead me to pass that over as a major issue with the State's case.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by ervinsm84

do i think its likely she killed or knows who did or what happened? yes. The problem is the prosecution did not have:

1. cause of death
2. witnesses of the death
3. location of the death
4. murder weapon
5. confession

im not a lawyer, but w/o at least 1 or 2 of those things its pretty much impossible to get a murder conviction, and I pray it stays that way.

You get convictions all the time without that stuff. In the case locally here of Erica Baker in 1999 they never even recovered the body yet got a murder conviction

[LvJ]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeRed27

I think she probably killed her.

I don't think the prosecution proved that.

This.

/thread.

[WMR]

Considering all the facts and circumstantial evidence, I was expecting at least a finding of Manslaughter and Felony Child Abuse. That she got neither is pretty appalling.

[BuckeyeRed27]

Originally Posted by WMR

Considering all the facts and circumstantial evidence, I was expecting at least a finding of Manslaughter and Felony Child Abuse. That she got neither is pretty appalling.

But that's all it was...circumstantial.

The prosecution got too aggressive. They should have gone for a lesser charge and they probably would have gotten it. They went big and didn't have the smoking gun so to speak.

[WMR]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeRed27

But that's all it was...circumstantial.

The prosecution got too aggressive. They should have gone for a lesser charge and they probably would have gotten it. They went big and didn't have the smoking gun so to speak.

I agree that the prosecution shot too high, but the jury would have been well within their rights to find her guilty on lesser charges. The fact that the verdict was reached so quickly tells me this option wasn't even given serious debate (if it was debated at all).

[Slyder]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeRed27

But that's all it was...circumstantial.

The prosecution got too aggressive. They should have gone for a lesser charge and they probably would have gotten it. They went big and didn't have the smoking gun so to speak.

Thats what happens when someone covers up the death for a month.

[1990REDS]

At times it seemed like the prosecution was to busy trying to prove to the jury that she was a liar, and forgot to prove to them that she was a murderer.

[bigredmechanism]

Originally Posted by 1990REDS

At times it seemed like the prosecution was to busy trying to prove to the jury that she was a liar, and forgot to prove to them that she was a murderer.

Yep, exactly.

[Spitball]

I believe the prosecuters needed to work harder to prove motive. It would have been difficult. Maybe it is too difficult to prove in these kind of cases.