Casey Anthony Got Off

[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.

[JaxRed]

Best line I heard was that even OJ was shocked.

[ervinsm84]

Originally Posted by Caveat Emperor

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.

whether they are "routinely obtained" without a single one of those 5 things doesnt change whether or not there was reasonable doubt in this case.

It's well within a rational jury member to conclude that lacking those 5 things with the set of facts presented that there is reasonable doubt.

[GAC]

Most of you have already brought up points as to why this woman got off, so there is no sense in belaboring any of that.

I didn't really follow this case. I don't understand why this case got so much national attention, as if it was something special or unique, when similar situations like this (sadly) happen daily in this country? 200 mothers a year kill their children in this country. Does the media just pick one and decide they'll make this one the new "reality show" to entertain?

The woman murdered her daughter. The facial expression on her face as they were getting ready to read the verdicts showed this woman herself felt she was going down.

They convicted her of lying. But what did she lie about? That's the key as far as I'm concerned. The lies were all about the whereabouts of her daughter. Besides the glaring fact her daughter was missing for almost a month and she didn't even report it , but was out partying, is pretty damning evidence IMO. How could any mother do that?

One of the problems I have with our legal system is that you have to prove guilt without a shadow of a doubt to get a conviction. And all the defense has to do is inject "theories" into the minds of those jurors to feed reasonable doubt. Defense attorneys argued that the little girl accidentally drowned in the family swimming pool, and that Anthony panicked and concealed the death because of the traumatic effects of sexual abuse by her father. Now the judge rejected that because they presented NO EVIDENCE of that. But again, all the defense is trying to do is inject anything that can promote doubt.

I think the prosecution presented enough evidence, even circumstantial, to get a conviction.

IMO, this jury screwed up, and this woman got away with murder.

So what's next for her? A book and movies deal? Disgusting.

[frenetic wave]

There was an interview on the radio news that mentioned that they believed the court system's goal isn't to nab every guilty person but to protect innocent people from being found guilty- even at the cost of a minority of guilty people getting off free due to insufficient evidence.

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by frenetic wave

There was an interview on the radio news that mentioned that they believed the court system's goal isn't to nab every guilty person but to protect innocent people from being found guilty- even at the cost of a minority of guilty people getting off free due to insufficient evidence.

I agree 100% with this. IMO it is much more severe of a crime to convict an innocent person than it is to let of a guilty one. There have been too many cases of innocent people exonerated by DNA evidence and overzealous prosecutors to make me feel any different.

As for this trial I didn't pay attention to it.

[Roy Tucker]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_antho...ry?id=14005609

[Hoosier Red]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

I agree 100% with this. IMO it is much more severe of a crime to convict an innocent person than it is to let of a guilty one. There have been too many cases of innocent people exonerated by DNA evidence and overzealous prosecutors to make me feel any different.

As for this trial I didn't pay attention to it.

I believe Chief Wiggum said it best, "I'd rather let 100 guilty men go free than chase after them."

[WVRed]

She did get four years in prison for perjury, although in the court of public opinion, that is nowhere near enough.

I guess I am somewhat desensitized to this case because its just like Scott Peterson, Anna Nicole, or any other high profile story that has been beaten to death by cable news.

I mean, when you turn it on MSNBC, CBS, Fox News, and they have analysts who are bringing in people to analyze every facial expression by Casey Anthony, it really loses its interest.

[LoganBuck]

Why couldn't they charge her with abuse of a corpse, evidence tampering, concealment, or obstruction of justice?

I hate that she walked, but I feel that the prosecutors went all in holding a pair of tens. Too big a gamble based on the evidence.

[AtomicDumpling]

I would bet the number of people that are murdered by killers that were released after beating a murder rap greatly outnumber the number of innocent people imprisoned for murder.

In other words, your chances of being murdered by someone that should have been imprisoned for life on a previous murder charge but was mistakenly found not guilty are much greater than your chances of being falsely convicted of murder.

Being falsely imprisoned would be awful, but I think that happens far, far less often these days than it did before the advent of DNA evidence, modern forensics and ubiquitous video cameras -- all of which provide compelling evidence that is often more accurate than eyewitness testimony. Most of the false convictions of previous decades were based on faulty witness identifications of the defendant.

[AtomicDumpling]

I believe Casey Anthony accidentally murdered the child, then hid the body, then lied repeatedly about the child's death and disappearance for more than a month, and continued to party and live her life like nothing had happened. She got a large team of defense attorneys eager to work the case and bask in the media attention. Those attorneys were able to sow so much confusion and disinformation in the minds of the jury that the mentally challenged jurors were unable to process it all and decided to hide behind "reasonable" doubt instead of spending days or weeks thoroughly processing all the testimony and evidence.

I know if my child were to disappear I would contact the authorities immediately and spend every single waking moment frantically trying to locate her. I would not spend my time renting movies and partying at nightclubs while my daughter was missing.

[RBA]

Cincinnati connection?

http://www.tampabay.com/news/humanin...kyline/1179343

Jurors not welcome at a Skyline Chili franchise.

[WMR]

"The fact that this sign is displayed makes me over-joyed," she wrote. "This makes me even more proud of the fact that I have the Skyline Chili logo tattooed on my right bicep."

That's hot.

[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