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.

[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.

[LvJ]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeRed27

I think she probably killed her.

I don't think the prosecution proved that.

This.

/thread.

[WMR]

Anyone who looks at the evidence in this case, and everything that is known, and says there is reasonable doubt is blind or stupid.

Casey Anthony is a pathological liar.....Fact. That means any story she tells will be a lie. What exactly did she ever tell the truth about?

The condition in which the body or skeletal remains were found rule out accidental death. The presence of duct tape found to have been wrapped over the child's mouth prove homocide. If she had drown placing duct tape on her mouth serves no purpose.

George Anthony was a cop, if she had accidentally drown in his care, the charges would have been minor compared to what occurred and he would have known this. Implausible he would have attempted to cover it up. Also Casey is a pathological liar did I mention that.

Casey Anthony's behavior during the period of Caylee's disappearance as well as testimony of her friends that she partied with were not that of a grieving mother. Even if Caylee had accidentally drown, she would not be getting tattoos of "Beautiful Life" and partying with smiles.

Cadaver dogs don't hit on garbage. They can detect human decomposition underground, does anyone believe they couldn't hit on a car trunk. Do you doubt their accuracy. These animals are used for a reason they are highly accurate.

One of the foremost experts in the field found evidence of human decomp, as well as substantially high levels of chloroform. Defense experts say otherwise but of course they aren't going to put someone on the stand that agrees with prosecution. Fact still remains Chloroform present human decomp present.

In short it takes a complete fool to acquit in this case. And it is sad that these people let a murderer off the hook because they were afraid to put her to death. This was less about reasonable doubt and more about how much our country has turned into a bunch of cowards. Charles Manson never killed anyone, but ordered others to do so, and he will never be released as well he shouldn't IMO. However, another psychopath who murdered her child and told a million lies, will walk free because 12 people were too stupid to use their brain to see what was in front of them. Where was the remorse or even a shred of emotion. Her child is dead and she doesn't care. Why? Because she murdered her, and wanted her dead. She just didn't want to pay the consequences. And thanks to the jackasses in Florida she won't have to. I just hope if she is sentenced to any time, one of the inmates suffocates the life out of her. Then Justice will be served.

There are convictions all the time without a murder weapon or eye witnesses or finger prints or any other direct proof.

Look at Scott Peterson in California. Look at Thomas Capuano in Delaware -- there wasn't even a trace of a body.

This was simply a jury of numbskulls who got confused by a defense team of charlatans and who weren't helped by a prosecution team that made the evidence much too complicated.

Her daughter -- in her direct care -- vanished and she didn't inform anyone for more than a month while she engaged in wanton partying. When the body was found it was clear the child was chloroformed and taped up. The mother has no plausible explanation for how that happened -- or why she wasn't pounding on the door of the police station for an investigation on the first minute the child vanished.

That is plenty of circumstantial evidence for a conviction -- if the jury understood the concept of "reasonable doubt." It doesn't mean a mathematical certainty.

[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.

[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.

[TeamSelig]

I haven't been able to watch the news, anybody want to give me a run down of the case? Everyone I've talked to have mentioned how obvious it was that she was the killer.

[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.