Casey Anthony NOT GUILTY & Sentencing Thread 6

[Conservative Hippie]

See, that's the problem - they did not try her for manslaughter. Had they, she would almost certainly have been found guilty. The prosecutors messed up, and they know it. They charged her with a crime that they knew that they couldn't prove had even been committed - by ANYONE, much less this woman. They admitted in court that they had no idea how this poor child died. How can you then say that you know beyond a reasonable doubt that she was murdered - a prerequisite for a murder conviction.

For manslaughter, they would only have to prove gross negligence, which they accomplished. The prosecution messed up here, and they should be held accountable.

List of things Casey was tried for, and therefore could have been found guilty for:

Count one: First degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, or third degree felony murder. Jury found not guilty.

Count two: Aggravated child abuse or child abuse. Jury found not guilty.

Count three: Manslaughter of a child or manslaughter. Jury found not guilty.

Counts four, five, six, and seven: Providing false information to a law enforcement officer. Jury found guilty on all counts.

ETA: Link to the actual verdict forms given to the jury - http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/04/verdict.forms.pdf.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

List of things Casey was tried for, and therefore could have been found guilty for:

Count one: First degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, or third degree felony murder. Jury found not guilty.

Count two: Aggravated child abuse or child abuse. Jury found not guilty.

Count three: Manslaughter of a child or manslaughter. Jury found not guilty.

Counts four, five, six, and seven: Providing false information to a law enforcement officer. Jury found guilty on all counts.

Thanks - not sure how they came to that conclusion in the manslaughter charge. I feel better now about the prosecutors, and wonder about the intelect of the jurors.

 

[joviroxx]

See, that's the problem - they did not try her for manslaughter. Had they, she would almost certainly have been found guilty. The prosecutors messed up, and they know it. They charged her with a crime that they knew that they couldn't prove had even been committed - by ANYONE, much less this woman. They admitted in court that they had no idea how this poor child died. How can you then say that you know beyond a reasonable doubt that she was murdered - a prerequisite for a murder conviction.

For manslaughter, they would only have to prove gross negligence, which they accomplished. The prosecution messed up here, and they should be held accountable.

Ok, deleted after I saw everyone else answered LOL! Too much of dead horse beating

 

[Mosoh]

.I just want Casey tied in in court and legal fees and whatever else they can throw at her for as long as they can so her "bella vita" is really really "bella miserable"

That is what is so maddening with the defense team They are supposedly intelligent people and still espousing the ridiculous stories. I can not believe the lack of understanding of working cadaver dogs either. Is there lead in the water? Why was so much "makes sense" information overlooked for "shut the front door" stories?

I think they are bold faced liars who not only understand they got a killer off but not are emboldened by the fact that 12 fools bought into their scam and now they will now milk the charade for as long as possible.

Wendy Murphy is from the Boston area and she really isn't a crack pot so if she says that then I would think there is something there. They claim that there are no sealed photos but who knows.

Well, no disrespect but I think she is definately a crack pot. Not unlike the defense team she found something she can latch on to for a spotlight

I think that the law was well served, even if justice was not. It is an important distinction. We are a nation of laws. Given the evidence that I have seen, I would have been forced to the same conclusion - murder was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so a murder conviction became impossible.

Better to have a judicial system that allows people like this to walk free every once in a while than to have a system that imprisons the innocent on the whims of those in power.

Justice cannot always be served, but I suspect that she will get hers eventually.

I think they did prove it and clearly this jury paid very little attention to the actual trial. Listening to them it boggles the mind that they don't even know the most simple facts of the case.

See, that's the problem - they did not try her for manslaughter. Had they, she would almost certainly have been found guilty. The prosecutors messed up, and they know it. They charged her with a crime that they knew that they couldn't prove had even been committed - by ANYONE, much less this woman. They admitted in court that they had no idea how this poor child died. How can you then say that you know beyond a reasonable doubt that she was murdered - a prerequisite for a murder conviction.

For manslaughter, they would only have to prove gross negligence, which they accomplished. The prosecution messed up here, and they should be held accountable.

Page one

There were other charges, you just made the case the jury was out to lunch and failed.

 

[joviroxx]

Maybe I missed something. Are you sure? She was charged with manslaughter, or it was an option for the jury?

Yeah, me too!

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

Actually, Count 3 of the indictment was for Aggravated Manslaughter or Manslaughter. On Count 1 , which was Murder 1, they had the choice for Murder 1, 3 or Manslaugher.

One juror actually said she had voted for Manslaughter but when they kept reading they needed to agree on who was the child's caretaker. They said they weren't sure.. huh????

As far as not knowing how she died. The law does not require this. The legal elements that need to proved do not include cause or motive. There was plenty of evidence to show this child did not die naturally.

I know I believe it was Murder 1. But I cannot understand not finding her at least guilty to Count 3, aggravated manslaughter of a child.

Agreed - they proved consistent neglect over time. Neglect + death + lies to conceal death = manslaughter conviction for me.

 

[Wadecool]

See, that's the problem - they did not try her for manslaughter. Had they, she would almost certainly have been found guilty. The prosecutors messed up, and they know it. They charged her with a crime that they knew that they couldn't prove had even been committed - by ANYONE, much less this woman. They admitted in court that they had no idea how this poor child died. How can you then say that you know beyond a reasonable doubt that she was murdered - a prerequisite for a murder conviction.

For manslaughter, they would only have to prove gross negligence, which they accomplished. The prosecution messed up here, and they should be held accountable.

They tried her for aggravated manslaughter of a child as well as aggravated child abuse. I will agree that much of the focus of the media and those of us in the general public was on the 1st degree murder charge but the jury had those other two options to choose from. The problem is that the jury, by their own admission, felt they couldn't convict on murder one, and didn't spend much time even concentrating on the other two charges. I agree that the prosecutors were stretching on a murder 1 charge, but that jury had more than enough evidence to convict her on the the two lesser charges.

 

[sbtrfly74]

Maybe I missed something. Are you sure? She was charged with manslaughter, or it was an option for the jury?

I think your misconception was the same misconception that they jury had. If they had only asked questions we might have gotten a different verdict.

 

[LisaR]

Thanks - not sure how they came to that conclusion in the manslaughter charge. I feel better now about the prosecutors, and wonder about the intelect of the jurors.

I am not picking on you, I swear, but your original confusion is why some of us get our feathers ruffled in this case. People pop on these threads and say things that simply aren't true. It is one thing to defend the justice system and say that we need to let it play out. But I don't know how anyone can be content not questioning a jury who can't even convict a mother of child neglect when she doesn't report her child missing? It is very frustrating to hear that the prosecution didn't do their job. They did. It was the jury that didn't do their job. I'm not sure if they didn't understand the instructions, didn't care, were in too much of a hurry to get back home, or were truly stupid individuals but the reality is, justice was not served for Caylee.

 

[diznygirl]

So DisneyBamaFan, do you see why a lot of us are so disturbed by the verdict? Even one of the juror's stated that they wished they had lesser charges to consider. I don't blame you for not knowing, but the juror should have!

And it didn't take us 11 hours to point that out to you either.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

I think your misconception was the same misconception that they jury had. If they had only asked questions we might have gotten a different verdict.

I wonder how they could have been so confused. Did the judge not do a good enough job describing the charges and the requirements for determining guilt with each? I mean, we couldn't really have 12 idiots who wanted this woman to walk. With proper instruction, how could they have missed on the manslaughter charge. It looks like a slam dunk. You don't have to prove that this woman did anything other than neglect her child sufficiently to cause her death. If not murder, this had to be death from neglect. What other reasonable conclusion could the jury reach? That this was an accidental death? If so, how do they justify the elaborate cover-up stories to hide the death, or the complete lack of remorse? You have to consider all of the evidence, not just the pieces that fit your conclusion.

I am at a loss.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

So DisneyBamaFan, do you see why a lot of us are so disturbed by the verdict? Even one of the juror's stated that they wished they had lesser charges to consider. I don't blame you for not knowing, but the juror should have!

And it didn't take us 11 hours to point that out to you either.

LOL - I get it and thank those who have taken the time to educate me instead of jumping down my throat. I am happy to admit my mistakes (well, some of them ).

 

[kidshop]

Wow! Did anyone see Dorothy Clay Sims (sp?) on Greta van Susteren's show a few minutes ago? Holy makeover!! I guess now that they're all famous, she had to go all Hollywood. I didn't even recognize her until I saw her name on the screen.

Once again, though, Greta gave the softball interview. She was asking DCS about the smell in Casey's car, and DCS replied, "Well, there was a rotting bag of garbage in the car." OK, Greta, your follow-up question should have been, "But there was no food in the bag." Gotta give it to Nance Grace. She wouldn't have let that go unchallenged.

Yeah, so why not take out the bag of garbage instead of abandoning the car...? Oh, and there was nothing in the bag that smelled, but they hate to let the little things like facts get in the way of the story. It just makes them look so stupid!

 

[Conservative Hippie]

I wonder how they could have been so confused. Did the judge not do a good enough job describing the charges and the requirements for determining guilt with each? I mean, we couldn't really have 12 idiots who wanted this woman to walk. With proper instruction, how could they have missed on the manslaughter charge. It looks like a slam dunk. You don't have to prove that this woman did anything other than neglect her child sufficiently to cause her death. If not murder, this had to be death from neglect. What other reasonable conclusion could the jury reach? That this was an accidental death? If so, how do they justify the elaborate cover-up stories to hide the death, or the complete lack of remorse? You have to consider all of the evidence, not just the pieces that fit your conclusion.

I am at a loss.

You can see the actual verdict form the jury had here - http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/04/verdict.forms.pdf
. It doesn't look confusing to me - just place a check next to the answer you want, like any 2nd grade multiple choice test.

 

[chris1gill]

List of things Casey was tried for, and therefore could have been found guilty for:

Count one: First degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, or third degree felony murder. Jury found not guilty.

Count two: Aggravated child abuse or child abuse. Jury found not guilty.

Count three: Manslaughter of a child or manslaughter. Jury found not guilty.

Counts four, five, six, and seven: Providing false information to a law enforcement officer. Jury found guilty on all counts.

ETA: Link to the actual verdict forms given to the jury - http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/04/verdict.forms.pdf.

Reading that list again and seeing Not Guilty to every single count except lying just made me lose my breakfast Not even child abuse/neglect, WTH...

Thanks - not sure how they came to that conclusion in the manslaughter charge. I feel better now about the prosecutors, and wonder about the intelect of the jurors.

We all wonder about the intellect of the jurors, particularly when they say they couldn't determine who the caretaker of the child was or they wish they had lesser charges than murder 1 or they felt George was covering something up even though that was not proven, what was proven was the mother was the last to see that child alive.

It seems that people who did not watch this case are all under the assumption this was ONLY a murder 1 case. It simply wasn't.

Agreed - they proved consistent neglect over time. Neglect + death + lies to conceal death = manslaughter conviction for me.

They absolutely did, no doubt.

I think your misconception was the same misconception that they jury had. If they had only asked questions we might have gotten a different verdict.

So DisneyBamaFan, do you see why a lot of us are so disturbed by the verdict? Even one of the juror's stated that they wished they had lesser charges to consider. I don't blame you for not knowing, but the juror should have!

And it didn't take us 11 hours to point that out to you either.

I couldn't agree more with the two of you.... the jury latched on to the Opening from Baez and to them the case was over. End of story, they never looked at the evidence to even prove neglect. An awful injustice.

I wonder how they could have been so confused. Did the judge not do a good enough job describing the charges and the requirements for determining guilt with each? I mean, we couldn't really have 12 idiots who wanted this woman to walk. With proper instruction, how could they have missed on the manslaughter charge. It looks like a slam dunk. You don't have to prove that this woman did anything other than neglect her child sufficiently to cause her death. If not murder, this had to be death from neglect. What other reasonable conclusion could the jury reach? That this was an accidental death? If so, how do they justify the elaborate cover-up stories to hide the death, or the complete lack of remorse? You have to consider all of the evidence, not just the pieces that fit your conclusion.

I am at a loss.

The judge did a fine job of describing the charges, we are all at a loss as to how 12 people could go into a jury room and come up with the conclusion in less than 11 hours that it was not guilty all the way around, then one comes out and says she wishes there were lesser charges to consider. Is she crazy? What lesser charges could the State possibly have sought? They went from top to bottom and everywhere in between. Marcia Clark wrote a piece about sequestered juries, it's somewhere in this thread, I think she hit on what happened with that jury.

 

[sbtrfly74]

I wonder how they could have been so confused. Did the judge not do a good enough job describing the charges and the requirements for determining guilt with each? I mean, we couldn't really have 12 idiots who wanted this woman to walk. With proper instruction, how could they have missed on the manslaughter charge. It looks like a slam dunk. You don't have to prove that this woman did anything other than neglect her child sufficiently to cause her death. If not murder, this had to be death from neglect. What other reasonable conclusion could the jury reach? That this was an accidental death? If so, how do they justify the elaborate cover-up stories to hide the death, or the complete lack of remorse? You have to consider all of the evidence, not just the pieces that fit your conclusion.

I am at a loss.

We all are at a loss and confused too. At one time they had a 6:6 vote for manslaughter so I think the judge did give adequate instructions and they only had to check the boxes if they agreed to them. IIRC one of the boxes they wouldn't check for the manslaughter charge was the one that said "Casey Anthony was the Caregiver".... huh??? They could have at anytime sent a note to JP if they had a question.

 

[chris1gill]

You can see the actual verdict form the jury had here - http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/04/verdict.forms.pdf
. It doesn't look confusing to me - just place a check next to the answer you want, like any 2nd grade multiple choice test.

Apparently it needs to be written for kindergarteners.... sad but true.

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

You can see the actual verdict form the jury had here - http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/07/04/verdict.forms.pdf
. It doesn't look confusing to me - just place a check next to the answer you want, like any 2nd grade multiple choice test.

Yeah, but that form does not explain the burden of proof that must be reached to determine guilt with each charge. That is up to the judge. Has this been discussed? Did the jurors understand?

 

[DisneyBamaFan]

We all are at a loss and confused too. At one time they had a 6:6 vote for manslaughter so I think the judge did give adequate instructions and they only had to check the boxes if they agreed to them. IIRC one of the boxes they wouldn't check for the manslaughter charge was the one that said "Casey Anthony was the Caregiver".... huh??? They could have at anytime sent a note to JP if they had a question.

Yeah, I am really beginning to understand why so many people are frustrated with the verdict.

 

[kidshop]

I wonder how they could have been so confused. Did the judge not do a good enough job describing the charges and the requirements for determining guilt with each? I mean, we couldn't really have 12 idiots who wanted this woman to walk. With proper instruction, how could they have missed on the manslaughter charge. It looks like a slam dunk. You don't have to prove that this woman did anything other than neglect her child sufficiently to cause her death. If not murder, this had to be death from neglect. What other reasonable conclusion could the jury reach? That this was an accidental death? If so, how do they justify the elaborate cover-up stories to hide the death, or the complete lack of remorse? You have to consider all of the evidence, not just the pieces that fit your conclusion.

I am at a loss.

Welcome! I personally think the jury really is just that stupid. They believed the opening statements, disregarded jury instructions and never heard a word of the prosecution's case. (they think George did it)
They wanted to go home, so without ever going over the evidence presented they took a vote and Jose's story won. Easy-peasy.

Shocking, isn't it? So either they are as dumb as it gets, or they were tampered with. Which it certainly possible, but I don't think it was George who did the tampering.