Casey Anthony NOT GUILTY & Sentencing Thread 6

[Brit17]

Again....the choices were 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, or 3rd degree felony murder for the first count; aggravated child abuse or child abuse for the second count; and manslaughter of a child or manslaughter for the third count. The jury found her not guilty of anything except having imaginary friends.

I agree that the juror had many choices to consider, and IMO, I still do not understand how she was found not guilty on them all ... however, I did learn something last night on tv that I didn't know and found interesting ... if the prosecution had tried for Manslaughter instead of 1st Degree Murder at all, they would have only needed a jury of 6 instead of 12 ... so maybe that (fewer jurors) would have/could have made a difference with a verdict? ...

 

[Mouse House Mama]

As well as all the folks claiming that the State did not prove their case when 1) They have no idea what evidence was introduced and 2) barely watched the trial!

I don't really get why the need to be so rude? Everyone had to sit glued to their tvs to know that there was reasonable doubt? Really? The coroner could not determine a cause of death. CA's attorney brought this story of an accidental drowning. Those two items alone would give most people pause. Do I think the jury could have tried a bit harder to find something other than lying to go with? Uh yeah. We don't know if they did try though. I am going to hope that those 12 people really did try and just could not fit it into the requirements of the law. I am going to believe unless proven otherwise that those 12 people really wanted to convict her but couldn't based on what was presented to them.

 

[mickeyboat]

You said if one or two jurors hung the jury because of reasonable doubt, I might think those jurors didn't do their job. . A hung jury is part of the system. These two have the same duty as there rest to excerise their honest vote in the face of opposition.

No, they didn't - the claimed not to know the case, they could have as easily thought they would be heros. I think they were shocked at the outrage of their lazy and seemingly thoughtless verdict.

Then I guess you will have to call me lazy and thoughtless too, because long ago I posted that I thought it was possible that there would be an acquittal due to lack of evidence.

 

[Mouse House Mama]

I agree that the juror had many choices to consider, and IMO, I still do not understand how she was found not guilty on them all ... however, I did learn something last night on tv that I didn't know and found interesting ... if the prosecution had tried for Manslaughter instead of 1st Degree Murder at all, they would have only needed a jury of 6 instead of 12 ... so maybe that (fewer jurors) would have/could have made a difference with a verdict? ...

That is a great point.

 

[Conservative Hippie]

Found an article in the Boston Herald about jury nullification, it has some very good points.

The O.J. Simpson case introduced us to the idea of jury nullification, but it took a 25-year-old bar-hopping party girl, bored by motherhood, to refine the concept.

Yesterday, a Florida jury acquitted Casey Anthony on all three counts of murdering her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee.

Then, this very same jury went on to return four guilty counts of lying to police about . . . that’s right, the murder of her daughter.

Shame on this jury for denying the obvious.

If the O.J. debacle proved anything, it was that the chances of killing your wife and beating the rap are better in California.

Likewise, what we take away from this sad, slimy soap opera in the Sunshine State is that a bimbo looking to detach herself from the burdens of her 2-year-old daughter has a good chance of getting away with murder in Florida.

All you needed to know about the absurdity of yesterday’s verdict was uttered by Casey’s victorious defense lawyer, Jose Baez, who reminded the public that he had never denied his client was a liar.

Quite a victory declaration.

Ah, but then what else could this lawyer say? Even though Casey Anthony was the last person to see her daughter alive, she spent a month denying Caylee’s disappearance to everyone, including her own parents.

Even when the trunk of her car reeked with the stench of death left by a decomposing body, Casey kept lying. She couldn’t even bring herself to conduct a sincere vigil. While the cops searched by day, Casey was hitting the bar scene at night.

But as this trial unfolded, it was clear that such damning “circumstantial evidence” was dwarfed by the suntanned dysfunction of a family who were all more than somewhat wacky.

O.J. was helped tremendously by the behavior of a white LAPD detective branded a racist.

To plug the huge holes in Casey Anthony’s story, she and her lawyers put her father on trial. All of this woman’s malignant deficiencies and narcissism could be explained by the alleged molestation she suffered at the hands of her father, a former homicide detective.

Casey’s lawyers tried to pin Caylee’s death on Dad, suggesting he was the one who put the duct tape over her mouth after she drowned in the family’s pool.

Apparently, that seemed to qualify as reasonable doubt in this jury’s collective consciousness.

And yet they weren’t troubled by a young mother who gets the two-word credo “belle vita,” or beautiful life, tattooed on her body while her dead child is rotting away in the woods.

The old saying is that it only takes one to hang a jury. (You just know Sal DiMasi was on his knees lighting vigil candles for that one dissenting juror.)

It takes 12 knuckleheads to nullify a jury. And yesterday, those 12 people managed to say that, yes, Casey Anthony lied about what happened to her child. But no, she had nothing to do with Caylee’s horrible death.

It’s a verdict that simply does not make any sense. It’s a verdict that is, in itself, a lie.

Perhaps the only sorry truth to emerge from this hellacious modern-family fable is that Caylee Anthony was probably doomed by the accident of her birth into such a heinous household ... and then further betrayed by 12 strangers who were unable to see the truth before their eyes.

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1349914&format=&page=2&listingType=col#articleFull

 

[JaneBanks]

No, I meant prosecutor. The entire burden of proof, for whatever she was convicted of, was on the state. The defense did not have to prove anything.

The prosecutors didn't claim Caylee drowned, the defense did. No reason why the prosecutors should claim something they disagree with.

 

[joviroxx]

I don't really get why the need to be so rude? Everyone had to sit glued to their tvs to know that there was reasonable doubt? Really? The coroner could not determine a cause of death. CA's attorney brought this story of an accidental drowning. Those two items alone would give most people pause. Do I think the jury could have tried a bit harder to find something other than lying to go with? Uh yeah. We don't know if they did try though. I am going to hope that those 12 people really did try and just could not fit it into the requirements of the law. I am going to believe unless proven otherwise that those 12 people really wanted to convict her but couldn't based on what was presented to them.

How am I being rude? There are many people declaring how the State did not prove their case. They are calling people who disagree with the verdict all sorts of things. When I ask , I realize they do not know much. Plenty of people this board have been rather loud in their opinions of this thread and the views expressed about not liking the verdict as well as it being due to media frenzy. I find many of these folks do not know much about the case,the charges or the evidence.

 

[mickeyboat]

I've broken my promise and looked through this thread briefly.

I am not putting down any of my fellow Disers, but I do see a pattern in the people who have voiced that justice was served. It seems that many/most did not follow the case closely or even knew what Casey's charges were. How can you form an opinion then?

I think there are many factors in play here, but the worst is the CSI approach. People think there must be huge amounts of DNA evidence to convict. This is not true. Most cases are nothing more that witness testimony and circumstantial evidence. A juror is supposed to take the evidence and use common sense in forming a verdict.

People are saying, well if they had found Caylee in August, maybe there would have been a conviction. Why? We know it's Caylee...period.

Should any murderer go free because there is no body...or only a skeleton?

Another factor is how social media played a part in this. The case became too well known. People like River Cruz became to crawl up from the sludge. The jurors heard firsthand during the trial how people made money off of this tragedy. Cindy...$100,000+, Casey $200,000+, River Cruz $4,000, etc. What is the lesson there? That the jurors would make money off their story.

For the people who didn't follow the case.....River Cruz (aka Crystal Holloway) became a volunteer during the search for Caylee. She formed a friendship with George Anthony (Caylee's grandfather). He says they were friends, she said to the National Enquirer that they were lovers. She told police they were never romantically involved. She saved every text message, etc from her relationship with the Anthonys. Why would anyone do that? Only someone who wanted a little of the fame and money the Anthony's were attracting.

River Cruz admitted that her story was more attractive to rags like the National Enquirer because of the sexual relationship. Would the NE be interested in a story how a volunteer was friends with George and Cindy? Hardly.

Now we have 12 River Cruzs. If they believed in their verdict they would have come to the free press conference and told their story for FREE. Instead they are interviewing agents and managers and entertaining offers.

Casey going free is a lot more profitable for them then Casey rotting in jail. Had they done the right thing and sent her to prison the story would have died quickly. I doubt many people would want to talk to them past the initial sentencing phase. Now they can talk for weeks, even years about their experience. Everytime Casey does or says something they will be asked to comment. Everytime Casey sells her story...maybe wedding photos, baby pictures...they will be asked their opinions. And everytime they will be paid. Casey is their new cash cow.

You are making assumptions about posters' level of knowledge and involvement. Just because someone doesn't agree with you does not mean they don't know what they are talking about.

Case in point - if they had found Caylee in August, some additional forensic evidence may have been made available indicating cause/manner of death, linking individuals to the site where the remains were found, etc. Much evidence is suspected to have been washed away or lost due to the amount of time the body was left out in the elements. It isn't just a matter of identification.

I will agree that I think juries tend to expect a smoking gun - or at least some direct evidence linking someone to a crime in order to convict. I read somewhere that this has not been proven to be true, but I can't see how it couldn't be. That being said, cases based solely on circumstantial evidence are incredibly difficult to garner convictions.

I definitely do not think the furor would have died down if the jury convicted her. The jurors would still be asking for money for their interviews. They still would have been interviewed every time Casey won or lose an appeal of her conviction, every time Casey came up for parole , every time another high profile parental murder case came up, or every time a death penalty appeal was won or lost. Everyone connected with the case would have been talking for weeks no matter what the verdict.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I don't really get why the need to be so rude? Everyone had to sit glued to their tvs to know that there was reasonable doubt? Really? The coroner could not determine a cause of death. CA's attorney brought this story of an accidental drowning. Those two items alone would give most people pause. Do I think the jury could have tried a bit harder to find something other than lying to go with? Uh yeah. We don't know if they did try though. I am going to hope that those 12 people really did try and just could not fit it into the requirements of the law. I am going to believe unless proven otherwise that those 12 people really wanted to convict her but couldn't based on what was presented to them.

My opinion...

I do not believe the drowning story to be plausible at all let alone a reasonable doubt.

It was a convenient lie though.

What this case shows---hide it and lie about it long enough and then you can make up whatever story you like.

(I am not intending to be rude--I just don't think an opening statement plagued with unproven allegations from the defense and a few pool pics is reasonable doubt. A convenient doubt...but not reasonable.)

 

[mickeyboat]

The prosecutors didn't claim Caylee drowned, the defense did. No reason why the prosecutors should claim something they disagree with.

I understand. The conversation this point references was above. Someone felt that Casey should have been convicted of something because she "admitted" that Caylee drowned while her care. We are saying the same thing.

 

[diznygirl]

How am I being rude? There are many people declaring how the State did not prove their case. They are calling people who disagree with the verdict all sorts of things. When I ask , I realize they do not know much. Plenty of people this board have been rather loud in their opinions of this thread and the views expressed about not liking the verdict as well as it being due to media frenzy. I find many of these folks do not know much about the case,the charges or the evidence.

You are making assumptions about posters' level of knowledge and involvement. Just because someone doesn't agree with you does not mean they don't know what they are talking about.

Case in point - if they had found Caylee in August, some additional forensic evidence may have been made available indicating cause/manner of death, linking individuals to the site where the remains were found, etc. Much evidence is suspected to have been washed away or lost due to the amount of time the body was left out in the elements. It isn't just a matter of identification.

Case in point - if you are going to kill someone and hide the body, lie about the whereabouts of the person as long as you can until the evidence deteriorates. Like Casey did.

 

[chris1gill]

The Boston Herald gets it right.

 

[joviroxx]

Y

I will agree that I think juries tend to expect a smoking gun - or at least some direct evidence linking someone to a crime in order to convict. I read somewhere that this has not been proven to be true, but I can't see how it couldn't be. That being said, cases based solely on circumstantial evidence are incredibly difficult to garner convictions.

Scott Peterson . Less evidence, high profile, DEATH!

 

[diznygirl]

My opinion...

I do not believe the drowning story to be plausible at all let alone a reasonable doubt.

It was a convenient lie though.

What this case shows---hide it and lie about it long enough and then you can make up whatever story you like.

(I am not intending to be rude--I just don't think an opening statement plagued with unproven allegations from the defense and a few pool pics is reasonable doubt. A convenient doubt...but not reasonable.)

And who stays in jail for three years instead of admitting it was an accident?

As soon as she was in police custody, anybody she was afraid of could have been less of a threat, and she could have told the truth. Why wait three years?

This story isn't reasonable.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

And who stays in jail for three years instead of admitting it was an accident?

As soon as she was in police custody, anybody she was afraid of could have been less of a threat, and she could have told the truth. Why wait three years?

This story isn't reasonable.

 

[mickeyboat]

My opinion...

I do not believe the drowning story to be plausible at all let alone a reasonable doubt.

It was a convenient lie though.

What this case shows---hide it and lie about it long enough and then you can make up whatever story you like.

(I am not intending to be rude--I just don't think an opening statement plagued with unproven allegations from the defense and a few pool pics is reasonable doubt. A convenient doubt...but not reasonable.)

I don't either. I think the drowning story was a convenient alternative story. They were not charged with determining what really happened to Caylee (factual guilt). They were charged with determining whether the state proved the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt (legal guilt).

 

[The_Alice]

I think what the jury missed here is the word, REASONABLE. Not convenient or possible doubt, REASONABLE.

 

[mickeyboat]

Case in point - if you are going to kill someone and hide the body, lie about the whereabouts of the person as long as you can until the evidence deteriorates. Like Casey did.

I coudn't agree with you more. I think the length of time the body was left to the elements washed away the evidence that was needed to convict.

 

[joviroxx]

And who stays in jail for three years instead of admitting it was an accident?

As soon as she was in police custody, anybody she was afraid of could have been less of a threat, and she could have told the truth. Why wait three years?

This story isn't reasonable.

Exactly! Possible, not reasonable!

 

[Mouse House Mama]

My opinion...

I do not believe the drowning story to be plausible at all let alone a reasonable doubt.

It was a convenient lie though.

What this case shows---hide it and lie about it long enough and then you can make up whatever story you like.

(I am not intending to be rude--I just don't think an opening statement plagued with unproven allegations from the defense and a few pool pics is reasonable doubt. A convenient doubt...but not reasonable.)

Oh I totally agree with you. I think she is a disgusting animal and I get sick even thinking about what that poor baby went through. CA had a million other options if she didn't want that child and imo she picked the most heinous one. I am just wondering what it was that planted that seed of doubt. What pivotal piece of whatever caused these 12- not 1 or 2 people to say she didn't do it. I would like to think it is hard to convince 12 people to have the same opinion.