I Know Longer Believe

[Carly_Roach]

Two high profile cases televised for the masses to be entertained and two, seemingly, incorrect verdicts. There is a common denominator.

I think the higher the profile, the likelier it is that the defendant will walk. A good prosecutor in a quiet courtroom can suggest dots to be connected that the jury will buy no matter what the defense puts up. However, if there is a tremendous amount of light on a questionable case, then both the prosecution and defense will tread carefully and make no suggestions that can be second-guessed on the 24 hr news networks as soon as those suggestions are made.

In a high-profile case, you must be sure of every word to come out of your mouth and every piece of evidence because it will be scrutinized, theorized and beaten to death by the hungry masses. Since this case had no real hard evidence and the prosecution had to be careful of what suppositions they put out there, I believe the attention played a great part in this not guilty finding.

 

[jmpurdy]

I agree. Unfortunately, jury consultants are here to stay as are cameras in the courtroom (which I don't, on the face of it, disagree with. Court should be public).

And here's another germ of an idea to think on: in just about every circumstantial case that turned into a media circus, the defendant walked. The few media circus cases where the defendant didn't walk (Manson, Dahmer, Smith, etc), the prosecution had hard evidence and/or eyewitnesses on their side.

So in effect, could it be proposed that the media and all it's attending peanut gallery viewers hold some of the responsibility of these "cold blooded killers" going free? If not for their attention, the round-the-clock broadcasting of every detail, and the public call to metaphorically "get a rope", would the circumstantial evidence against CA have been enough to convict? I believe so.

So in essence, could not the very people ripping their clothing, turning on their porch lights and going through pallets of kleenex in their grief for poor Caylee Anthony be the very ones responsible for setting Caylee's murderer free?

Hmmm.....

No, only the person who murdered this child is responsible. Prosecution had a huge mountain to climb. I don't see them as a failure at all. It is impossible for me to wrap my head around her not guilty finding. I understand it is not 'innocent' by any means, but I, too, feel that the jury was done. No note taking? No questions while deliberating? This is unbelievable to me. I think (and this is pure speculation) that there were some in that room who were never going to convict and instead of spending more time, they gave up as some have suggested.

 

[luvsJack]

Many children die each year. Many children are murdered each year. This has been going on since time began. Hundreds of thousands of children die at the hands of another the world over. While you and others mourn the loss of that ONE child whose precious face has been flashed across the screen countless times, there are many others the world over, just as precious, who've died in the past week who get no justice or even attention.

However, having said that, there are also many dead American children whose murderers are caught, tried and put in jail or put to death with as little brouhaha as possible. Which means....

....the sytem works.

As for no one "facing justice" for that child...that's God's business. Not ours. Let Him tend to it.

Now who is playing the emotional card? I know all of that, I don't need you to tell me how many children are killed each day. That doesn't mean that we didn't fail THIS child.

Saying the system failed this time, does not equal saying that it never works. Stop thinking is such absolutes. It doesn't fail every time but it did fail THIS time.

She will face God when her times comes and she will sorely pay for what she has done to Caylee. But that doesn't make our failure ok. Besides, if its not our "business" to bring someone to justice, why have the court system at all?

 

[mickeyboat]

The system didn't fail. The system worked just as it should.

I will preface this by saying that I think Casey killed her daughter and threw her out like trash. I would have liked nothing better than to see Casey rot in jail for the rest of her life.

However, one of the basic and important premises of our justice system can be summed up in a quote from William Blackstone. "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

So the American system of jurisprudence requires the government to meet and incredibly high standard of proof in order to convict someone of a crime. The prosecution must convince a jury of one's peers beyond a reasonable doubt that a person committed each of the detailed statutory elements of a crime (which undoubtedy have been clarified and explained by volumes of case law).

The systems also insists that we are judged by a jury of our peers. People with no ulterior motive. People just like us who live in our communities and who share common experiences. The system vettes these people to make sure they are capable of doing their duty as jurors.

Would we want it any different? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are our inalienable rights. The government should not be allowed to take them away unless there is a very good, clear and proven reason to do so.

In this case it is clear that the jury did not feel the prosecution met its burden. They may feel in their hearts that Casey killed her daughter, but that is not enough. They must make sure the government proved it to them beyond a reasonable doubt. That is the difference between factual guilt (she killed her daughter) and legal doubt (the prosecution proved it).

The jury returned this verdict quickly and unanimously - not one person felt the state met its burden, not even enough to argue about it for a day or two. Also, the jury knew that this trial was being broadcast across America. They were aware that the majority of Americans wanted Casey in jail. It must have taken a great deal of courage and conviction to acquit her.

As an aside, the rules of evidence determine what is allowed to be presented to the jurors as evidence. These rules also help protect our rights - experts must be qualified to testify, evidence must be admitted via a certain method, witnesses must tell the truth or fear prosecution for perjury. Sometimes that means certain information does not reach the jurors.

If there were any missteps in this case I do agree with many that the prosecution could have been a little more conservative with their charges. But the popular consensus was that we wanted blood. I think they were a little overconfident with their evidence. But they could only present what they had and what was allowed. They did their best.

I do have misgivings about Baez's opening statement - such harsh accusations against George that were backed by absolutely no evidence. I wonder how much of theatrics would not have been present if the tv cameras hadn't been in the courtroom.

My 11 year old daughter has been watching a lot of the trial and a lot of the commentary about the case. She was horrified that Casey was acquitted. She wrote on her big whiteboard - "no justice for Caylee." It's hard to explain to her why Casey is not being punished. There is so much emotion and anger about it, even in her young mind. But it is a good opportunity to explain to her exactly how our justice system protects our citizens. And I for one am glad it does.

Denae

 

[luvsJack]

Being responsible for someone's death is NOT the same as murder in the first degree. I don't know why the prosecution decided to go after such a high charge - I think it was emotions talking (they are human after all). If they had pursued a lesser charge they may have been able to make it stick. It wouldn't have been nearly as satisfying, but it would have been better than what actually happened (the not guilty verdict).

There was also a manslaughter charge.

But I agree, it was like he was shooting for the moon and missed. It was just too far to fall.

 

[mickeyboat]

I agree. Unfortunately, jury consultants are here to stay as are cameras in the courtroom (which I don't, on the face of it, disagree with. Court should be public).

And here's another germ of an idea to think on: in just about every circumstantial case that turned into a media circus, the defendant walked. The few media circus cases where the defendant didn't walk (Manson, Dahmer, Smith, etc), the prosecution had hard evidence and/or eyewitnesses on their side.

So in effect, could it be proposed that the media and all it's attending peanut gallery viewers hold some of the responsibility of these "cold blooded killers" going free? If not for their attention, the round-the-clock broadcasting of every detail, and the public call to metaphorically "get a rope", would the circumstantial evidence against CA have been enough to convict? I believe so.

So in essence, could not the very people ripping their clothing, turning on their porch lights and going through pallets of kleenex in their grief for poor Caylee Anthony be the very ones responsible for setting Caylee's murderer free?

Hmmm.....

I do believe the presence of the media has caused people to react very emotionally to the verdict. But I disagree that the presence of the media contributed to the verdict. The jury must have known that the public wanted to see Casey executed or in jaul for life. It would have been a lot easier to find her guilty and come out of the courtroom as heroes. I think it was a lot more difficult to acquit her.

 

[Carly_Roach]

Now who is playing the emotional card? I know all of that, I don't need you to tell me how many children are killed each day. That doesn't mean that we didn't fail THIS child.

Saying the system failed this time, does not equal saying that it never works. Stop thinking is such absolutes. It doesn't fail every time but it did fail THIS time.

She will face God when her times comes and she will sorely pay for what she has done to Caylee. But that doesn't make our failure ok. Besides, if its not our "business" to bring someone to justice, why have the court system at all?

So we're back where we started: the system failed because you didn't get the verdict you wanted.

We have the court system because everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. If/when someone commits a crime against another citizen, the court of law decides based on the evidence if that person actually commited that crime. A jury of their peers (which was laughable at the beginning of the last century when women and blacks couldn't serve on a jury) makes the decision.

If the accused is found guilty based on the preponderance of the evidence, then they are put away where they can no longer harm society. If the accused is found NOT GUILTY based on the preponderance of the evidence, then they are free to go. There are no rules (nor should there be) for how a jury ponders evidence. Want a better jury peer group? Serve when you're called up.

I'll repeat what I've said before: this case is over, the jury has spoken, and the American justice system works.

 

[mickeyboat]

So we're back where we started: the system failed because you didn't get the verdict you wanted.

We have the court system because everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. If/when someone commits a crime against another citizen, the court of law decides based on the evidence if that person actually commited that crime. A jury of their peers (which was laughable at the beginning of the last century when women and blacks couldn't serve on a jury) makes the decision.

If the accused is found guilty based on the preponderance of the evidence, then they are put away where they can no longer harm society. If the accused is found NOT GUILTY based on the preponderance of the evidence, then they are free to go. There are no rules (nor should there be) for how a jury ponders evidence. Want a better jury peer group? Serve when you're called up.

I'll repeat what I've said before: this case is over, the jury has spoken, and the American justice system works.

Actually, the standard is higher than "preponderance of the evidence" (which is in fact a legal standard used for other purposes). It is "beyond a reasonable doubt." Sometimes I wonder how anyone is ever convicted by a jury based on "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Eta - I am wondering if our society has become so hardened to or suspicious of circumstantial evidence that they need concrete, unrefutable direct evidence in order to be able to reach the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

 

[Carly_Roach]

Eta - I am wondering if our society has become so hardened to or suspicious of circumstantial evidence that they need concrete, unrefutable direct evidence in order to be able to reach the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

I wonder about that, too.

 

[luvsJack]

So we're back where we started: the system failed because you didn't get the verdict you wanted.

We have the court system because everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. If/when someone commits a crime against another citizen, the court of law decides based on the evidence if that person actually commited that crime. A jury of their peers (which was laughable at the beginning of the last century when women and blacks couldn't serve on a jury) makes the decision.

If the accused is found guilty based on the preponderance of the evidence, then they are put away where they can no longer harm society. If the accused is found NOT GUILTY based on the preponderance of the evidence, then they are free to go. There are no rules (nor should there be) for how a jury ponders evidence. Want a better jury peer group? Serve when you're called up.

I'll repeat what I've said before: this case is over, the jury has spoken, and the American justice system works.

You are assuming I don't for some reason? I have served several times, thank you, I don't really need that lesson.

You can repeat it until the cows come home, but until someone pays for the death of this child, justice has not been served and the system has failed her.

I know how the court system works.

The system can be a good one and it can work most of the time and still fail. Is that so hard to see? Nothing works 100%. Nothing. And this time it didn't.

You keep posting little digs at all the people that watched this trial non-stop so let me ask you; if you didn't watch it, how do you know the prosecution didn't prove his case?

 

[Carly_Roach]

You keep posting little digs You're certainly getting your digs in.

so let me ask you; if you didn't watch it, how do you know the prosecution didn't prove his case?

One infallible way:

Casey Anthony was found not guilty.

 

[lustergirl]

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, what do YOU think is broken? The jury came to the conclusion based on the evidence provided (or lack thereof).

The prosecution failed to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Case killed her daughter. It's the prosecution that you should be upset with. They did not do their job.

What would you have done differently? How would you have gotten the conviction?

You are absolutely correct. The prosecution team did not provide a time or cause of death so what jury would correct?

I am kind of outraged that she was found not guilty but the jury chose to provide this outcome because there was not enough evidence presented to prove other wise. Same thing happened in the OJ trial basically.

 

[lustergirl]

Well, we didn't follow the case at all...we don't have cable LOL Still, had to comment on this. Maybe she was a nurse or something, maybe her husband hunted for deer...etc and so she's smelled dead animal before ? My husband knows what death (and many variations of it) smells like from being a first responder/firefighter. So maybe the mother had previous experience? Or maybe it's like the majority of us when we eat something bad and say it taste like crap....I've never actually eaten crap but it's a general comparison/simile.

My garbage can smelled like death last week.....our power had been out for a day after a storm and we had a lot of meat to throw away. The flies found it before the garbage men did (a couple of days before the garbage ran) and YUCK YUCK YUCK. I would imagine that is what death smells like. I think I might have even uttered the words...that smells like something dead, which in reality it was, cow.

I am a death investigator for the county here in Buffalo and have smelled what a rotting corpse has smelled like many times. You never lose that smell from the streets or in the morgue. It get ingrained in your smelling senses and smells way worse then rotting garbage. Some of the smell comes from the blowflies that attach themselves to the body after death with the maggots coming afterwards.

 

[Kennywife]

To not report a missing child isn't a crime. At least it isn't now nor was it a crime in 2008.

The jury didn't find CA innocent, they found her not guilty of the counts listed against her. Big difference. And all the words presented (yesterday's garbage, etc) in order to elicit a prescribed response won't change the fact that the jury voted, the county accepted the vote, the case is over and our system worked.

No you're right. It's not a crime. But it IS horrendous parenting.

I get angry about it because I have infertility due to a faulty fallopian tube. I am having to have surgery for it to have even the chance of having a child. If my child were missing for ANY amount of time, there would be nothing I wouldn't do to bring my baby home.

I won't be watching any shows she is on or buying any books that she or anyone affiliated with her writes. I am judging all right, with my pocket book. That's what I can do.

One day, hopefully, I will be blessed with my own little miracle and it will be worth the wait.

 

[luvsJack]

One infallible way:

Casey Anthony was found not guilty.

I haven't insulted you at all nor have I tried to. So, I don't know what digs you are referring to.

Oh, so you are assuming that because she was found not guilty the system worked?

You do realize that its not a perfect world right? Nor is it a perfect system.

I don't see how you can sit here and judge the people that have watched and listened and read everything about this case and assume that they don't know what they are talking about when the only thing you are basing that opinion on is the verdict? And verdicts are never wrong? So, tell me again why it is we need DNA proof if verdicts are never wrong?

 

[joviroxx]

Being responsible for someone's death is NOT the same as murder in the first degree. I don't know why the prosecution decided to go after such a high charge - I think it was emotions talking (they are human after all). If they had pursued a lesser charge they may have been able to make it stick. It wouldn't have been nearly as satisfying, but it would have been better than what actually happened (the not guilty verdict).

There were lesser charges to chose from. Murder 2 down to Manslaughter

 

[LittleMermaidsMom]

I've heard of this "sadness" spoken about on the news channels I've watched and it's just amazing to me.

These are people who never knew any of the Anthonys from Moses (nor cared) until they saw them on the news. Any "heartache" they are experiencing is heartache they've groomed, invited in and are weeping openly about with others because of their own desire to be a part of a group that never included them in the first place.

They are, for want of a better word, the Peanut Gallery. And it's difficult to take them seriously no matter how much I want to.

It's called "empathy" and is one of the key human emotions that distinguishes us from animals... if fact, lack of empathy can be defined as sociopathic or psychopathic

In a nutshell, THIS is how and why this jury arrived at this travesty of a verdict. The interchanging of the above terms with the ACTUAL standard to be used......reasonable doubt.

Reasonable doubt is NOT, NOT, NOT the same as no doubt, absolute certainty or belief beyond any shadow of a doubt. And I am convinced the Casey Anthony jury employed the UNreasonable standard of no doubt, absolute certainty and belief beyond a shadow of a doubt to let this baby killer go free. Had they said to themselves, "Well, I guess it's possible that all the prosecution's evidence isn't true, but it is reasonable to believe otherwise given all the facts put before us?" they would have had to have convicted her on something other than lying to LE.

The 31 days, her behavior during that time, the failure to EVER report the child missing, the elaborate tales of kidnpapping by a fictional nanny that went on for years, the continuing efforts to mislead police all point straight to consciousness of guilt. And all that was ignored while they apparently latched onto an opening statement they were supposed to have disregarded and put WAY too much faith in the fact that they family was dysfunctional. Seriously? It boggles the mind. Reasonable, people, reasonable. When a mother covers up that her child is dead or missing for a month and apparently never intended on reporting it, she had better have a damn good explanation or a jury has the RIGHT to assume the worst. What they got was a world class liar who came up with a last minute lie a few weeks before trial and lord help them, they believed it. Sorry, I have to go.....Off to sell swampland to some folks in Florida.

Exactly, the jury didn't apply the "reasonable person" standard. Unfortunately, this is what happens when there is room for human error. It's not that the prosecution didn't prove their case, they presented all the evidence they had, or that our system failed; no system is 100% effective but ours is one of the best.

 

[Carly_Roach]

I haven't insulted you at all nor have I tried to. So, I don't know what digs you are referring to.

Oh, so you are assuming that because she was found not guilty the system worked?

You do realize that its not a perfect world right? Nor is it a perfect system.

I don't see how you can sit here and judge the people that have watched and listened and read everything about this case and assume that they don't know what they are talking about when the only thing you are basing that opinion on is the verdict? And verdicts are never wrong? So, tell me again why it is we need DNA proof if verdicts are never wrong?

I'm not going to get into this with you, luvsJack. You're spoiling for a fight and I'm just not going to go there.

I leave you in the grace and favor of the Lord.

 

[dngnb8]

Not an emotional plea, a question. I have no clue whether you have children or not--I don't know you. I was simply trying to explain the feeling one gets when a child is missing and I knew that a parent would know that feeling.

No, you jumped to conclusions about me based on bias without information. Do you see a pattern? In each case, youre wrong as well. I see a pattern in your presumptions about me. Could there be a similar applivaction in how you are judging this case?

Not reporting her child missing for 30 days is equal to a heck of a lot more than "not being a good mom".

It is not "proof" she was the one who killed the child. It "might" only show involvement. Either way, like your statement about me and pets/kids, it isnt hard core proof of being the murderer. This isnt horseshoes where being close gets you points.

She showed us her guilt, apparently some just don't believe her.

She showed us she didnt report the case, she showed us she didnt care about the child, she didnt show us she was the one who ended the childs life.

So you think maybe she just thought her child was playing at someone's house for 30 days? Or that she left her at with a non-existing nanny? Or maybe she left her in the castle with Mickey and Minnie? Why did she not report this child missing?

Ah yes, the nonsensical application of questions to elicit another emotional response. youre only showing why you shouldnt be a juror. Maybe she didnt report the child missing because Grandpa did it and she was protecting her dad. Her child is gone, why lose dad too.

Someone dropped the ball on this case. Whoever it was failed this child.

Your presumption is Casey killed the child. Evidence is circumstantial. If you convict Casey erroneously, is "Justice" still served? As long as someone goes to jail, it's serves the child. Forget whether or not they really did it, just as long as its a dirt bag, and its all good

I don't want to fix it to get what I want. But, if mistakes were made they should be learned from.

No disagreement here, just as long as the mistakes are perceived based on real evidence, and not conclusions derived from emotional response.

Please continue to presume I dont feel for the child. Obviously, youre not looking for truth, just how you feel.

 

[luvsJack]

It's called "empathy" and is one of the key human emotions that distinguishes us from animals... if fact, lack of empathy can be defined as sociopathic or psychopathic





Exactly, the jury didn't apply the "reasonable person" standard. Unfortunately, this is what happens when there is room for human error. It's not that the prosecution didn't prove their case, they presented all the evidence they had, or that our system failed; no system is 100% effective but ours is one of the best.

I just don't understant how anyone can look at the pictures of that child and not have some emotion for her. Or for every picture of every child that is missing and posted somewhere. Few people are feeling anything for Caylee that they don't or wouldn't feel for any other child out there. I would be more concerned if I DIDN'T shed tears for this child.



The jury, like the prosecution is a part of our total system. The one that we have is the best but not perfect. It can fail, just like it can succeed. That doesn't mean it should be thrown out, it just means that it failed in this instance.