I agree 100%; its amazing the effect the media has on this stuff.
Pretty much the same crime happened in Iowa about a year ago, and I would be willing to bet not many people can name the city it happened in without using Google...
Verdict in Anthony Trial
- Thread starter CycloneRulzzz
- Start date
I agree 100%; its amazing the effect the media has on this stuff.
Pretty much the same crime happened in Iowa about a year ago, and I would be willing to bet not many people can name the city it happened in without using Google...
How is this the Jury's fault?
Obviously the Orange County Attorney did a **** job on convincing 12 people on something that was so obvious.
I couldn't agree more. Acting bat **** crazy may give someone reason to believe that you are up to something, but in our system it doesn't make you guilty of murder, nor should it.
I think she probably had some sort of involvement in it, but goofy behavior and some circumstantial evidence isn't grounds to convict someone of a crime, especially one this severe. Good job by the jury by carrying out this process as it is meant to be done. If anyone wants to vent any anger in this situation it should be pointed at the investigators and the prosecutors who didn't make a strong case. The system and the jury worked perfectly.
Exactly. I can see passing on first degree but I find it very hard to believe that she had nothing to do with it.
And for those of you who will say I just listened to talking heads and the media on this I have not heard one talk show about this case nor knew about it until my wife told me about it and started reading reviews of the day and what was said and presented. I will agree that there was no one smoking gun for first degree but to put it out there that she had nothing to do with her daughters death is just amazing.
So technically the justice system worked I guess. But this trial has given even more ways for people to beat the system. Get rid of evidence, don't report a missing child, and just lie as well as act weird and stupid and let your lawyers create doubt. I am a firm believer that it is not hard to beat our justice system if you plan ahead and basically leave only circumstantial evidence. As long as there is not one smoking gun and doubt can be created anyone can walk away from anything no matter how much other evidence is stacked against you.
I like our justice system and will take it over any other countries in the world but to say it always works the way it should is just naive.
I don't see how anyone could not find her guilty of manslaughter. Well actually I can because too often juries don't understand the term beyond a reasonable doubt because they leave the reasonable out of the equation. Of course there was doubt in this case, but reasnable doubt? i don't think so.
He child was missing for a month and she didn't report it, lied to her mom and friends about where her daughter was. Lied to police when the questioned her several times.
Trunk smelled like a dead body.
Chloroform found in the trunk.
Chloroform searches on the computer, which the mom couldn't have made because she was at work at the time.
Duct tape around the girl's mouth.
She was contained in a laundry bag that was part of a matching set that belonged to Casey.
They caught her lying numerous times on camera at the jail.
No evidence that the girl drowned. No evidence or testimony that Casey drowned it was only the assertion of the defense attorney.
It is harder to prove premeditation, but with the computer searches I think the jury could have found premeditation but at the least it should have been manslaughter.
Another problem today is that people think that circumstantial evidence is a bad thing, it is not, it is what most cases are decided on because rarely is there direct evidence like shows such as CSI portray or confessions that happen all the time in those shows as well. People watch these shows and expect to the prosecution to have direct evidence but that is not how it usually works.
He child was missing for a month and she didn't report it, lied to her mom and friends about where her daughter was. Lied to police when the questioned her several times.
Trunk smelled like a dead body.
Chloroform found in the trunk.
Chloroform searches on the computer, which the mom couldn't have made because she was at work at the time.
Duct tape around the girl's mouth.
She was contained in a laundry bag that was part of a matching set that belonged to Casey.
They caught her lying numerous times on camera at the jail.
No evidence that the girl drowned. No evidence or testimony that Casey drowned it was only the assertion of the defense attorney.
It is harder to prove premeditation, but with the computer searches I think the jury could have found premeditation but at the least it should have been manslaughter.
Another problem today is that people think that circumstantial evidence is a bad thing, it is not, it is what most cases are decided on because rarely is there direct evidence like shows such as CSI portray or confessions that happen all the time in those shows as well. People watch these shows and expect to the prosecution to have direct evidence but that is not how it usually works.
It's all because Casey Anthony is so freaking hot. She's got a great body and nice boobs. If she weighed 250 pounds and lived in a trailer nobody would even know her name. Guys want to bang her and woman want to see themselves in her.
It really pisses me off...if you are pretty and white it makes stuff like this such a big deal but if you are ugly the media will never touch it. For gods sake didn't a mom just murder their child by putting them in a microwave the other day? I'd bet most people didn't even hear about it...guess what? The mom is ugly.
First of all, she is not hot. Second, what does it have to do with innocence or guilt.
Ummm, yes she is hot. Not sure about you but you might want to google her name. She may not be that hot in court but she is very good looking in her "party pics". Not sure what you standards are but they must be pretty high.
Second, I'm not sure what her being hot has to do with guilt either...I was commenting on a post about why this has received so much meda attention.
Often its the exact opposite. Jurors often assume that a prosecutor would never bring anyone to trial that isnt 100%, undeniably guilty, even if the evidence is extremely circumstantial. Even where reasonable doubt exists, they often vote guilty based on emotion and what they think probably happened rather than making the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did indeed commit the crime.
Good job by the jury in this case in going with their heads and not emotion and realizing there wasnt enough evidence here. Also, keep in mind that it wasnt a hung jury situation. Everyone had to vote not guilty. If all the jurors who witnessed every minute of testimony and evidence expressed reasonable doubt, i think its safe to say that there was enough doubt to be considered reasonable.
Ummm, yes she is hot. Not sure about you but you might want to google her name. She may not be that hot in court but she is very good looking in her "party pics". Not sure what you standards are but they must be pretty high.
Second, I'm not sure what her being hot has to do with guilt either...I was commenting on a post about why this has received so much meda attention.
That picture is not helping your argument at all.
Unless I missed something in Government class, I'm still sure that a jury giving a "not guilty" verdict is not them saying that there was no involvement, but them saying there is reasonable doubt. Hell, isn't reasonable doubt like 0.5% unsure if they were involved?
Jose Baez didn't even finish high school and took 8 years to pass the bar. I think his incoherent rambling played up better to the jury than did the intellectual arguments that the prosecution made. I'm sure the jury felt that Jeff Ashton was condescending and decided they didn't like him and decided to acquit. It's really a demonstration of the dumbing down of America. Common sense would tell you that she was guilty of at least manslaughter, and 12 peers of hers couldn't even get that right...
Duct tape was on the baby's mouth. That's reasonable enough to me that she didn't drown. Common sense is gone in Florida...but I think we already learned that in 2000...Her mother was 100% responsible for her death. I just don't see how anybody could believe otherwise after all of the testimony and videos...
I think it was a terrible miscarriage of justice and a cold-blooded child killer now goes free. The prosecution did the best they could do with the lack of hard evidence. In my opinion, the jury confused "any" doubt with "reasonable" doubt and did not employ their common sense in determining one from the other.
Sidebar: Jose Baez may be the worst defense attorney to ever win a high-profile case. He rumbled, bumbled and stumbled his way through this trial and yet somehow it worked.
Is this factual? I would like a list of confirmed factual evidence. Not going to even try looking at CNN or Fox for facts about this case. Way too many biased sources on this.
Everything he said was factual. The only clarification I would make is on the laundry bag. The matching bag came from the Anthony home, but I don't think it was established that it belonged specifically to Casey. Just that a matching bag was found in the home.
With all the materials confirmed to be used coming from the Anthony home (laundry bag, garbage bag, duct tape), the jury must believe that George did it. I mean, with those facts established, SOMEONE from the Anthony home HAD to do it, right?
And it proved that the mother put it on there? Sure, it could be shown that it's likely that she did it, but that isn't the same as actually proving that she did it.
I'm probably not the best person to be arguing this with since I had to google to figure out who Casey Anthony was this afternoon.
