Just because she was found not guilty, doesn't mean she is innocent. Just means the prosecution couldn't prove she did it.
Verdict in Anthony Trial
- Thread starter CycloneRulzzz
- Start date
bingo. shes not guilty according to the US justice system but the media has branded her as a slut and a party girl. she threw her family under the bus in order to get off so shes pretty much screwed herself for life now even though she will be free
There may not be much. That does not mean we lower the standard of what's required to determine guilt. I would much rather have a system that errs on the side of not guilty in situations like this than one that goes the other way and would end up convicting more innocent defendants.
Covering something up, maybe. That is not what she was charged with. If you're looking to blame someone blame the Nancy Grace's of the world whose overblown coverage all but required the prosecution to bring her up on first degree murder charges. With the evidence they had the prosecution had little to no chance to prove the intent necessary for capital murder, let alone prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she actually took the life of her child. I'm sure they could have wrangled up enough charges based on the defense's theory of a death and a cover up, but no prosecutor would go into trial telling two different stories. The fact of the matter is that they went for the home run and whiffed.
To answer your question, 1 credible eyewitness would have worked great. Otherwise, there was no hard evidence out there to link her to an intentional taking of another's life. There were scientific theories that were rebutted, fairly or not, creating a reasonable doubt. Short of a witness or some other hard evidence pointing to Casey intentionally taking the life of another they stood no chance. I, for one, find it disturbing that there is no resolution to this issue but am also glad to live somewhere that you can't take someone's life or lifelong liberty with only some circumstantial evidence (some of which was very shotty) and a theory.
That's a fine theory except for the fact everything isn't always equal. Lawyers aren't the same, jurors aren't the same and information isn't the same. People win cases because of lawyers skill sometimes. To me, that's not how the justice system should work. I just wish there was a little more continuity in the system. There are people who had far less on them than what Anthony did but because they had a crap lawyer or ran into a very persuasive prosecutor or perhaps a sympathetic jury toward the victim.
Which is one why i said earlier in the thread that more people should probably be let off than are now. You are right that many have gotten convicted for less, but while to some that may make it surprising Casey Anthony got off, it may actually point more towards those cases and say that maybe those should have been acquittals as well.
Or you could take the ones that were rightfully convicted on the same or less "hard" evidence and say more should be convicted. It goes both ways. I don't know how you would ever make the system better but I just think it's pretty hit and miss to let nitwits like me decide the fate or justice of someone. I know it's the whole "jury of peers" thing but it just seems like a lot to ask from people who, in general, have a hard time distinguishing between emotion and fact.
This is true. Personally id just rather err on the side of letting them go free than go the other way.
As for juries... its 12 people who couldnt find a way out of jury duty.
And in this case, that will probably have no future impact on anyone other than people who feel justice wasn't carried out. However, what if this wasn't her on trial. What if it was her creepy neighbor down the street with exactly the same circumstance and he get's let go and does it again the exact same way. It's difficult either way a nd the fact of the matter is that the wrong decision by a jury is bad for the system no matter which way they miss it.
About the only reason they couldn't determine a cause of death is because the only person that knew where Caylee was (Casey) was misleading everybody. So, by the time the "body" was found, six months later, it was nothing but a pile of bones in a garbage bag. Hard to determine a cause of death at that point, outside of the three pieces of duct tape on the skull...
If the parents of this little liar are wise, they will bide their time, waiting for the book deal to arrive. When that moment arrives, they should go after a defamation lawsuit due to all her claims of abuse and claims that her father hid the death with her. Now, I personally don't know the killer, I mean defendant, but if she doesn't try to bank off this mess I will be surprised.
That about tells it all. Jurors can't use common sense. She is INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. The defense was great and the prosecution was weak. She clearly had something to do with the death, but could not been proven.
But, again, all this proves is that she lied to police officers, the exact crimes she was convicted of. I would imagine law enforcement is trained a little better than to just take the word of a suspect and follow on the leads she is giving them. She mislead the cops, but the problem is there are several viable theories as to why she did that. The problem is, there is absolutely nothing linking her to an intentional killing-- they should have never gone for capital murder.
MY problem is that I believe about 90% of prosecution teams out there could have proven this guilt (maybe not 1st degree, but guilty of some responsibility in the death). Orange County handled the whole thing wrong, from the very beginning. I think they got wrapped up in the media spotlight, and tired to show the world how awesome Orange County, Florida is. They were given a hanging curve ball with bases loaded and they grounded into a double play...
I agree. They went after 1st degree and tried to hammer that home. They should of gone after the lesser charge. I also agree that the media blew this up out of proportion.
This is just more nonsense speculation on this guys part. He is giving an educated guess but there is no way for him to actually know with 100% certainty what Casey's motive was for murdering her child. All one has to do is look at Casey's MO to see a motive. She likes to party, she likes to sleep around with a bunch of guys, she was always out doing something with her friends.... having a small child isn't exactly going to make the lifestyle that she chose to lead easy. IMO this guy needs to think about this again. There are plenty of cases of murder in which the murderer killed a girlfriend/boyfriend, a spouse, etc... because that person was holding them back from the life they wanted, holding them back from opportunities to be with other women/men, holding them back financially, etc.... For God's sake look at Casey Anthony... that chick had about 47 ex boyfriends and sexual partners testify during her trial. Does she sound like the type of person that wants to be tied down in life by anything or anybody? Hell no.
Take the names out of it and just look at what was presented.
Someone searches for "household weapon", "how to make choloroform", "how to break a neck" on a computer (and mom was shown to be lying about the claim that she made the searches), their child is missing for 31 days and they don't tell anyone, they lie to the police and her parents about where she is and what happened to her, they abandon their car, when the car is found dogs identify a dead body and people claimed it smelled like a dead body, chloroform is found in the trunk which is not disputed, child was found wrapped in items traceable to to the person.
An accusation is made that the child drowned in the pool instead of being murdered. There was testimony by the parents that the ladder was outside of the pool and was never left on the pool. The child was too small to move it herself. If it was an accident why cover it up? Why were there searches on the computer? Why was the car abandoned? Why was chloroform found in the trunk?
Someone searches for "household weapon", "how to make choloroform", "how to break a neck" on a computer (and mom was shown to be lying about the claim that she made the searches), their child is missing for 31 days and they don't tell anyone, they lie to the police and her parents about where she is and what happened to her, they abandon their car, when the car is found dogs identify a dead body and people claimed it smelled like a dead body, chloroform is found in the trunk which is not disputed, child was found wrapped in items traceable to to the person.
An accusation is made that the child drowned in the pool instead of being murdered. There was testimony by the parents that the ladder was outside of the pool and was never left on the pool. The child was too small to move it herself. If it was an accident why cover it up? Why were there searches on the computer? Why was the car abandoned? Why was chloroform found in the trunk?
What charge should they have stopped at? The jury doesn't think she had anything to do with the killing of the kid so it wouldn't have mattered what they did. I think if you submit to the fact that she was guilty of murder then premeditation is pretty easy to prove in this case. Of course, the DA didn't prove it so we will never know.
I am also still waiting on what would have been sufficient evidence from this case.
I'm not disputing these fact, not do I think anyone is. This is why I think 90% of prosecution teams could of proven some sort of guilt based off these facts. However, Orange County failed at convincing any of the 12 jurors, as each of them still had "reasonable doubt" when they deliberated.
