But...but... Nancy Grace told me she was going to be found guilty? How could Nancy Grace ever be wrong?
Verdict in Anthony Trial
- Thread starter CycloneRulzzz
- Start date
But...but... Nancy Grace told me she was going to be found guilty? How could Nancy Grace ever be wrong?
I can understand how they went not guilty on Murder 1. I don't agree with finding her not guilty of having anything to do with the death. I just don't believe it from what I have read and heard. The defense said the daughter drowned. OK, well was there any even circumstantial evidence that that is the case? Do you usually duct tape a mouth after someone drowns? The chloroform? I mean come on. It's not so much about the evidence that the DA had for me. It's more about how they state that theory and nothing points to that at all. So why state that theory? Desperation is the only thing that comes to mind. I don't know what went down. I don't know if it was Murder 1 but to say she had nothing to do with it, I believe is against any evidence there was there.
Does anyone think the gender of the person on trial mattered here?
Does anyone think the gender of the person on trial mattered here?
The prosecution went for the death penalty without having a cause of death established nor any smoking gun. That was the problem.
I think its fairly clear to most people with common sense that she at least deserved manslaughter.
However, the prosecution over-reached with the death penalty and Murder 1, and so that set the juror's mindset for the entire trial and they aquitted.
Knowing this was a capital murder case with the world watching, of course the jurors were going to be looking for solid irrefutable evidence.
But when you step back and look at it, she is clearly guilty. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence it turns out.
I think its fairly clear to most people with common sense that she at least deserved manslaughter.
However, the prosecution over-reached with the death penalty and Murder 1, and so that set the juror's mindset for the entire trial and they aquitted.
Knowing this was a capital murder case with the world watching, of course the jurors were going to be looking for solid irrefutable evidence.
But when you step back and look at it, she is clearly guilty. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence it turns out.
As I said before, I listened to and/or watched almost every minute of the trial. The judge seemingly had to tell Baez how to do his job on several occasions. Some of the talking heads even suggested he might get disbarred for incompetence after the trial. They were exaggerating, of course, but the point is the TV legal analysts do not generally have a high opinion of his performance. The decision went his way and he got his client off, but I would assert it was almost in spite of him, not because of him.
Lastly, most regard the talking heads with disdain but, even though people may dislike them personally, whether we like it or not Nancy Grace and Greta Van Sustern know more about the law than just about anyone on this board.
See, I don't even think that mattered to them. I thought that motive brought forth by the DA was a little shoddy but I still think it may be true.
I agree with you but so then can we say the jury did it's job? I may be wrong here but I thought that each charge was to be taken separately.
They were to be taken seperately.
But still, the prosecution set the tone with going for Murder-1 with the possibility of death.
So that shaped how the jury looked at the case, imo.
Even without a smoking gun, if this isnt manslaughter, I dont know what is.
If they believe there's reasonable doubt she killed Caylee (they may believe there's a possibility it started as a tragic accident), you wouldnt have a murder or manslaughter conviction.
I don't know about Florida, specifically, but I think each charge has to be taken separately. The cases are consolidated into 1 trial for sake of expediency, but each needs to be taken in separately. Which is why they ask the jury the verdict for each case presented, thus allowing the defendant to be acquitted of some charges, and be guilty of others, all in the same trial.
If they were all linked, one would expect an overarching conviction or acquittal, no?
Personally, I don't see why people are so upset with their jury. The prosecution is to blame for reaching for a big charge in a very public, nationally televised criminal case, when there wasn't sufficient hard evidence for their biggest charges. If there really isn't any evidence regarding how or when the poor child died, you can't say without reasonable doubt that the mom killed Caylee (always get the names mixed up), can you? Circumstantial evidence is great, but can be and will be ripped apart by a half-decent defense team.
I'm sure the mom is guilty of something regarding Caylee's death, (probably even murder), but legally speaking, there wasn't enough hard evidence present to prove it beyond reasonable doubt. She could have killed the kid and hid the body, she could be covering for a friend who did the killing....Caylee could have died due to an accident, or through negligent action, and the mom wanted to cover it up, etc.
Its a 2 year old kid who was in Casey's care.
If she didnt want a manslaughter charge, and it truly was an accident, she shouldnt have tried to cover it up.
We know for sure Caylee is in Casey's care.
We know for sure Caylee is dead.
We know for sure Casey tried covering it up.
Manslaughter. Period.
If those were actually the elements of manslaughter that would have to be proven in order to convict then yes she probably would be guilty, unfortunately those arn't the elements that would need to be proven..
Giving her manslaughter is hardly a stretch. For anyone with a shred of common sense, manslaughter is an open and shut case.
There are no repercussions for a small child dying in her mother's care under extremely shady circumstances?? Give me a break.
I think in this particular case there was more then enough circumstantial evidence to convict Casey Anthony on everything except 1st degree murder. Circumstantial evidence in this case just kept building upon itself. If it was just totally random circumstantial evidence I could agree with the verdict. In this case that evidence was anything but random.
1. The child is gone for 31 days before she tells anyone that she is missing. Why?
2. During this time Casey is out partying it up without a care in the world. Why?
3. When questioned about her daughter she intentionally misleads the police time and time again. Why?
4. Searches on the computer at the house for chloroform.
5. Traces of chloroform found in Casey's car.
6. Duct tape on the skull linked to duct tape found at the Anthony house.
7. Body found in a bag that matches other bags found at the Anthony house.
8. Recorded conversations of Casey from jail that were very damaging.
9. Cadaver dog gets a hit on the trunk of Casey Anthony's car.
10. Her defense claims she was sexually abused by her father. Never proven.
11. Her defense claims Caylee drown accidentally. Never proven.
12. Her defense claims her father made it look like a murder and disposed of the body. Never proven.
13. Her defense claimed that her mother looked up chloroform on the PC. Proven false.
The circumstantial evidence (more then I could ever list on here) just keeps building upon itself and pointing directly to Casey Anthony. Her defense teams assertions that her father abused her, that Caylee died accidentally, that her father covered up the death, etc.... were never proven. In fact the defense made no attempt to prove them at all. They might as well have stated that Bozo the clown killed Caylee too.
It wasn't as if this circumstantial evidence was just a flimsy house of cards. It was a freaking mansion with a very solid foundation that was built upon.
So basically all a person has to do to get away with murder of a family member is.
research it on my computer.
put the person down gently
Put them in my trunk and then go ditch the body.
Not report it for awhile. Have a blast for 30-40 days...
Then lie about everything. Throw other family members under the bus. (not literally)
Blame other people for the reason you a horrible human being.
Its good to be an American.
research it on my computer.
put the person down gently
Put them in my trunk and then go ditch the body.
Not report it for awhile. Have a blast for 30-40 days...
Then lie about everything. Throw other family members under the bus. (not literally)
Blame other people for the reason you a horrible human being.
Its good to be an American.
Manslaughter is an open and shut case? Hardly.. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another human being without malice aforethought..
Explain to me at what point was it proven in the case that Casey unlawfully killed Caylee.. As far as we know it could have been an accident..
I'm not saying I think she got away with killing her daughter, and I hope she rots in hell someday.. All I'm saying is that is the law and it was hardly a open and shut case
There are repercussions for a small child dying in her mother's care-- it is manslaughter if the mother was culpably negligent. The problem is that like any other crime the State has to prove the culpable negligence beyond a reasonable doubt. They chose to put on a case for Murder 1, not for manslaughter, thus they did nothing to prove that she was negligent. That was the defenses theory, but without the State putting on evidence to prove that negligence you can't convict on manslaughter.
Again, this never should have been Murder 1. The State should have settled on a charge they could win with the evidence they had available, not grasp for straws with a murder 1 charge.
No, all you have to do to get away with murder is live somewhere that law enforcement cannot piece together enough evidence to pin someone with 1st Degree Murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
Innocent of being involved or solely responsible for the murder of her own child. Yeah she did an exceptional job of keeping the police at bay long enough for any forensic evidence to be destroyed on the body. With no hard evidence... I still fully believe that she is the one responsible for the death of her daughter.
