Dude. Lying about it and trying to cover it up for 30 days is culpably negligent imo.
Its really simple. You (Casey) tried like hell to hide it so you get manslaughter. And thats getting off easy.
Verdict in Anthony Trial
- Thread starter CycloneRulzzz
- Start date
Dude. Lying about it and trying to cover it up for 30 days is culpably negligent imo.
Its really simple. You (Casey) tried like hell to hide it so you get manslaughter. And thats getting off easy.
Lying about it and cover it up has nothing to do with the negligence that led to the death itself. You would have to be negligent as to the death itself to be charged with manslaughter. What you are explaining is guilty of lying to a police officer...which is exactly what she was convicted of.
Last edited:
I would understand the jury not finding her guilty if a couple of the pieces of evidence weren't there, especially the computer searches, because then it could have well been an accident that caused her death.
But taking all the evidence into account there is just too much to suggest that she killed the girl. Searches for chloroform, household weapons, and how to break a neck are enough for me to say there was no accident.
But taking all the evidence into account there is just too much to suggest that she killed the girl. Searches for chloroform, household weapons, and how to break a neck are enough for me to say there was no accident.
Last edited:
I would agree that the computer searches are the most troubling piece of circumstantial evidence. Are there explanations for other reasons you could search for that, yes...but reasonable ones, I don't know.
But why would you lie about it? If she drowned, why create stories? Why not just go to the cops and say the daughter drowned? I could understand if it was like 1 or 2 days but this was a month long act before anyone even knew anything. To think that someone that does that is not guilty is ridiculous to me.
I agree, there are just too many things that point away from it being an accident. Another thing, if Caycee told her attorney that it was an accident, why would they save this for trial? Why wouldn't they start telling people sooner that it was an accident and the Dad discovered her in the pool? Why would you go to jail and risk the death penalty rather than confess it was an accident and you got scared and hid the body?
Exactly.
I think some just think that manslaughter is 'what the jury gives if theyre not completely sure theyre guilty of murder, but think they deserve near-murder punishment'.
If the jury actually follows the letter of what manslaughter is, and then applies the same standard of proving reasonable doubt, if the doubt keeping the jury from convicting on the murder charge is related to whether she did it (not whether it was premeditated or with malice, but whether she actually did it), then that same doubt would apply to the manslaughter charge, as the jury still has to have no reasonable doubt that she killed her or was negligent w\ regards to the death itself with that charge as well.
It may be plenty enough to say that in the court of public opinion, but not in the court of law. We set the standard high, knowing it will let some guilty free, for a reason.
I think if the prosecution had gone for manslaughter from the start, they could have gotten it.
Again, circumstantial evidence is still evidence. And there is a whole **** ton of it pointing directly at Casey.
The jury approached this completely differently though as it was a capital murder case.
The jurors are humans and not computers, they will tend to approach things differently.
No. My personal assumption is that she was involved in the death in some way, and knows exactly what happened. However, our court system is not based of assumptions, it is based off factual evidence. This case had a lot of assumptions, but no smoking gun to really prove any of them beyond a reason of doubt.
It unfortunate that Casey will be able to walk the streets here again soon, but the system did what it was designed to do.
According to at least one juror i read an article from today, he didnt think they had proven the manslaughter charge either.
There may be evidence, but there is not enough, imho, to meet the standard of reasonable doubt on either count.
This part disgusts me as much as her getting a not guilty verdict. She will get a book or movie deal maybe even a reality show. This is why sometimes I think we are a very ****** up country.
Well, like I said, the jurors entered the trial with a certain mindset. A death penalty murder case mindset. And they applied that mindset to all facets and charges.
Perhaps if they had started with manslaughter, and not the death penalty, the entire trial would have been different.
I could be wrong though.
I personally think there IS enough evidence for a manslaughter conviction.
Honestly, from a lot of what I've been reading on this board. A lot of you should stop trying to get out of Jury Duty and actually go serve next time you get the summons. It really as not as open and shut as a lot of you seem to believe. You are instructed quite well on how to interpret the evidence presented.
I have a friend that served on a similar case to this. Similar, in the state was going for capital murder without really proving capital murder had taken place. 3 possible shooters (group of guys proven to be together at the scene on the night of the crime) one gun 1 dead older woman. All 3 life long criminals. All 3 had fingerprints on the gun. They chose one guy and took him to trial, but never really proved why this guy was the shooter. It was obvious to everyone on the jury that he was guilty of something, but the prosecution chose to go for capital murder and never proved that it was really this guy who pulled the trigger. When you are sequestered and not allowed to listen to the media, your friends, your family and are only presented with the facts, your perception of those facts can be different from those of us barraged by media.
I think it was a bad move in the Anthony case to go for Capital murder without knowing cause of death.
I have a friend that served on a similar case to this. Similar, in the state was going for capital murder without really proving capital murder had taken place. 3 possible shooters (group of guys proven to be together at the scene on the night of the crime) one gun 1 dead older woman. All 3 life long criminals. All 3 had fingerprints on the gun. They chose one guy and took him to trial, but never really proved why this guy was the shooter. It was obvious to everyone on the jury that he was guilty of something, but the prosecution chose to go for capital murder and never proved that it was really this guy who pulled the trigger. When you are sequestered and not allowed to listen to the media, your friends, your family and are only presented with the facts, your perception of those facts can be different from those of us barraged by media.
I think it was a bad move in the Anthony case to go for Capital murder without knowing cause of death.
Not similar at all in terms of doubt. That trial could stop at the point in which there were 3 different sets of finger prints on the gun and all three were proven to be together. There was nothing in this entire case that indicted anyone but her. Nothing.
I'd watch it, but I'd download it illegally so she wouldn't get any money from it.
Well, the cases aren't similar at all in a lot of circumstances. But the one in particular I was talking about was putting a capital crime on someone without sufficient evidence to prove that crime. I wasn't trying to use this stated case as a president for the Anthony trial. Merely that when you are on the jury, no matter how obvious it may seem that there was wrong doing, you must have a case that is cut and dry when you want to put someone to death. Sorry I didn't make that clearer, kind of like the Prosecution in the Anthony case feels now. "We should have made that clearer."
Plus, I thought the parents were part of this whole thing as well? I really didn't follow much of this trial. Didn't they help to cover up, I thought the mother did the google searching.
- Mar 27, 2006
- 43,015
- 34,526
- 113
You're right. In that case, I'm guessing the prosecution was able to prove the victim's cause of death, so it's not similar at all.
Not having that definite cause of death is huge. It allows for the presentation of the "death by tragic accident" theory. If jurors thought that theory was possible, (not necessarily that it was true, just possible) then the burden of proof for the aggravated manslaughter charge would not be met, either.
Looks like it was premature and Vivid has pulled out of the offer
Porn King TERMINATES XXX Offer to Casey Anthony | TMZ.com
