^In some states, people in positions of authority are legally bound to report suspected abuse within 48 hours or face penalties.
CASEY ANTHONY: what do you think will happen.
- Thread starter Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Start date
All I gotta say is:
All I gotta say is:
Well-stated.
That lady looks a little like Angela Lansbury.
The potential issue with emotionally-charged legislation like the so-called "Caylee's Law" is unintentional effects.
As an example, look at what happened with state laws mandating the death penalty for kidnapping that were passed in the aftermath of the Lindbergh case.
In particular and with regard to this legislation, giving people only an hour to report a death - even in these days of cell phones - is likely to create as many problems as it solves. You risk turning distraught and confused people into felons by default and then forcing many of them to run the gauntlet of a politically-fraught court process to no good purpose.
As an example, look at what happened with state laws mandating the death penalty for kidnapping that were passed in the aftermath of the Lindbergh case.
In particular and with regard to this legislation, giving people only an hour to report a death - even in these days of cell phones - is likely to create as many problems as it solves. You risk turning distraught and confused people into felons by default and then forcing many of them to run the gauntlet of a politically-fraught court process to no good purpose.
Link
Reasonable, under the circumstances. Perry held discussions yesterday with representatives of the media organizations who wanted the names, pretty much to give them a chance to convince him. Better safe than sorry.
Perry's no Ito.
According to ABC News, Baez has received marriage proposals as well. It really looks like the bottom line is that if someone is on television frequently enough they become attractive to some people.
I think that the information we've received from the two jurors and alternate juror who have spoken out is very interesting. It seems like some truly believe it was an accident and that Casey is innocent, while other jurors believed that she was guilty but that there was not enough physical proof for a conviction. One juror said they were sick to their stomachs about having to return a not guilty plea. The alternate said he believes the defense's story and would have definitely voted for not guilty.
It's unfortunate that people are placing so much blame on the jurors. This would not have been an easy case to be on a jury panel for. I think the judge made a good decision keeping their names sealed.
It's unfortunate that people are placing so much blame on the jurors. This would not have been an easy case to be on a jury panel for. I think the judge made a good decision keeping their names sealed.
Yes, Perry seems to have handled the entire proceedings about as well as you could ask for. He didn't put up with much nonsense from either side, and his empathy for the jurors when they returned their verdict was immediately clear from his parting words to them.
I was talking to a friend about this who is an attorney and he was wondering if convictions without a body have now become impossible? This website has a list of several people convicted of 1st, 2nd degree murder and manslaughter all of which had no body and thus no physical evidence. And most relied on hearsay to make their cases.
The prosecution in the Casey case had better than most of the evidence that resulted in a conviction in these murders. The one below was especially telling.
The prosecution in the Casey case had better than most of the evidence that resulted in a conviction in these murders. The one below was especially telling.
The brother saw the mother take his brother into the woods and return without him. The boyfriend testified she wanted to kill her children. There wasn't that in the Anthony case.
I'm convinced that if Caylee had been found a heck of a lot sooner, in enough time that her tissues could've been analyzed, we could have found out if chloroform was in her system. If there had been conclusive evidence of that, I believe Casey would have been convicted.
I'm convinced that if Caylee had been found a heck of a lot sooner, in enough time that her tissues could've been analyzed, we could have found out if chloroform was in her system. If there had been conclusive evidence of that, I believe Casey would have been convicted.
Both accounts were hearsay and I'm surprised admissible in this trial. In other words, in both cases the people could have had a grudge with the mother and were attempting to make her appear guilty.
Apples and oranges, Tom. You can't compare this case with the Anthony case because you think they got it "right".
This is getting a little out of hand right now.
Last edited:
The Anthony prosecutors had a body. The remains were so decomposed that they didn't offer useful evidence.
The problem for the Anthony prosecutors wasn't lack of a body. It was lack of any substantial evidence against the defendant at all.
Citing examples of trials where someone was convicted because the jurors accepted bad evidence - hearsay - is not an argument that the Anthony jurors "got it wrong."
One of the mysteries of this case is why it took so long to find Caylee's body. Kronk called in reports of a suspicious object in the forested area near the Anthonys' home three times in August of 2008. It wasn't until he called back in December that the police conducted a search and found the body. What gives?
Let's recap so Tom can comprehend:
No body + plenty of motive + other evidence = conviction
Body - useful forensics - plausible motive = no conviction
No body + plenty of motive + other evidence = conviction
Body - useful forensics - plausible motive = no conviction
My intent [without trying to second guess the Anthony case nor the juries decision] was to discuss trials that have very circumstantial evidence and relate it back to the Anthony decision.
The point is that murder trials in past have resulted in convictions with substantially less evidence and in the case cited where only hearsay evidence existed.
It's just for me an interesting evolution in the way people evaluate evidence.
Is it possible that crime shows like CSI that use a ton of fictional forensic evidence has tainted modern juries?
And that BTW is a question not a statement on my part.
Many, many people felt the Casey's odd behavior = motive and other evidence -just not apparently this jury.
Every case is different. Trying to compare the results of one case to another is a pointless exercise because the circumstances are always different.
But that's circumstantial. That's not proof.
You might be interested to know that Sean Hannity agrees with you on this trial and over the last few days his regular conservative audiecne is furious with him about his position in agreement with the Anthony jury in this case.
They just executed a guy in Texas on what looks to me like much less evidence than was presented at Anthony's trial.
Despite a good process, there are bound to be unusual outcomes from time to time. As long as the process was followed correctly, we have to live with the outcome, and that's just all there is to it.
Of course, one juror has already stepped in it by stating they considered possible sentencing as part of their deliberations....
Despite a good process, there are bound to be unusual outcomes from time to time. As long as the process was followed correctly, we have to live with the outcome, and that's just all there is to it.
Of course, one juror has already stepped in it by stating they considered possible sentencing as part of their deliberations....
Similar threads
