In many hit-and-run cases they use circumstantial evidence to convict the driver. e.g. damage consistent with the accident and so on.
CASEY ANTHONY: what do you think will happen.
- Thread starter Flying Spaghetti Monster
- Start date
In many hit-and-run cases they use circumstantial evidence to convict the driver. e.g. damage consistent with the accident and so on.
Then, as you admit you haven't, "many of us" haven't heard the evidence. Please state the evidence you think should have convicted her in this case (you know, the evidence you "didn't sit through" yet state is "more" than some "hit and run" cases). Please. I'd love to hear it.
There was no evidence linking the death with Casey Anthony. None. Most sheeple are basing their condemnation of Casey from what they've heard about her actions after the disappearance. Even the defense admitted she acted poorly. But that's still not evidence of murder, manslaughter, or even child abuse.
The prosecution was laughable. They proved nothing. They went from chloroform to duct tape as the murder weapon in the same trial.
Anyone that thinks she's guilty needs to spend the four hours watching the defense closing statements. You may still think she's guilty after that (and you of course have every right to your "gut feeling"), but there's no way you'll think she should have been convicted of murder, manslaughter, or child abuse. The defense ripped every piece of "evidence" the prosecution presented to shreds.
Which works when you have two damaged vehicles to compare. Not a comparable situation here.
But the starting point for that prosecution would be proof that the defendant was actually driving the car when the hit-and-run occurred. Damage to the car is important, but doesn't prove that the guy in the dock was there when it was inflicted. Only once you show that the defendant was the guy driving, by whatever evidence there may be (security camera footage, eyewitness account) can you then address the level of homicide (involuntary manslaughter through murder). In other words, the damage to the car only shows, forensically, that this car was involved in that accident. Without more, it does not show who was there.
Likewise, here, as I said, there was no evidence presented that Casey Anthony was present at the child's death -- they didn't even prove cause of death -- beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no doubt that the child died; there was little or no evidence presented that Casey Anthony was involved in that death.
Really. There is nothing more disappointing for a prosecutor than to hear a "not guilty" verdict on a case you've poured your heart and soul into for months or years. But the fact that it was a not guilty verdict and not a mistrial, means that none of the 12 people were ultimately convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. It's disturbing to hear commentators deride the jury, as if they were stupid. The prosecution didn't prove its case to any of them. If the evidence were that strong, they would have come out to tell the judge that they could not reach a unanimous verdict.
Last edited:
I understand the problems in the case. For many people Ms. Anthony's troth telling problems + her odd behavior + what seemed to be a lack of remorse over her daughter's death = guilty.
But I also understand that this doesn't pass a legal hurdle of guilt.
What does however seem to be a slam dunk case for the prosecution if they should choose to pursue it after this trial is a perjury trial on Casey's mother who claimed she was the one looking up chloroform on the internet at the home computer when they can prove she was at work when she said she allegedly did it.
glad you agree
she was guilty - the prosecution failed in its job - but it doesn't change anything. she killed her kid and got away with it.
she was guilty - the prosecution failed in its job - but it doesn't change anything. she killed her kid and got away with it.
The damning thing for me was that Casey lied all that time and didn't file a report. She lied to her parents about a nanny that didn't exist and partied for a month.
Whether they can prove that, based on electronic records and the reliability of her supervisor's testimony, is what would actually be decided at trial (if the company permitted falsification of work records for purposes of informal "comp time" they're in deep shit). They could probably get a conviction, but they won't try her.
We've just been down this road about what's "proven" before a case is presented in court with the accused represented by counsel, right?
Assistant State's Attorney Jeff Ashton is retiring at the end of the week. It's doubtful that the prosecutors' office has any appetite left for anything to do with this debacle. Doubtless questions are being raised about why the case was prosecuted under these circumstances at all.
You know, if the jury had considered any part of the evidence persuasive at all they might have asked to review/examine it before returning a "not guilty." The jurors haven't talked, but the one alternate who has paints a very bleak picture of the prosecution's failures across the board.
Dude. Opening and closing arguments are NOT evidence. You cannot make an educated decision or judgement by watching either. Watching "four hours of defense's closing arguments" and then making a judgement is as laughable as calling those of us who KNOW the facts of the case "sheeple"
That those twelve people couldn't add common sense to the evidence that was presented to them is pretty sad.
You've hit the nail on the head. There simply was a lack of conclusive evidence about how this little girl died. Yeah, I'm inclined to think she is guilty of at least manslaughter, but as a guy sitting here typing his opinion on the internet, my opinion means nothing, and there are no consequences for what I believe.
But if I was a juror, then it's a totally different story. The opinion of the jurors could have sent her to the gas chamber, and thus their opinions have very serious consequences. So they had to be a little more discriminating than somebody just opining on the internet.
At first I was outraged by the verdict, but the more I think about it, and after reading the alternate juror's remarks, I'm not sure they could have done anything other than what they did. We are a country that abides by the "rule of law" and not emotion, and the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof. And as angry/sad as that might make some of us, I thank God for the rule of law and not mob rule. And I'd rather see a 100 guilty people go free than one innocent person go to jail or worse, to their death.
I know the facts of this case - that is, the evidence as it was presented by the prosecution - and it doesn't even come close to adding up to a murder one conviction. The outcome of this case was predicated on having twelve jurors who could think for themselves and took their duty seriously, and a prosecution that failed to make their case. In retrospect there's nothing eccentric or mysterious in how it arrived at this result.
You simply cannot fairly and in justice send someone to the gas chamber for being an irresponsible, unlikeable liar when there's not enough evidence that they committed a criminal act to persuade twelve responsible jurors. Now, if you could it might dissuade a lot of people from running for political office, but that's neither here nor there.
You simply cannot fairly and in justice send someone to the gas chamber for being an irresponsible, unlikeable liar when there's not enough evidence that they committed a criminal act to persuade twelve responsible jurors. Now, if you could it might dissuade a lot of people from running for political office, but that's neither here nor there.
Last edited:
It occurs to me that juries seem to be actually changing - at least this one did when it comes to lies and how they hold people who do lie culpable at a murder trial versus forensic evidence.
In the OJ Simpson trial the jury discarded forensic evidence and basically acquitted him for Mark Furham's past and his lies.
In this trial Anthony is getting a pass on the lies when is comes to whether she committed murder or not and the jury put a lot of weight in forensic evidence.
In the OJ case, the jury distrusted the veracity of the officer who was in charge of the evidence, and therefore distrusted the evidence.
Anthony wasn't on trial for lying, and when you put all of the forensic evidence together, there were gaps in the story. The jury was required to resolve those gaps in favor of the defendant, which is what the innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable standard is.
We as viewers are accustomed to filling in blanks in order to make the narrative work. The juror's job is the opposite; they can't say, oh well, it might have happened this way or that way -- it's the prosecutor's job to prove BRD that it happened substantially the way they charged it in the indictment.
I'm really not in the mood to debate this any more, or argue about it. I'd just like to put this question out there:
Why didn't Casey Anthony report her child missing? Thirty one days passed before a phone call was made to the police by THE GRANDMOTHER. Casey Anthony then told police on the phone that she "had been conducting her own investigation."
Apparently partying every night = investigating.
Just answer that question. WHY DIDNT SHE REPORT THE CHILD MISSING?
And, with that, i'm done. Obviously no one's mind is going to change. And it doesnt matter whether anyone does change their mind or not. The case is over, and there's nothing else to be done.
Why didn't Casey Anthony report her child missing? Thirty one days passed before a phone call was made to the police by THE GRANDMOTHER. Casey Anthony then told police on the phone that she "had been conducting her own investigation."
Apparently partying every night = investigating.
Just answer that question. WHY DIDNT SHE REPORT THE CHILD MISSING?
And, with that, i'm done. Obviously no one's mind is going to change. And it doesnt matter whether anyone does change their mind or not. The case is over, and there's nothing else to be done.
^ We can take some solace in this, though: Whether or not Casey killed her daughter, she will have to live with it for the rest of her life. Murder, negligent homicide, or just being a stuck-up flighty bitch...whatever she's done, that'll be the monkey on her back until the end of days.
It might be comforting to think that she feels guilty over Caylee's death but there's no way to be certain that's the case.
Exactly so. Once you introduce real doubt about the handling of evidence, the evidence as presented is almost beside the point.
Something to note, though, is that Simpson's "dream team" brought a lot of expertise and focus to bear on jury selection and arguably accomplished something there in terms of a friendly jury. That isn't the case in the Anthony trial, beyond the norm for jury selection. They even impaneled at least one person who has a police officer in the family - I've been called up for jury duty four times, and I've never seen a defense team let either someone with police in the family or someone who identifies as having been the victim of a violent crime be seated.
Yep. And I don't know about you, but I've known more than a couple of people who seem to live comfortably with being "stuck-up flighty bitches" without finding it too much of a back-monkey.
Frankly, if Anthony is indeed as bad as some have painted her then she's probably so lacking in empathy and the ability to form human connections that guilt feelings are not going to be a big part of the equation.
Why did Anthony lie about the whereabouts of Caylee for a month?
Most likely because she knew something horrible had happened to the child and that she was going to be in big, big trouble if it were found out. Since she's a pathological liar - she's got an adult history of lying for no reason at all, about almost anything, "lying when the truth would do as well" as the saying goes - obviously lying when she'd done something bad or participated in doing something bad would be her natural response.
None of which comes anywhere close to providing a scrap of evidence, much less meeting the legal burden of proof that she committed premeditated murder. To find twelve people irresponsible enough to convict on the evidence presented would, in retrospect, have been pretty remarkable (and awful).
Last edited:
Last summer, I was called for jury duty and seated on a criminal case. I am a federal prosecutor. When the judge asked me if I thought I could be fair and impartial, I told him that I understood, probably more than most, the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Neither the assistant district attorney nor the defense challenged me. (Unfortunately, the case mistried because of a discovery violation, so I never got to see how a jury deliberates.)
You get the next round of MA duty.
Similar threads
