July 7, 2011 at 2:51 am #134745
Any thoughts on the outcome?
July 7, 2011 at 1:01 pm #134771
How can anyone on a jury reconcile a supposed "drowning" with evidence that:
1 - the child was in the trunk of the defendant's car
2 - the discovery of remains that suggest there was duct tape over it's mouth
3 - searches on the use of chloroform
4 - the child was not reported "missing" until 30 days after when the grandmother made the call to 911
5 - the mother was partying immediately after the supposed date of death
Unbelievable. If I were on that jury, I would have stalled the whole process indefinitely, refusing to allow "not guilty."
Like OJ, fate will find her one way or another.
July 7, 2011 at 1:50 pm #134769
Quite shocked really. I didn't take part in the whole media frenzy aspect of the trial, but it definitely seemed like this one was pretty straightforward...hence the surprise of basically the entire nation at the verdict. As Andy said, it all does harken quite a bit back to the days of OJ.
July 7, 2011 at 1:56 pm #134767
I don't know. I haven't been following this at all, but I generally believe in the rule of law. The system says "beyond a reasonable doubt," and the jurors apparently felt there was reasonable doubt. I wasn't there for the death and I wasn't there for the trial, so I choose not to pass judgment.
July 7, 2011 at 3:37 pm #134765
Bryan Conway JD, PMPParticipant
Unfortunately, if you can't identify a cause of death, it is very difficult to hold someone accountable for murder.
July 7, 2011 at 6:12 pm #134763
Ugh. My heart aches, but I would hate to see a guilty verdict based solely on circumstantial evidence.
July 7, 2011 at 7:05 pm #134761
I was completely surprised by the verdict, granted I didn't really follow the trial, just listened to highlights of it every now and then. If she and/or other family members caused or helped to conceal the childs death, it really doesn't matter what the jury voted on. God will most certainly have the last say.
July 7, 2011 at 7:20 pm #134759
After reading the comments made by the jurors, who were far from happy with their verdict, it is obvious that the prosecution did not make it's case. By the letter of the law, the jury did what they had to do. Perhaps this is a case of the better lawyers choosing the more profitable private sector over public service. When the states attorneys are the "C" students who failed to be hired by the top flight defense firms, this is the American justice we get. If we keeping voting in congressmen who favor reducing the pay of public service workers, we had better get used to results like this.
July 7, 2011 at 8:20 pm #134757
Ed, this is a very interesting insight in my opinion. I have a relative who is a lawyer (private sector) who followed the case closely and couldn't stop harping on what a terrible job the prosecution did, and also had some unflattering opinions regarding the actions of the Judge. I totally agree that the outcome reflected the letter of the law and I seriously wonder (with no personal legal background) if the competency of the civil service lawyers, in general, is any match up against private industry. Quite a big question to think about....
July 7, 2011 at 8:39 pm #134755
Even over here in NZ we're following it, and everyone I know was "WTF??"
There's something dodgy going on if you feel you need to cover up an accidental pool drowning....
The law is the law and maybe there was no reasonable doubt. But still, not even child abuse, neglect, etc? She admitted to a cover up? Surely that's illegal too?
July 8, 2011 at 3:27 am #134753
That's just it. They can't even say how the kid died, so how can you say who did it?
I don't disagree that something dodgy went on, and someone sure as heck stuffed that kid's body in a bag and tossed it, but who? They don't even know how she died. Was she dead before she was tossed in that bag? After?
if there's no cause of death how can it be defined as murder? IIRC, the duct tape over her mouth was the only sign of foul play (beyond Casey not reporting the child missing for a month, and even that isn't foul play as much as it is neglect)
IMHO the prosecution focused on only one suspect and then filed charges, seemingly to hope the evidence would develop. It didn't.
It isn't as much as Casey got away with murder, it's that the prosecution couldn't prove that she did it. And now, thanks to double jeopardy, she could confess on national TV and they couldn't touch her.
I do think the biggest difference between this and OJ, this wasn't a case of 'best justice money can buy' as was with OJ and i think the monetary fund guy accused of rape, this is a case of poor prosecution and attorneys allowing the media and public dictate their time table and actions instead of waiting and doing it right.
July 8, 2011 at 11:40 am #134751
Bryan Conway JD, PMPParticipant
She was convicted of a number of lesser charges involving obstruction by lying to investigators. She will get credit for time already served, so in a few weeks, she will be released.
At best, she is a criminally negligent parent who covered up an accidental death. At worst, she is a calculated murderer. The result is tragic on a lot of different levels.
July 8, 2011 at 1:27 pm #134749
I definitely think that the whole family has something to do with it, I mean the mom and dad of Casey Anthony are very shady. I think it's sad that someone in that family has to know what happened to Caylee, and none of them are going to admit it and give her the justice she deserves. But I must say the outcome of the trial at least gives me some hope that the legal system is fair to all parties, and still functions as it should because the truth of the matter is that the prosecution did NOT prove beyond a reasonable doubt their case. There were just as too many assumptions and glitches, and to convict Casey of killing her daughter without any sufficient evidence is not fair and not how the crimnal justice system is meant to work. However I do believe the state will appeal and this will force them to look harder and possibly uncover some real truth! Until then hopefully karma takes care of all people deserving.
July 8, 2011 at 2:11 pm #134747
The point here is that she was not found "innocent": the prosecution simply did not prove that she did it "beyond a reasonable doubt". That is not the same as, "She didn't do it."
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.