or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Activism and News › The Casey Anthony Trial (Update: #1 on Caylee's Law)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Casey Anthony Trial (Update: #1 on Caylee's Law) - Page 2

post #21 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post


 


Or non-white.

 

The prosecutor was also snickering, or laughing during the defense closing, which is terrible manners, and very well could have had the jury questioning just how serious the prosecution really was about the whole case. 

 

I think the prosecution should have realized a LONG time ago that they didn't have enough evidence for Capital Murder.  They likely WOULD have gotten a conviction on a lesser charge - but they weren't trying for a conviction on a lesser charge - they wanted the death penalty. 

 

And yeah, she probably should have been charged with child abuse, or manslaughter.  Problem is, the Jury doesn't make the charges, they only make the verdict.  The prosecution simply didn't have enough evidence for capital murder, and they should have tried her on lesser charges.

 


The jury had the option to convict her of 1st degree, 2nd degree, or aggravated manslaughter - they found her not guilty of all three counts.
post #22 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by TCMoulton View Post



The jury had the option to convict her of 1st degree, 2nd degree, or aggravated manslaughter - they found her not guilty of all three counts.


And the prosecution did a really bad job of setting up the trial.  Aggravated Manslaughter isn't the easiest to prove either, b/c it requires that the defendant cause the death of the victim - and the prosecution couldn't prove that.  They couldn't prove anything, it was completely circumstantial.  Lesser Manslaughter charges might have worked though - b/c they would only need to prove a high degree of criminal negligence - which they could prove (based on not reporting for 30days, which was a fact, not supposition.  Or lying to police about a fictional nanny).

 

The prosecution messed up big time, plain and simple.

post #23 of 99

Negligent Homicide would have been pretty attainable as well. 

 

The prosecution overreached. 

 

post #24 of 99
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeannine View Post


 


I feel sick over the verdict, too.  

 

But if you listened to the judge's instructions to the jury, one was "To find her guilty, you must determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Caylee's death was caused by a premeditated criminal act on Casey's part" (my paraphrasing).  Unfortunately, I think that was a nearly insurmountable thing to overcome, given the circumstances.  Casey's outrageous, infuriating, narcissistic, mind-boggling behavior makes it seem obvious that WHATEVER happened was her fault...but no one knows what happened....

 

As far as our country, I'm glad we can't sentence people to death for being detestable.

 

I do, however, have grave doubts that a jury would've let Casey walk, if she were a father.

 

Premeditation was not the issue as there were several lesser charges -- second degree murder and third-degree murder (and possibly another, if I'm not mistaken).  Even if they could not prove premeditation, I do believe there was enough evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, to convict her of murder (second degree).

 

I'm not a huge fan of the death penalty and I've maintained from the beginning that I didn't believe that should have been an option. 

 

Yes, she would have been charged if she were a father.  If you look at Scott Peterson, there was far less evidence in that case and he is on death row.  There have been plenty of other woman convicted of murder with circumstantial evidence, but the fact this woman was young and attractive played in her favor, sadly.

post #25 of 99
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post


 


Or non-white.

 

The prosecutor was also snickering, or laughing during the defense closing, which is terrible manners, and very well could have had the jury questioning just how serious the prosecution really was about the whole case. 

 

I think the prosecution should have realized a LONG time ago that they didn't have enough evidence for Capital Murder.  They likely WOULD have gotten a conviction on a lesser charge - but they weren't trying for a conviction on a lesser charge - they wanted the death penalty. 

 

And yeah, she probably should have been charged with child abuse, or manslaughter.  Problem is, the Jury doesn't make the charges, they only make the verdict.  The prosecution simply didn't have enough evidence for capital murder, and they should have tried her on lesser charges.

 


They did.

 

post #26 of 99
Quote:

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

[I have grave doubts that the jury would've let Casey walk if she were a father...] Or non-white.

 


thumb.gif

 


Edited by VocalMinority - 7/5/11 at 6:20pm
post #27 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulvah View Post



 

Premeditation was not the issue as there were several lesser charges -- second degree murder and third-degree murder (and possibly another, if I'm not mistaken).  Even if they could not prove premeditation, I do believe there was enough evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, to convict her of murder (second degree).

 

Although I'm very interested in this case, I haven't had the time to follow every detail.  I did hear the judge discuss premeditation in the jury instructions, but perhaps he was only referring to the 1st degree charges.  I'd like to read more about the lesser options given.  That is interesting.

 

I'm not a huge fan of the death penalty and I've maintained from the beginning that I didn't believe that should have been an option. 

 

Yes, she would have been charged if she were a father.  If you look at Scott Peterson, there was far less evidence in that case and he is on death row.  There have been plenty of other woman convicted of murder with circumstantial evidence, but the fact this woman was young and attractive played in her favor, sadly.

 

That's exactly what I mean.  I think she would've been convicted, if she were Caylee's father.  There is a human tendency to want to punish someone (even if the evidence isn't terribly compelling) because you feel so outraged by the crime.  I think people find it easier to give in to that impulse, when they're punishing a man, than a woman - and perhaps you're right - a pretty, young woman, especially.  Stereotypes make us quicker to believe, when men are accused of being selfish, abusive, neglectful, murderous...but plenty of statistics suggest mothers are more likely to abuse - and to kill - their children.  I think the idea of murderous mothers goes SO against the grain of our stereotypes - is so unthinkable - that we either require a higher burden of proof before accepting it, or we are MUCH more willing to make excuses for her.  It wasn't really her fault.  She was abused.  Did anyone spend time assuming Scott Peterson was abused and perhaps not responsible for his personality?

 


 

post #28 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulvah View Post




They did.

 



But the "lesser" charges were all intentional murder charges, and they have no proof that she murdered the child, or that she intended to murder the child.  They could have gotten 1st, 2nd, or involuntary manslaughter, and gotten convictions.  I think pretty easily.  I do not believe that she should have been found guilty of an intentional murder when it was based solely on circumstantial evidence.  I think this is an example of the prosecution WAY overreaching. 

 

I also think it says something it was a jury of conservative, death penalty believing (all jurors who did not believe in the death penalty were excused automatically), jurors in Florida (which is a state that has a high death penalty rate), found her not-guilty.  The prosecution proceeded without a rock solid case - which is what you need for intentional murder.

post #29 of 99
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post

But the "lesser" charges were all intentional murder charges, and they have no proof that she murdered the child, or that she intended to murder the child.  They could have gotten 1st, 2nd, or involuntary manslaughter, and gotten convictions.  I think pretty easily.  I do not believe that she should have been found guilty of an intentional murder when it was based solely on circumstantial evidence.  I think this is an example of the prosecution WAY overreaching. 

 

I also think it says something it was a jury of conservative, death penalty believing (all jurors who did not believe in the death penalty were excused automatically), jurors in Florida (which is a state that has a high death penalty rate), found her not-guilty.  The prosecution proceeded without a rock solid case - which is what you need for intentional murder.

 

Actually, no.

 

One of the charges clearly states, "...Or by intentionally committing an act or actively encouraging another person to commit an act which could reasonably be expected to result in physical injury to CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY.” and the other states "...Did willfully or by culpable negligence, in violation of Florida Statites 782.07(3) and 827.0393), while a caregiver to Caylee Marie Anthony, a child under 18 years of age, fail or omit to provide CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY with the care, supervision and services necessary to maintain CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY’S physical and metal health, or fail to make a reasonable effort to protect CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY from abuse, neglect or exploitation by another person, and in so doing caused the death of CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY.”

 

I do not believe this was a death penalty case.  However, my assumption is that the prosecution believed the computer forensic evidence was strong enough to prove premeditation.  Either way, this is a travesty, as a murderer goes free and is now free to make millions off her murdered child.

post #30 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulvah View Post

 

Actually, no.

 

One of the charges clearly states, "...Or by intentionally committing an act [This requires the mental state of intent - which the prosecution had ZERO evidence of] or actively encouraging another person to commit an act which could reasonably be expected to result in physical injury [The prosecution also didn't have any evidence of Casey encouraging another person to kill Caylee] to CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY.” and the other states "...Did willfully or by culpable negligence, in violation of Florida Statites 782.07(3) and 827.0393), while a caregiver to Caylee Marie Anthony, a child under 18 years of age, fail or omit to provide CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY with the care, supervision and services necessary to maintain CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY’S physical and metal health, or fail to make a reasonable effort to protect CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY from abuse, neglect or exploitation by another person, and in so doing caused the death of CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY.”

 

I do not believe this was a death penalty case.  However, my assumption is that the prosecution believed the computer forensic evidence was strong enough to prove premeditation.  Either way, this is a travesty, as a murderer goes free and is now free to make millions off her murdered child.


The third one, the prosecution may have had the evidence to support, but they didn't use it.  The prosecution was shooting blind and trying to convince the jury with pure emotion - which isn't what the law is based on.

 

post #31 of 99
Thread Starter 

I don't intend to change your (general) opinion and my opinion is certainly not going to be changed. smile.gif  It is definitely enlightening to hear other opinions about this. 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulvah View Post

 

Actually, no.

 

One of the charges clearly states, "...Or by intentionally committing an act [This requires the mental state of intent - which the prosecution had ZERO evidence of] or actively encouraging another person to commit an act which could reasonably be expected to result in physical injury [The prosecution also didn't have any evidence of Casey encouraging another person to kill Caylee] to CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY.” and the other states "...Did willfully or by culpable negligence, in violation of Florida Statites 782.07(3) and 827.0393), while a caregiver to Caylee Marie Anthony, a child under 18 years of age, fail or omit to provide CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY with the care, supervision and services necessary to maintain CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY’S physical and metal health, or fail to make a reasonable effort to protect CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY from abuse, neglect or exploitation by another person, and in so doing caused the death of CAYLEE MARIE ANTHONY.”

 

I never once suggested she encouraged anyone else to kill Caylee and I'm sure you understand the law and know that charge does not only pertain to encouraging another to commit the act.  wink1.gif  My point is that there were lesser charges that did not include premeditation.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Postp

The third one, the prosecution may have had the evidence to support, but they didn't use it.  The prosecution was shooting blind and trying to convince the jury with pure emotion - which isn't what the law is based on.


I could not disagree more.  I believe they had plenty of evidence to prove culpable negligence.  Not calling 911 when your child is missing (drowned, killed, kidnapped, I don't care!) is negligent.  One of the facts in this case, with video evidence, is that she claimed the child was kidnapped and by not calling 911, that goes directly to culpable negligence because she put that child at risk for harm or murder.

post #32 of 99

Apparently morning sickness isn't the only thing making me want to puke today. What a horrible verdict.

 

Injustice has been served. In a way, "freedom" will be like prison for a while for Casey, though. The sheer amount of people who hate her guts right now does not shock me. What will it be like for her to go to the grocery store? To the mall with one of her boyfriends? Sure, a few years from now, or less, people will stop talking about her. Some will even forget her face. But the next 6 months at least will be tough. To be such a hated member of society has to be nearly impossible to live a normal life, I can only imagine.

 

The biggest issue at hand is the death sentence. All it takes is more than half of the jury members to be morally against it and even if enough evidence was provided (which there was), they won't convict her because they don't believe she should be killed for killing. I don't know if that was even the case, but it wouldn't surprise me. I am not against the death sentence for cases like this. 

 

My heart goes out to her daughter, and Casey's parents, but I cannot, and will never understand Casey's immature, spoiled, narcissistic brain. There is no doubt in my mind that she killed her own daughter, and I will continue to be sick about this for awhile.

 

I gave my 2 year old a big fat hug today. I am thankful that he is in a family that loves him, would never hurt him, protects him and would search for him with sleepless nights if he was ever lost. It sickens me that some toddlers are not so fortunate, but that's our world for ya.

 

Casey Anthony: Please don't breed again.

post #33 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulvah View Post

I don't intend to change your (general) opinion and my opinion is certainly not going to be changed. smile.gif  It is definitely enlightening to hear other opinions about this. 

 

 

 

I never once suggested she encouraged anyone else to kill Caylee and I'm sure you understand the law and know that charge does not only pertain to encouraging another to commit the act.  wink1.gif  My point is that there were lesser charges that did not include premeditation.

 

The problem is, not only did not have evidence of pre-meditation, they had NO evidence whatsoever that she intentionally injured or killed her child.  They didn't show evidence of that!  They showed a photo of her partying, which isn't evidence that she intentionally killed her kid.  Also, I'm an attorney, so I do understand the law and the different mental states required by different statutes - the prosecution didn't do their job.  They didn't prove anything, they just made a bunch of assumptions and tried to convince the jury without any proof.  Their case was full of holes.

 


I could not disagree more.  I believe they had plenty of evidence to prove culpable negligence.  Not calling 911 when your child is missing (drowned, killed, kidnapped, I don't care!) is negligent.  One of the facts in this case, with video evidence, is that she claimed the child was kidnapped and by not calling 911, that goes directly to culpable negligence because she put that child at risk for harm or murder.


I agree that they had evidence, I just don't think it was presented well.  The prosecution was also laughing during the defense closing - and there is NOTHING acceptable about that.  Particularly in a capital case - ALL members of legal teams need to be on their best court room behavior at all times, b/c you don't know what the jury is going to think about how you're acting.  The prosecutor screwed up BIG TIME. 

 

I don't know who killed the little girl, but the prosecution had no business charging Casey Anthony with Capital Murder, or any crimes that required intent to kill, or intent to cause harm, since they had no evidence of her intent.  And no, a photo of her partying and getting drunk doesn't provide evidence of intent.

 

post #34 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celticqueen View Post

The biggest issue at hand is the death sentence. All it takes is more than half of the jury members to be morally against it and even if enough evidence was provided (which there was), they won't convict her because they don't believe she should be killed for killing. I don't know if that was even the case, but it wouldn't surprise me. I am not against the death sentence for cases like this. 


Potential jurors who stated that they were against the death penalty were excused - ALL the jurors were OK with the death penalty.  That alone makes me think the jury did their job well, b/c if any jury was going find her guilty, it was a pro-death penalty one in Florida (which is a state that has a LOT of people on death row).

 

post #35 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post




Potential jurors who stated that they were against the death penalty were excused - ALL the jurors were OK with the death penalty.  That alone makes me think the jury did their job well, b/c if any jury was going find her guilty, it was a pro-death penalty one in Florida (which is a state that has a LOT of people on death row).

 


Thanks for clarifying. As I said before, I didn't know

 

post #36 of 99
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post
 

I never once suggested she encouraged anyone else to kill Caylee and I'm sure you understand the law and know that charge does not only pertain to encouraging another to commit the act.  wink1.gif  My point is that there were lesser charges that did not include premeditation.

 

The problem is, not only did not have evidence of pre-meditation, they had NO evidence whatsoever that she intentionally injured or killed her child.  They didn't show evidence of that!  They showed a photo of her partying, which isn't evidence that she intentionally killed her kid....

 

I agree that they had evidence, I just don't think it was presented well.  The prosecution was also laughing during the defense closing - and there is NOTHING acceptable about that.  Particularly in a capital case - ALL members of legal teams need to be on their best court room behavior at all times, b/c you don't know what the jury is going to think about how you're acting.  The prosecutor screwed up BIG TIME. 

 

I don't know who killed the little girl, but the prosecution had no business charging Casey Anthony with Capital Murder, or any crimes that required intent to kill, or intent to cause harm, since they had no evidence of her intent.  And no, a photo of her partying and getting drunk doesn't provide evidence of intent.

 

 

I've mentioned this before, but the computer results speak for themselves in terms of premeditation.  (Premeditation wasn't even my point as I've already stated a few times.)  And, yes, that isn't exactly a video of her committing the crime, but computer evidence (in any case where it is utilised) can be damning and has aided in many convictions.  I also believe they had evidence of intent; we will simply not agree on that.

 

I don't think it's acceptable to laugh during closing, but I don't believe that had much to do with the jury's decision.  And, if it did, well, the jury just wasn't following the law.  Further, I won't even delve into the lack of professionalism exhibited by Baez.  It seems many give him a pass, though, because unlike Ashton, this is his first rodeo. Regardless, I can agree that Ashton was not professional in his hand-covering snicker.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Celticqueen View Post

The biggest issue at hand is the death sentence. All it takes is more than half of the jury members to be morally against it and even if enough evidence was provided (which there was), they won't convict her because they don't believe she should be killed for killing. I don't know if that was even the case, but it wouldn't surprise me. I am not against the death sentence for cases like this.


There was a juror that had "misgivings" about the death penalty, a juror who "thought" s/he could impose the death penalty, but didn't like to judge people, and a juror who "guessed" s/he could impose it.  I, personally, do not feel this was a DP case and I couldn't sentence someone like this to death, but it doesn't even begin to answer why she was acquitted.  

 

post #37 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama View Post




Potential jurors who stated that they were against the death penalty were excused - ALL the jurors were OK with the death penalty.  That alone makes me think the jury did their job well, b/c if any jury was going find her guilty, it was a pro-death penalty one in Florida (which is a state that has a LOT of people on death row).

 


The jury did not do their job well, IMO. Juror number three did an interview and she said that the state didn't prove COD or motive. They were specifically instructed that the state did not, under the law, have to prove this. This jury didn't understand the basic jury instructions. 

 

This whole thing makes me sad. 

 

post #38 of 99
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovingmommyhood View Post




The jury did not do their job well, IMO. Juror number three did an interview and she said that the state didn't prove COD or motive. They were specifically instructed that the state did not, under the law, have to prove this. This jury didn't understand the basic jury instructions. 

 

This whole thing makes me sad. 

 


The state may not have HAD to prove cause of death (as in, what actually caused Caylee to die - drowning for example), but the state DID have to prove that Casey KILLED her, with intent and pre-meditation, in order for the jury to convict (the level of "intent" varied based on the charges, and not all charges required pre-meditation).  The state did not prove that Casey KILLED Caylee, the state proved that Caylee died and that Casey partied afterwards - that doesn't mean Casey Killed Caylee.

 

The fact that Caylee died is most certainly sad.  The fact that the prosecution overreached when they couldn't prove what they needed to, is also sad.  But its not sad that the jury did what they were told - there wasn't enough evidence. 

 

post #39 of 99
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovingmommyhood View Post

The jury did not do their job well, IMO. Juror number three did an interview and she said that the state didn't prove COD or motive. They were specifically instructed that the state did not, under the law, have to prove this. This jury didn't understand the basic jury instructions. 

 

This whole thing makes me sad. 

 


I agree, they didn't, and even with a NG verdict, I would have expected a bit more time to discuss things, look at evidence, etc.  One of the jurors also discussed punishment, which was clearly against Judge Perry's orders to them (as is standard).

 

They did not have to prove premeditation on every charge and further, they only had to prove that Casey's actions were neglectful and that those actions led to Caylee's death to get a conviction.  Clearly there was enough admitted evidence for that. I believe their interest in rushing through instructions they truly didn't understand allowed a murderess to go free. 

 

You know, it's kinda interesting that the Amanda Brumfield case was in Orlando.  They had a lot less evidence in that case and yet, she was convicted of manslaughter.  I wonder if things would have gone a little differently had the prosecution spent time explaining the law to the jury during their closing arguments.

post #40 of 99

I think they proved her negligence caused Caylee's death and in not finding that, the jury made a mistake. The fact that they didn't really review anything (tapes, transcripts, etc) or ask any questions is unreal. In a case like this, there are usually many questions from the jury.

 

I often hear people brag about how they got out of jury duty. Well, when intelligent people get out of it, this is what we are left with.

 

I did hear that one juror said they were crying and sick and just couldn't deal with it anymore.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Activism and News
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Natural Living › Activism and News › The Casey Anthony Trial (Update: #1 on Caylee's Law)