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

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-26-2011, 09:29 AM - Thread Starter
 
Mulvah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

I try to distance myself from these types of things, but sometimes I can't.  I much prefer to watch a trial than to listen/watch/read the news on cases, especially one like this.  Anyhow, so far I'm really disgusted by the defense attorney, not only by the defense theory, but also his tactics in dealing with witnesses.  I think he is preying on a hurt family, utilizing this case for his "15 minutes", and is trying to confuse the jury.  I sincerely hope the jury can cut through the BS on this one.  So far, the defense theory has more holes than Emmental.

 


Edited:  For those interested in some articles, this is an interesting article titled "Casey Anthony Verdict: A Jury of Idiots or Hapless Peers?".  In the last paragraph the article basically says that trials like this are a sporting event in this country, whereas, in other countries the prosecution and defense work to uncover the truth.  It then states that this type of scenario (a lack of justice) does not happen as frequently in other countries because of the aforementioned setup.

 

Also, for those interested in signing a petition regarding Caylee's Law, you can go here.  And, four states are already working on Caylee's Law - Florida, Oklahoma, Maryland, and Kentucky.  smile.gif  If you would like some type of justice for this little girl, please contact your senator, representatives, etc.  If anyone is reading this, Ohio and New Hampshire are also considering proposing this law.

 

Petition for Caylee's LawHere is the petition for Caylee's Law.

Contact InformationHere is a list of contact information for Senators and here is information for Representatives.  Here is also another list that you may find helpful.

Mulvah is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 05-26-2011, 09:50 AM
 
Maurine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,308
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I have a friend who watches it during the day and fills me in.  That defense attorney sounds terrible!  He keeps getting in trouble with the judge.

 

I think Casey is in a heap of trouble...that defense is not convicing me one bit!


#1 stork-boy.gif born after IVF.

Maurine is offline  
Old 05-28-2011, 05:22 PM - Thread Starter
 
Mulvah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Maurine View Post

I have a friend who watches it during the day and fills me in.  That defense attorney sounds terrible!  He keeps getting in trouble with the judge.

 

I think Casey is in a heap of trouble...that defense is not convicing me one bit!



Baez still continues to get into trouble with the judge. 

Mulvah is offline  
Old 05-28-2011, 05:50 PM
 
TCMoulton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Posts: 4,079
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
Jose Baez really is an amateur when it comes to major cases as believe this is his first. His tactics when questioning George Anthony and Casey's attitude in court really tick me off. I just Hope the jury sees her for who she truly is - a murderer.
TCMoulton is offline  
Old 07-05-2011, 12:34 PM - Thread Starter
 
Mulvah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

I am sick over the verdict.  I honestly feel ill that I live in this country right now.

Mulvah is offline  
Old 07-05-2011, 12:41 PM
 
Drummer's Wife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Land of Enchantment
Posts: 11,487
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

yeah, wow. 


ribboncesarean.gif cesareans happen.
Drummer's Wife is offline  
Old 07-05-2011, 12:47 PM
 
insidevoice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I was happy with the verdict.  My opinion isn't based on whether or not I thought she did something to cause harm to her child, but based on the case presented by the state.  They did a wonderful job of character assassination, but that isn't enough to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  T

 

I don't feel it is my place to pass judgement on her actions or her parenting.  It is the State's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In this situation, they proved that she isn't a good person, but they couldn't make the connections for the rest. 

insidevoice is offline  
Old 07-05-2011, 12:53 PM - Thread Starter
 
Mulvah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by insidevoice View Post

I was happy with the verdict.  My opinion isn't based on whether or not I thought she did something to cause harm to her child, but based on the case presented by the state.  They did a wonderful job of character assassination, but that isn't enough to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  T

 

I don't feel it is my place to pass judgement on her actions or her parenting.  It is the State's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In this situation, they proved that she isn't a good person, but they couldn't make the connections for the rest. 

 

Please help me understand it because I feel sick to my stomach with the verdict and I truly want to understand.  Reasonable doubt does not mean no doubt.  I am just baffled. 

 

I really want to understand, I do, so no snark intended at all.  How do you explain the duct tape over Caylee's mouth?  How do you explain the smell of decomposition in the car?  How do you explain not calling 911 if it were an accidental drowning (which is very common in FL)?  How do you explain partying, a "Beautiful Life" tattoo, etc. after knowing your child drowned in a pool?  How do you explain lying about a babysitter kidnapping your child when you supposedly knew it was an accidental drowning?

Mulvah is offline  
Old 07-05-2011, 01:34 PM
 
KatWrangler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Affton, MO
Posts: 10,794
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I don't get it.  I am shocked with the verdict.


Anne, Mama to Conner 2/27/04 blahblah.gif  Gabrielle 2/6/06 W/LMC-TCS, Neurogenic Bladder, AFO & KAFO wearer, Neurogenic Bowel energy.gif & Delaney 5/12/08 mischievous.gif &  Beethoven cat.gif& Gizmo cat.gif

KatWrangler is offline  
Old 07-05-2011, 01:49 PM
 
insidevoice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

The state didn't make any case about an accidental drowning.  That's just the point.  The state tried to paint a picture of a violent mother who actively killed her child, they didn't have concrete evidence to make that case.   

 

Simply put, they couldn't put the duct tape in her hand as the cause of death. 

 

Smells in cars can be caued by many things, and if push came to shove the argument could be made that the body WAS in the car, but that doesn't mean that Casey actively killed the child.  Once the defense introduced accidental death as a consideration it changed the trial.  The state had to prove that she killed her daughter, AND that it was premeditated.  They never had the evidence to do that and would have been better off going forward with ONLY the manslaughter charge- as they could have focused more on the evidence instead of Casey's actions. 

 

The behavior is explained simply by saying that she reacted badly- out of fear, out of grief out of anything- people react in different ways and even just plain STUPID ways.  The argument can be made that the tattoo was a tribute by a loving mother celebrating her daughter's life.  Her partying was an attempt to escape from a reality she couldn't cope with, the lies can be written off as someone trying to deny the reality of a horrible situation.  Whether I believe that or not is of no consequence.  They are all legally plausible explanations, and are together enough to create legal reasonable doubt. 

 

If people are upset with the verdict, they need to look not at the defendant, but at the prosecution, who thought it was a slam-dunk case and went forward when they shouldn't have. 

insidevoice is offline  
Old 07-05-2011, 02:06 PM
 
catlvr976's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, Pa
Posts: 423
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I was wondering, as I haven't really foloowed the case....who/where is the little girls' father? 


Jessica, dizzy.gifmom to 3 little ladiesjumpers.gif and babygirl.gif babyboy.gif twins who can't figure out where her avatar came from.

catlvr976 is offline  
Old 07-05-2011, 02:13 PM - Thread Starter
 
Mulvah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by insidevoice View Post

The state didn't make any case about an accidental drowning.  That's just the point.  The state tried to paint a picture of a violent mother who actively killed her child, they didn't have concrete evidence to make that case.   

 

Simply put, they couldn't put the duct tape in her hand as the cause of death. 

 

Smells in cars can be caued by many things, and if push came to shove the argument could be made that the body WAS in the car, but that doesn't mean that Casey actively killed the child.  Once the defense introduced accidental death as a consideration it changed the trial.  The state had to prove that she killed her daughter, AND that it was premeditated.  They never had the evidence to do that and would have been better off going forward with ONLY the manslaughter charge- as they could have focused more on the evidence instead of Casey's actions. 

 

The behavior is explained simply by saying that she reacted badly- out of fear, out of grief out of anything- people react in different ways and even just plain STUPID ways.  The argument can be made that the tattoo was a tribute by a loving mother celebrating her daughter's life.  Her partying was an attempt to escape from a reality she couldn't cope with, the lies can be written off as someone trying to deny the reality of a horrible situation.  Whether I believe that or not is of no consequence.  They are all legally plausible explanations, and are together enough to create legal reasonable doubt. 

 

If people are upset with the verdict, they need to look not at the defendant, but at the prosecution, who thought it was a slam-dunk case and went forward when they shouldn't have. 


Thanks for sharing your opinion!

 

The state's theory has nothing to do with an accidental drowning, so they would have no reason to push that theory in one way or other.  That said, the chief medical examiner said in 100% of the accidental drowning cases they see, 911 is called.  They've also shown doubt that the ladder was actually up that day (no records indicating Cindy called George when she said she did and Cindy changing her statement).

 

As for the smell, have you ever smelled a dead body?  There is no other smell like it, so you can't really confuse it with anything else.  Sorry.

 

I don't believe the prosecution thought this was a slam-dunk case, nor do I think they went forward when they shouldn't have.  There was plenty of evidence in the case (duct tape that was proved to have been taken from their home, car smell, decomposition on hair, the chief medical examiner saying 100% of accidental drowning victims were called into 911, etc., etc., as I won't list it all).  That said, I do not think this was a death penalty case.

 

Did/do you believe Scott Peterson was guilty?

Mulvah is offline  
Old 07-05-2011, 02:15 PM - Thread Starter
 
Mulvah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by catlvr976 View Post

I was wondering, as I haven't really foloowed the case....who/where is the little girls' father? 


 

It's unknown and will probably remain unknown as Casey refuses to be honest about it.  She did make a claim on one guy and he acted as a father until he got a paternity test.

Mulvah is offline  
Old 07-05-2011, 02:32 PM
 
insidevoice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulvah View Post




Thanks for sharing your opinion!

 

The state's theory has nothing to do with an accidental drowning, so they would have no reason to push that theory in one way or other.  That said, the chief medical examiner said in 100% of the accidental drowning cases they see, 911 is called.  They've also shown doubt that the ladder was actually up that day (no records indicating Cindy called George when she said she did and Cindy changing her statement).

 

Oh, I absolutely realize that wasn't their case.  In fact, I'm not sure they were anticipating it as an opening statement.  However, once that came about, they needed to change their approach. 

 

As for the smell, have you ever smelled a dead body?  There is no other smell like it, so you can't really confuse it with anything else.  Sorry.

 

I've had the unfortunate experience on a couple occasions (I've worked in emergency medical response, and I also have been involved in search and rescue as well as emergency response to natural disasters. I won't dispute that there is nothing else quite like it (other than other large dead animals.)  I wouldn't dispute that there was evidence of decomposition in the vehicle, in fact.  The problem is proving that Casey actually murdered the child. 

 

I don't believe the prosecution thought this was a slam-dunk case, nor do I think they went forward when they shouldn't have.  There was plenty of evidence in the case (duct tape that was proved to have been taken from their home, car smell, decomposition on hair, the chief medical examiner saying 100% of accidental drowning victims were called into 911, etc., etc., as I won't list it all).  That said, I do not think this was a death penalty case.

 

 

I think it shouldn't have been a capital murder case. They did have a great deal of evidence, and if they had simply gone forward with manslaughter or negligent homicide, I suspect there would have been a conviction. They pressed on with  it as a capital murder case because there was a lot of pressure from the public to go forward with it as such. 

 

 

 

Did/do you believe Scott Peterson was guilty?

 

Honestly, whether I think someone is guilty or not isn't how I look at things like this.  My interest lies in whether or not the state meets the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  I've spent the last couple years working on a court monitoring program in my state that focuses on violent crimes - including murders- related to domestic violence. About six months into it, I realized I couldn't look at things through my eyes any longer.  I learned to analyze it only through the legal system as it exists, to watch the cases as they are presented, and it was really hard for me to accept that the defense has absolutely no obligation to prove that the defendant is innocent.  They only need to prove that the prosecution doesn't have an airtight case.  For someone who is absolutely outraged at violence perpetrated by family members, and who has been active in domestic violence outreach and education since I was very young I struggle with this.  I had to turn off my emotional response while evaluating cases, and since then, I can't let myself look at it from a 'what I think' point of view. 

 

 



 

insidevoice is offline  
Old 07-05-2011, 03:05 PM - Thread Starter
 
Mulvah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)

I guess the prosecutor's worst fear came true - common sense just isn't common.  Sad.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by insidevoice View Post


Originally Posted by Mulvah View Post




Thanks for sharing your opinion!

 

The state's theory has nothing to do with an accidental drowning, so they would have no reason to push that theory in one way or other.  That said, the chief medical examiner said in 100% of the accidental drowning cases they see, 911 is called.  They've also shown doubt that the ladder was actually up that day (no records indicating Cindy called George when she said she did and Cindy changing her statement).

 

Oh, I absolutely realize that wasn't their case.  In fact, I'm not sure they were anticipating it as an opening statement.  However, once that came about, they needed to change their approach. 

 

As for the smell, have you ever smelled a dead body?  There is no other smell like it, so you can't really confuse it with anything else.  Sorry.

 

I've had the unfortunate experience on a couple occasions (I've worked in emergency medical response, and I also have been involved in search and rescue as well as emergency response to natural disasters. I won't dispute that there is nothing else quite like it (other than other large dead animals.)  I wouldn't dispute that there was evidence of decomposition in the vehicle, in fact.  The problem is proving that Casey actually murdered the child. 

 

I don't believe the prosecution thought this was a slam-dunk case, nor do I think they went forward when they shouldn't have.  There was plenty of evidence in the case (duct tape that was proved to have been taken from their home, car smell, decomposition on hair, the chief medical examiner saying 100% of accidental drowning victims were called into 911, etc., etc., as I won't list it all).  That said, I do not think this was a death penalty case.

 

 

I think it shouldn't have been a capital murder case. They did have a great deal of evidence, and if they had simply gone forward with manslaughter or negligent homicide, I suspect there would have been a conviction. They pressed on with  it as a capital murder case because there was a lot of pressure from the public to go forward with it as such. 

 

 

 

Did/do you believe Scott Peterson was guilty?

 

Honestly, whether I think someone is guilty or not isn't how I look at things like this.  My interest lies in whether or not the state meets the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  I've spent the last couple years working on a court monitoring program in my state that focuses on violent crimes - including murders- related to domestic violence. About six months into it, I realized I couldn't look at things through my eyes any longer.  I learned to analyze it only through the legal system as it exists, to watch the cases as they are presented, and it was really hard for me to accept that the defense has absolutely no obligation to prove that the defendant is innocent.  They only need to prove that the prosecution doesn't have an airtight case.  For someone who is absolutely outraged at violence perpetrated by family members, and who has been active in domestic violence outreach and education since I was very young I struggle with this.  I had to turn off my emotional response while evaluating cases, and since then, I can't let myself look at it from a 'what I think' point of view. 

 

 

Do you think she did murder her child regardless of what you believe the evidence shows?

 

I can't tell if you want to skirt the question or not, but, do you believe Scott Peterson should have been found guilty based upon the evidence?

Mulvah is offline  
Old 07-05-2011, 03:25 PM
 
insidevoice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulvah View Post

I guess the prosecutor's worst fear came true - common sense just isn't common.  Sad.
 

 

Do you think she did murder her child regardless of what you believe the evidence shows?

 

I can't tell if you want to skirt the question or not, but, do you believe Scott Peterson should have been found guilty based upon the evidence?


I guess my point is that what I think doesn't really matter.  Nor should it. 

 

From an entirely personal point of view- yes, I think Casey was involved in her daughter's death, and yes, I think Scott Peterson murdered his wife. In the Peterson case, I think the prosecution did a better job of putting the pieces together.  I still don't think it should have been a capital case, but they did make a better case.  Also, as someone vehemently opposed to the death penalty, I find anything short of a videotape of the crime and 50 eyewitnesses with perfect recall and impeccable character (yes, I realize that doesn't happen) insufficient evidence for a capital case. 

insidevoice is offline  
Old 07-05-2011, 04:10 PM - Thread Starter
 
Mulvah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)


Quote:
Originally Posted by insidevoice View Post




I guess my point is that what I think doesn't really matter.  Nor should it. 

 

From an entirely personal point of view- yes, I think Casey was involved in her daughter's death, and yes, I think Scott Peterson murdered his wife. In the Peterson case, I think the prosecution did a better job of putting the pieces together.  I still don't think it should have been a capital case, but they did make a better case.  Also, as someone vehemently opposed to the death penalty, I find anything short of a videotape of the crime and 50 eyewitnesses with perfect recall and impeccable character (yes, I realize that doesn't happen) insufficient evidence for a capital case. 

 

Your point wasn't lost on me.  However, I guess the difference between myself and those that would vote not guilty despite believing a murder took place is that I could not live with myself if I voted not guilty.  As a juror, I would have to vote guilty if common sense, reasonable evidence pointed towards guilt.

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It is nice to hear how others view this.  smile.gif

Mulvah is offline  
Old 07-05-2011, 04:32 PM
 
lovingmommyhood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,399
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)

I think it is an atrocity that she was acquitted. She admitted to being present at her daughter's death. The fact that she had duct tape on her skull and the fact that she was dumped in a swamp, bagged in garbage bags ((who knows how as Jose Baez said himself 'we'll never know' how handy.)) should have at LEAST gotten Miss Anthony aggravated child abuse. It's disgusting. I've been following this case since day 1, three years ago and watched every single day of jury selection and trial. It's a very sad day. Talk about losing faith in the justice system. Bleh. She'll be a free woman on Thursday. Citizens beware. 


Mommy to THREE sweet boys & ONE sweet girl + a newb due in February!  I need a nap. 
lovingmommyhood is offline  
Old 07-05-2011, 05:20 PM
 
VocalMinority's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: surrounded by testosterone
Posts: 1,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulvah View Post

I am sick over the verdict.  I honestly feel ill that I live in this country right now.


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.  

 

Does Casey seem sufficiently selfish and emotionally detached to be capable of chloroforming her toddler, smothering her with duct tape and driving around with her in the trunk?  There can't be any question in anyone's mind that she IS.

 

But, toddlers DO die by accident.  They drown in pools or bathtubs.  They put things into their mouths that they shouldn't and can be poisoned.  They choke on things.  They get mini-blind cords wrapped around their necks.  Does Casey ALSO seem sufficiently out-of-touch with reality and - again - emotionally detached from her child, to have found Caylee accidentally dead and to have put duct tape over her mouth and tossed her in the woods down the street, thinking "People will believe someone else did this"?  Yes.  

 

The prosecution meant to be rhetorical, in asking, "Who would take an accident and make it look like murder?" (my paraphrasing).  But would you put that past Casey?  Calling 9-1-1, feeling guilt, mourning and holding a funeral are rational responses to a child's accidental death.  Casey isn't rational.  She seemed to think she could indefinitely keep her parents from realizing that a child who lived in their home was missing.  She took police to an office she no longer worked in.  She invented a kidnapping nanny.  Did she do those things because she's loony; or because she's cunning and calculated and understood how it behooved her, to make herself look unstable?  Who knows?  But either way, yes, she's a person who might have taken an accident and reacted to it SO inappropriately that she made it look like murder.

 

And she wasn't prosecuted for being so disturbingly inappropriate; for failing to be despondent at the loss of her daughter; for being so hugely and infuriatingly self-centered.  She was charged with killing her daughter with a premeditated, criminal act.  Without knowing how poor, little Caylee died, how could the jury really know?

 

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.


One woman in a house full of men:  my soul mate:    or... twin sons:(HS seniors) ... step-son:  (a sophomore) ... our little man:   (a first grader) ... and there is another female in the house, after all:  our
VocalMinority is online now  
Old 07-05-2011, 05:31 PM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeannine View Post

 

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.


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.

 

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
Old 07-05-2011, 05:42 PM
 
TCMoulton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Chicago Suburbs
Posts: 4,079
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 37 Post(s)
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.
TCMoulton is offline  
Old 07-05-2011, 05:50 PM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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.

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
Old 07-05-2011, 06:03 PM
 
insidevoice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,320
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

Negligent Homicide would have been pretty attainable as well. 

 

The prosecution overreached. 

 

insidevoice is offline  
Old 07-05-2011, 06:32 PM - Thread Starter
 
Mulvah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)


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.

Mulvah is offline  
Old 07-05-2011, 06:36 PM - Thread Starter
 
Mulvah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)


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.

 

Mulvah is offline  
Old 07-05-2011, 07:07 PM
 
VocalMinority's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: surrounded by testosterone
Posts: 1,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)


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

 


One woman in a house full of men:  my soul mate:    or... twin sons:(HS seniors) ... step-son:  (a sophomore) ... our little man:   (a first grader) ... and there is another female in the house, after all:  our
VocalMinority is online now  
Old 07-05-2011, 07:19 PM
 
VocalMinority's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: surrounded by testosterone
Posts: 1,314
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9 Post(s)


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?

 


 


One woman in a house full of men:  my soul mate:    or... twin sons:(HS seniors) ... step-son:  (a sophomore) ... our little man:   (a first grader) ... and there is another female in the house, after all:  our
VocalMinority is online now  
Old 07-06-2011, 05:47 AM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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.

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
Old 07-06-2011, 06:26 AM - Thread Starter
 
Mulvah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)


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.

Mulvah is offline  
Old 07-06-2011, 09:30 AM
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cover letter he!!
Posts: 6,387
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)


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.

 

Super~Single~Mama is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off