Casey Anthony Trial

[fwav8or]

Professor Plum, with the candlestick, in the library.

[Tyrannis]

vivid entertainment offered her the lead role in its "killer xxx" porn movie.   

[CAP1]

actually, i think it's a pretty sad state of affairs, when half the country watches something like this on the edge of their seats. thanks to this, a murderer is now going to get rich, through movie deals, book deals, etc.

 very sad.

[BowHTR]

Shuffler, I didn't say she was innocent.  But you have to look a it from both sides.  If she did do it she's very lucky and got away with murder.  "Its not what you know its what you can prove in court"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LX6kVRsdXW4

[Shuffler]

Shuffler, I didn't say she was innocent.  But you have to look a it from both sides.  If she did do it she's very lucky and got away with murder.  "Its not what you know its what you can prove in court"

It is not necesarily what you can or can't prove but more what the courts will let you introduce into court for your case. The judge can make or break a case single handedly.

In the end anything going to court is in for a game. Like any game.... you can game the game.

[NatCigg]

(beavis tone) yea, yea... game the game. 

[CAP1]

you get the right lawyers, and that is exactly what they can/will do.

 did you know that there's lawyers that specialize in getting drunks off the hook, when they get nailed for dui? they game the game, by picking the laws apart.....and often times the cop that made the stop.

 that being said.....i still think it's pretty friggin disgusting that she's gonna get rich off of this, and apparently has no remorse whatsoever. it's even more disgusting that so many americans have nothing better to do with their time, than to watch this watermelon on the boobtoob.

[grizz441]

After I've been able to sit back, sleep on it for the past few days and digest everything, I think the core issue here is the definition of "reasonable doubt", or at least the jurors' interpretation of it.  Should the prosecution be required to prove exactly how a murder occurred?  Should they be required to present hard evidence for a murder that occurred?  Hard evidence will not exist if a body is not found in due time.  Circumstantial evidence IS evidence.  So while the jury decided there was "reasonable doubt" in regards to the exact events that occurred as laid out by prosecution, I find it impossible to say there is reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony was heavily involved.  I also think that there was enough evidence presented that murder was committed beyond reasonable doubt.  The common sense facts, of body disgarded, hidden, duct tape, AND expert testimony that said the death was concluded to be homicide.  So if you prove it was a murder which I think they did, and you prove that Casey Anthony was involved through damning circumstantial evidence which they most certainly did, you HAVE to convict her of the very least second degree murder or man slaughter.  These simple facts certainly were proven beyond "Reasonable Doubt".  

Perhaps the prosecution faltered by trying to prove a specific series of events without the evidence to back it up.  They should have just admitted they did not know exactly how it happened but focused all their power on the circumstantial facts surrounding her behavior, lies, and deception following the disappearance.

I think they also faltered seriously by trying to paint her as a villain in life when all testimony of people she knew said she was a friendly person.  They also painted her parents as victims which the jury didn't buy at all.  Basically they tried to spin a little too much, tried to play on emotion a little too much, and the jury perhaps realized there was too much bull to sift through and rejected the prosecution's case all together as result.  The prosecutions case definitely looked like a "win at all cost" type of case instead of a "lets present truth and let the chips fall where they may" type case.  I do not think this sat well with the jury.

[SlapShot]

you get the right lawyers, and that is exactly what they can/will do.

 did you know that there's lawyers that specialize in getting drunks off the hook, when they get nailed for dui? they game the game, by picking the laws apart.....and often times the cop that made the stop.

 that being said.....i still think it's pretty friggin disgusting that she's gonna get rich off of this, and apparently has no remorse whatsoever. it's even more disgusting that so many americans have nothing better to do with their time, than to watch this watermelon on the boobtoob.

You have a very myopic view of why people may have watched this trial.

Anyone interested in the "real" legal process of a death penalty court case would have tuned into this and not just because of the hype.

Most peoples' exposure to such a case, on TV, are thru television series and/or television movies and it is completely scripted ... such was not the case here ... this was the real deal.

It was fascinating to watch the dialog and exchanges of the DA/Defense attorneys when dealing with witnesses and each other.

I watched with intent to examine the "process", and from what I could see, the "process" is not broken ... it is alive and well.

Do I believe that she was guilty ... absolutely ... did the State prove their case without a reasonable doubt ... apparently not.

[SlapShot]

After I've been able to sit back, sleep on it for the past few days and digest everything, I think the core issue here is the definition of "reasonable doubt", or at least the jurors' interpretation of it.  Should the prosecution be required to prove exactly how a murder occurred?  Should they be required to present hard evidence for a murder that occurred?  Hard evidence will not exist if a body is not found in due time.  Circumstantial evidence IS evidence.  So while the jury decided there was "reasonable doubt" in regards to the exact events that occurred as laid out by prosecution, I find it impossible to say there is reasonable doubt that Casey Anthony was heavily involved.  I also think that there was enough evidence presented that murder was committed beyond reasonable doubt.  The common sense facts, of body disgarded, hidden, duct tape, AND expert testimony that said the death was concluded to be homicide.  So if you prove it was a murder which I think they did, and you prove that Casey Anthony was involved through damning circumstantial evidence which they most certainly did, you HAVE to convict her of the very least second degree murder or man slaughter.  These simple facts certainly were proven beyond "Reasonable Doubt".  

Perhaps the prosecution faltered by trying to prove a specific series of events without the evidence to back it up.  They should have just admitted they did not know exactly how it happened but focused all their power on the circumstantial facts surrounding her behavior, lies, and deception following the disappearance.

I think they also faltered seriously by trying to paint her as a villain in life when all testimony of people she knew said she was a friendly person.  They also painted her parents as victims which the jury didn't buy at all.  Basically they tried to spin a little too much, tried to play on emotion a little too much, and the jury perhaps realized there was too much bull to sift through and rejected the prosecution's case all together as result.  The prosecutions case definitely looked like a "win at all cost" type of case instead of a "lets present truth and let the chips fall where they may" type case.  I do not think this sat well with the jury.

Interesting points.

From what I have heard, one of the jurors said that the State could not prove "motive" ... What was Casey's motive for killing her daughter ? Because that wasn't answered, as far as they were concerned, they weren't ready to make the leap that she actually did murder her daughter.

What the jurors didn't realize and probably should have asked the question (remember they asked no questions and asked for no evidence) was does the State have to prove "motive" and the answer is NO. There doesn't and isn't always a "motive" to murder someone.

One other thing a juror said was that due to this being a death penalty case/conviction, to get past the litmus test of reasonable doubt was very high. They didn't want to be responsible for sending someone to their death unless they were absolutely convinced that she did it.

[grizz441]

Yep, and they tried to prove a specific motive which I didn't buy myself, which was that she killed her daughter because she wanted to go party.  She's a lot of things but I don't think she is THAT cruel.  Much more plausible motive would be drug induced murder, or negligent murder by chlorforming her daughter to sleep so she could go party.  Those actually make more sense than her being painted as a cold blooded killer.  Maybe she is but I personally thought it was a stretch.

[TonyJoey]

Grizz, you mentioned that the prosecution, through duct tape and expert testimony, proved it was a murder. However Dr. G, the medical examiner, concluded it was a murder based on circumstances alone, not on any scientific data whatsoever. Also, the duct tape had no DNA or anything that would tie Casey to it. Not only that, but they had no cause of death. Therefore, the Prosecution could not disprove the theory that she drowned. With that still as a possibility, I think reasonable doubt was there.

[grizz441]

Grizz, you mentioned that the prosecution, through duct tape and expert testimony, proved it was a murder. However Dr. G, the medical examiner, concluded it was a murder based on circumstances alone, not on any scientific data whatsoever. Also, the duct tape had no DNA or anything that would tie Casey to it. Not only that, but they had no cause of death. Therefore, the Prosecution could not disprove the theory that she drowned. With that still as a possibility, I think reasonable doubt was there.

They proved that it was murder.  Yes or No?

They proved circumstantially that Casey was involved.  Yes or No?

[TonyJoey]

No, they never proved it was murder. I don't know about the second one. There was a lot of evidence that tied to the Anthony family, but not necessarily her, except for the car, but that opens another whole can of worms.

[grizz441]

No, they never proved it was murder.

I disagree.

Purely hypothetical situation for conjecture here:

Say Jack and Jane go out on a boat trip, plenty of witnesses see them leave.  Only Jack comes back.  No body, no evidence of struggle, that's that.  Jack says he doesn't know what happened, he was napping and he woke up and she was gone.  Oh and btw, Jack parties his butt off for the next month after this happens.  Not murder?