Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: TonyJoey on July 04, 2011, 04:28:51 PM
-
Has anyone been following this? My family has recorded most of it and we've been following it pretty closely. I think Jeff Ashton has been mopping the floor with the defense throughout the whole trial, culminating in a fantastic closing argument yesterday. The defense team hasn't really had much to work with, but I think they've done as best they could to poke holes in the prosecution's case. Overall, I think her deceit at every step of the process combined with all the circumstancial evidence will be enough to convict her. The duct tape and cholorform in particular I think, will be the essential evidence in convicting her of premeditated murder.
-
Yeah me & my family have been following it closely as well, I think that she's done for, the only real question will be is she gonna get life or be put to death, personally I think she deserves the death penalty, just based on her behavior in the month after Caylee's death, I mean her daughter had just died, weather it was an accidental death or she premeditated the death and she's out parting with her friends & boyfriend like she doesn't have a care in the world, she even goes as far as getting a tattoo on her shoulder saying "Bella Vita" meaning "Beautiful Life" in Italian, her daughter had just died & this is the tattoo she decides to get, not something like her name. I think what it was is that she knew that she had killed Caylee and was gonna be going to jail for it so she decided to just live it up as much as she could in the time she had before everything would come out and someone noticed Caylee was gone.
-
I want justice to be served but in all honesty im sick and tired of it being crammed down my throat everytime I turn on the tv. Ill be glad when its off television and radio
-
I want justice to be served but in all honesty im sick and tired of it being crammed down my throat everytime I turn on the tv. Ill be glad when its off television and radio
I don't want to hijack my own thread, but if I hear Nancy Grace say "Tot Mom" one more time, I'm going to puke.
Yeah me & my family have been following it closely as well, I think that she's done for, the only real question will be is she gonna get life or be put to death, personally I think she deserves the death penalty, just based on her behavior in the month after Caylee's death, I mean her daughter had just died, weather it was an accidental death or she premeditated the death and she's out parting with her friends & boyfriend like she doesn't have a care in the world, she even goes as far as getting a tattoo on her shoulder saying "Bella Vita" meaning "Beautiful Life" in Italian, her daughter had just died & this is the tattoo she decides to get, not something like her name. I think what it was is that she knew that she had killed Caylee and was gonna be going to jail for it so she decided to just live it up as much as she could in the time she had before everything would come out and someone noticed Caylee was gone.
They played a jailhouse tape in the rebuttal argument and she said something to the effect of "You guys care more about finding Caylee than me."
-
There MUST be legitimate news stories which these tards could be covering, probably all kinds of notable things goin on in the world we're not hearing about
-
Another one skuzzy will lock.
IN
:cheers: Oz
-
They played a jailhouse tape in the rebuttal argument and she said something to the effect of "You guys care more about finding Caylee than me."
Yeah I saw that video too, she's a completely narcissistic pathological liar. Also the fact that she's trying to put this off on her father too is messed up, why would he try to cover up the death of his only granddaughter if she accidentally drowned in a swimming pool as she says happen, and then why if she drowned in a pool would you place duct tape over her mouth & nose if she's already dead, that makes absolutely no sense.
-
Yeah I saw that video too, she's a completely narcissistic pathological liar. Also the fact that she's trying to put this off on her father too is messed up, why would he try to cover up the death of his only granddaughter if she accidentally drowned in a swimming pool as she says happen, and then why if she drowned in a pool would you place duct tape over her mouth & nose if she's already dead, that makes absolutely no sense.
I agree with everything you've said. I feel bad for Baez who has to listen to her and go with her BS story. With no evidence to back up the swimming pool claim except for the fact that the ladder was down, and no evidence of any molestation, their timeline of events is extremely flimsy.
-
This should NOT be national news.
It is a sad story, that little girl was denied her rightful chance of having a good life. May she rest is peace.
-
This should NOT be national news.
It is a sad story, that little girl was denied her rightful chance of having a good life. May she rest is peace.
Why would you think that something like this shouldn't be national news? Is it because you think that little girls die &/or killed all the time? The reason this is national news isn't just because a little girl was killed, it's national news because of the circumstance around that death, like the fact her mother went 31 days without telling anyone she was gone, and when the police were finally contacted all she did was lie about everything, even going as far as saying she worked for Universal Studios for the last 2 years & actually took them there and was walking down a hallway to her supposed office & at the door she finally admitted she didn't work there, it was just one crazy thing after another & thats what caught the national attention with the case.
-
I heard about this case about a year ago, but I don't know why it's come up again. :headscratch:
-Penguin
-
I heard about this case about a year ago, but I don't know why it's come up again. :headscratch:
-Penguin
:huh :huh
hows the rock?
-
hehe someone asked me that just the other day. I just havent been interested in it.
-
IN :bolt:
-
Why would you think that something like this shouldn't be national news? Is it because you think that little girls die &/or killed all the time? The reason this is national news isn't just because a little girl was killed, it's national news because of the circumstance around that death, like the fact her mother went 31 days without telling anyone she was gone, and when the police were finally contacted all she did was lie about everything, even going as far as saying she worked for Universal Studios for the last 2 years & actually took them there and was walking down a hallway to her supposed office & at the door she finally admitted she didn't work there, it was just one crazy thing after another & thats what caught the national attention with the case.
I dont care what kind of drama is associated with this trial. It should be on the local tv news and in the local newspapers. National news is just that: issues that effect the entire nation. This trial is a prime example of the news media trying to MAKE news.
-
I dont care what kind of drama is associated with this trial. It should be on the local tv news and in the local newspapers. National news is just that: issues that effect the entire nation. This trial is a prime example of the news media trying to MAKE news.
Ok so by that logic if something happens in America and doesn't have some kinda effect on the nation as a whole we shouldn't care or need to know about it?
I like to know that when things like this happen that the justice system works, no matter weather it happens near me or not.
-
Why would you think that something like this shouldn't be national news? Is it because you think that little girls die &/or killed all the time? The reason this is national news isn't just because a little girl was killed, it's national news because of the circumstance around that death, like the fact her mother went 31 days without telling anyone she was gone, and when the police were finally contacted all she did was lie about everything, even going as far as saying she worked for Universal Studios for the last 2 years & actually took them there and was walking down a hallway to her supposed office & at the door she finally admitted she didn't work there, it was just one crazy thing after another & thats what caught the national attention with the case.
yes, they do, alas, and usually by their parents/baby-momma's boyfriend. If Casey Anthony were an unattractive minority-type, this whole thing would be a minor footnote
-
The 24 hour news stations need to make money to pay bills. That is what news is all about today. Nothing more... nothing less.
-
I agree with everything you've said. I feel bad for Baez who has to listen to her and go with her BS story. With no evidence to back up the swimming pool claim except for the fact that the ladder was down, and no evidence of any molestation, their timeline of events is extremely flimsy.
Ashton totally blew the defense out of the water when he said ...
"Why would someone try to cover up an accident by making it look like murder?"
He was referring to the defense's stand that the grandfather found the baby drowned in the pool and it was him that duct taped her mouth and then threw her in the swap/woods.
-
I want justice to be served but in all honesty im sick and tired of it being crammed down my throat everytime I turn on the tv. Ill be glad when its off television and radio
+50,000
I'm sick and tired of all of the attention that waste of oxygen has generated.
-
Verdict has been reached, should be released within half an hour
-
Verdict reached!
-
Thank god, about bloody time. 'Scheduled programming shall resume shortly'. :rolleyes:
Edit: no idea if she actually is guilty or not in reality, but I'm glad to see the jury reached a 'not guilty' verdict, despite what appeared to be massive public opinion to the contrary.
-
NOT GUILTY! WOW!
-
Not guilty???
-
See Rule #6
-
If she's not guilty, then HOW did Caylee die? Explain that Jury. If it is that hard to give a death sentence then I'll be more then happy to pull the plug. :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :mad:
-
Wow. That's all I can say.
-
See Rule #6
-
Well, they topped OJ. :huh
-
Well, they never really prove that she killed her daughter. So that is why she got the not guilty.
There is more then enough evidence, a squirrel has more brains then those Jurors combined. Even OJ is stunned.
-
:lol a rule 6? really? :lol
-
There is more then enough evidence, a squirrel has more brains then those Jurors combined. Even OJ is stunned.
What evidence do that have? From what was left of the body, forencis could not get anything out on how she die.
-
If she's not guilty, then HOW did Caylee die? Explain that Jury. If it is that hard to give a death sentence then I'll be more then happy to pull the plug. :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :mad:
The prosecution did not prove Casey did it, which is why she is walking. Their closing was weak, and the defenses, which I watched all 4 hours of, might have been the closing of the century.
-
the prosecution did a horrible job IMO
-
What evidence do that have? From what was left of the body, forencis could not get anything out on how she die.
SHE TOOK 31 DAYS TO FINALLY REPORT IT IN. She LIED about EVERYTHING, if she was truly innocent then she wouldn't have lied. I wish i had been a Juror, the second she walked in i would have slammed the guilty hammer all over her forehead.
-
SHE TOOK 31 DAYS TO FINALLY REPORT IT IN. She LIED about EVERYTHING, if she was truly innocent then she wouldn't have lied. I wish i had been a Juror, the second she walked in i would have slammed the guilty hammer all over her forehead.
Dose not mean a thing that she killed her. You need to proved evidence that she killed her.
-
I guess it was "Zanny the Nanny".
-
She did it imo, but it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt which is what the law demands to end another's life. Her life will not be peaches even though she was found not guilty.
-
She did it imo, but it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt which is what the law demands to end another's life. Her life will not be peaches even though she was found not guilty.
I agree. She dodge it.
-
Finally Casey can party again.
I wonder if Larry Flynt has called yet.
-
There MUST be legitimate news stories which these tards could be covering, probably all kinds of notable things goin on in the world we're not hearing about
You know why this is national news? Because people who have no life otherwise are tuning in. The same reason why tabloid "news" magazines are still in print and the E! Network is still on the air... sad pathetic people with nothing to fill their lives other than other peoples' drama.
<--- Now, back to flying cartoon airplanes for hours on end! :rofl
-
If she goes back partying she'll have to get her car out of impound and then get the stinch of the dead body out of it too. May be awhile before she will be on the "circuit"
Maybe some of the jurors can pitch in and assist her even more.
-
Not guilty...
-
You know why this is national news? Because people who have no life otherwise are tuning in.
Hmm, I have a life and I was tuning in. I typically hate reality tv and this kind of stuff, but seeing as how this was basically the crime mystery and trial of the century, it peaked my interest.
-
She did it imo, but it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt which is what the law demands to end another's life. Her life will not be peaches even though she was found not guilty.
Your right ... her life is pretty much worthless at this point.
I believe that she will go the way of OJ ... she will fail in some other way at some other time and it will get her in trouble that she won't be able to get around ... karma.
-
Hmm, I have a life and I was tuning in. I typically hate reality tv and this kind of stuff, but seeing as how this was basically the crime mystery and trial of the century, it peaked my interest.
He is just being a troll about it.
-
If she's not guilty, then HOW did Caylee die? Explain that Jury. If it is that hard to give a death sentence then I'll be more then happy to pull the plug. :bhead :bhead :bhead :bhead :mad:
That's not the job of the jury. I have no doubt in my mind they knew the responsibility on their shoulders, but they were not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, simple as that.
-
He is just being a troll about it.
Obviously when you speak in generalities, you're going to include a small percentage of people in with your "groupings" that don't fit the description...... but otherwise, for 95% of the people to whom this type of garbage is appealing, well, I stand by my assessment.
-
This reminds me of the law abiding citizen. We can say she did it until our faces turn blue. Gotta prove it in court. I wish whoever did this would pay.
-
All she was convicted on was misleading a law enforcement officer? The only thing that comes to mind is the below link;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rdmG0k8S8k
Even if she didn't kill the yong girl, if my son or daughter came even close to drowning in a pool, I'll bet good money I would at least be found guilty of risk of injury.
-
I think the prosecution did an excellent job in this case, and was extremely drawn in by their closing. Baez was a bit inexperienced and it showed by his missing deadlines and witness testimony not taken in depositions. His opening was a bombshell, but he didn't bring in any real evidence to support the claims. Some of his witnesses were turned to prosecution by the end of cross. However, I think the combination of the holes he poked in the prosecution's case and the fact that the jury sat pretty much face to face with Casey for 6 weeks was why she got off. As for his closing, unfortunately I was out of town and only caught the tail end of it at the airport, so I'll have to watch it tonight.
-
I'm taking a Forensic Anthropology class this semester and we've been following the evidence in this case. The prosecution had very little to work on really when it comes to hard evidence (which is needed for a 1st degree murder conviction)...all they had to work with was logical assumptions.
The remains and evidence found on the site only point that this little girl was not physically abused to the point of it causing bone injuries; that the remains had been in the swamp for months and that the duct tape on her head was only sold in Ohio (thus linking it to the the family's household) and that it was placed over the child's mouth and nose.
The evidence does not point in any way or form as to how she died or who did it. All it points to is that the child died and the tape was either put on her after death or it was the cause of death and that her body was transported to the playhouse for less than a day, on the trunk of the car with the blanket and plastic bags for a couple of days and then dumped on the swamp down the road from where she lived.
Anything besides that is conjecture. You cannot convict someone to the needle based on conjecture (at least in Florida).
I was surprised though that Casey was not charged for wrongful death and child neglect... or criminally negligent manslaughter. The kid died under her care and she covered it up... that cannot be denied or refuted in any way. For that she should be tossed in prison for a very long time imo.
-
Hopefully Nancy Grace can find something else to blab her fat mouth about. Oh, maybe the 2 year old kid that has been missing since November in New Braunfels? Oh nevermind. She won't cover that because he isn't white.
-
Hopefully Nancy Grace can find something else to blab her fat mouth about. Oh, maybe the 2 year old kid that has been missing since November in New Braunfels? Oh nevermind. She won't cover that because he isn't white.
I had been following that one as well. Tragic. I cannot believe Joshua was never found.
-
I just watched the defense's closing and I think that was the clincher. Their presentation was a bit sloppy and all over the place, but the closing really wove the testimony and evidence (or lack thereof) into a very good argument. Some of the points Baez made clear: No DNA on tape, trunk, shovel, or clothes; no blood in trunk or on clothes; no evidence obtained from toxicology tests; no soil on any of Caylee's shoes; no cause of death; no evidence of child abuse or any indication that Casey was a bad mom; botched autopsy; homicide determination was based only on circumstances instead of science; Dr. Vass lack of expertise on the chloroform levels; lies of George and Cindy; relationship of duct tape only to George; lies of Roy Cronk; unreliability of the software that produced the 84 chloroform searches; plausibility and lack of rebuttal of drowning theory; lack of motive. Then Mason came in and hammered home the laws regarding burden of proof and reasonable doubt. I really think these two arguments in combination formed a powerful 1-2 punch that swayed not only the jury, but myself as well. In my personal opinion she is guilty, but by the letter of the law she is not guilty as there was no hard evidence that linked her to Caylee's death and a reasonable doubt as to the circumstancial evidence. Of course I haven't seen the rebuttal yet, so I'll have to watch that and see how that affects my opinion.
-
I think you all have been watching TotMom Nancy Disgraceful alittle to much :rofl I hope her and her ilk get fired :aok
The offence was weak and had zilch.. The jury did the right job. I hope they reopen the case and look at George <the ex-cop, adulterer, child rapest> this time.
-
The autopsy was not botched. That argument that they should've cut the skull was nothing but a ploy from the defense to cast doubt on it. Child's bones that have been 'dry' (bone when fully decomposed and exposed to the elements for that long loses its internal water content and becomes 'dry') for so long would shatter and crack under any type of cutting instrument. Besides, to access the underside of the skull all they had to do was turn it upside down and it could be examined easily.
That's the one thing I really dont like about the legal system: the lawyers are allowed to misdirect and outright lie about things to get their way.
-
Do I think she is guilty of murder? Yes. Do I think the not guilty verdict was the correct one? Hell no.
Unfortunely, because there was no physcial evidence of foulplay on the remains that could have been linked to her as killing the child than there was no proof that she killed her child. The fact the body had ductape on it after the fact wasn't enough to put her away for life(or the death sentence, assuming Florida does it) as she should have been.
It is basically OJ trial all over again.
In fact, ever since the OJ verdict, I have lost faith in our justice system no matter what state it is in.
-
In fact, ever since the OJ verdict, I have lost faith in our justice system no matter what state it is in.
I stopped caring when I realized we had a government :aok
-
The evidence just wasn't there.
No definitive cause of death, no time of death, no murder scene, kind of flimsy motive "She wanted to party more?"
All they had was her behavior and some web searches for chloroform that they couldn't definitively pin on her.
"Who else could it have been?" isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
It sucks, but the jury had no choice but to acquit.
There was more evidence in the OJ trial, including a past history of violence, and also some evidence of jury nullification.
-
The evidence just wasn't there.
No definitive cause of death, no time of death, no murder scene,
This is the key point of the case.
All they had was her behavior and some web searches for chloroform that they couldn't definitively pin on her.
Having search recoreds of "neck breaking" or "chloroform" dose make her more giulty....but once again "No definitive cause of death, no time of death, no murder scene".
Her day is coming. She will most likly be set free by July 7th but her life will be hell from this point on out.
-
Their presentation was a bit sloppy and all over the place,
You've echoed these sentiments a couple of times, from the OP until this current post. If the "defense was sloppy", the outcome would have been different. The reason she was found not guilty are simple, the prosecutor didn't gather enough evidence. Circumstantial Evidence gets you no where in a "capital murder" trial. It's the simple "Burden of Proof Continuum".
If ANYONE "was sloppy", my hat is off to the Prosecution for it. Mind you, she is probably looking at a Life in Prison charge in the future. So don't think she is "off the hook". She simply cannot be charged with 1st degree murder again.
-
I don't agree with the sentiments of "our justice system sucks" or "she's guilty in my book". If we put her away, it would be an indellible stain on the reputation of our courts. Furthermore, it would set a precedent that all it takes to convict someone is public opinion and circumstantial evidence. It would usher in an age of witch trials and political prisoners on a scale unimaginable.
Also, if there was no evidence that she killed her daughter, then why do almost all of you cling to the belief that she did it? What if you just grabbed some poor guy off the street and accused him of the murder? Our justice system was founded upon the principles of assumption of innocence and the blindness of justice. To replace those extremely noble ideas with 'trial by mob' is insane.
To conclude, I'm certain that if you were in her position (and knew that you did not do it), you wouldn't feel any remorse in being exonerated by lack of evidence. That is the very core of our justice system. If you cannot prove that someone committed a crime, they walk. It would be impossible to prevent unjust imprisonment if it were otherwise; it is logically impossible to prove a negative.
-Penguin
-
This reminds me of the law abiding citizen. We can say she did it until our faces turn blue. Gotta prove it in court. I wish whoever did this would pay.
So... do you think she is innocent? That may explain why she did not report her daughter missing for 31 days. Oh and her partying all the time afterward.
-
I don't agree with the sentiments of "our justice system sucks" or "she's guilty in my book". If we put her away, it would be an indellible stain on the reputation of our courts. Furthermore, it would set a precedent that all it takes to convict someone is public opinion and circumstantial evidence. It would usher in an age of witch trials and political prisoners on a scale unimaginable.
Also, if there was no evidence that she killed her daughter, then why do almost all of you cling to the belief that she did it? What if you just grabbed some poor guy off the street and accused him of the murder? Our justice system was founded upon the principles of assumption of innocence and the blindness of justice. To replace those extremely noble ideas with 'trial by mob' is insane.
To conclude, I'm certain that if you were in her position (and knew that you did not do it), you wouldn't feel any remorse in being exonerated by lack of evidence. That is the very core of our justice system. If you cannot prove that someone committed a crime, they walk. It would be impossible to prevent unjust imprisonment if it were otherwise; it is logically impossible to prove a negative.
-Penguin
Stain on the courts... hmmm did you know that you can enter into a contract with someone and a judge can completely change the wording and your still held to what the judge changes it to.....
As long as you remember that laws are made by lawyers to keep them in money you'll be half way safe.
-
it is logically impossible to prove a negative.
Wrong. One of the principles of logic is law of contradiction ie provable negative.
-
The wrongful death, child neglect... or criminally negligent manslaughter charges she could have been tried on were probably offered in a plea bargain at some point and the defense declined.
-
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"
-
You've echoed these sentiments a couple of times, from the OP until this current post. If the "defense was sloppy", the outcome would have been different. The reason she was found not guilty are simple, the prosecutor didn't gather enough evidence. Circumstantial Evidence gets you no where in a "capital murder" trial. It's the simple "Burden of Proof Continuum".
If ANYONE "was sloppy", my hat is off to the Prosecution for it. Mind you, she is probably looking at a Life in Prison charge in the future. So don't think she is "off the hook". She simply cannot be charged with 1st degree murder again.
I watched the trial from start to finish. Jose Baez was sloppy, it's as simple as that. He missed deadlines, had witnesses testify about things not in their reports or in thier depositions (At one point he was threatened with contempt), didn't have very effective cross with many State witnesses, and evidently hadn't prepared his own witnesses well enough as many of them seemed to be turned for the State by the end of their testimony. The defense won on closing where they created a lot of reasonable doubt in almost all aspects of the case, not because the rest of the trial was stellar. You said it yourself; the reason she won was lack of evidence.
-
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"
Understood.
Maybe some think her car did it on it's own.
I'm extremely irritated that trash like that gets to walk.
-
Wrong. One of the principles of logic is law of contradiction ie provable negative.
That is only if one can pin everything down. Let me give you an example:
Bob left for a party at 19:00, and Alice went shopping at 20:00. Alice was not seen again until her body was found floating in a river at 12:00. Bob was not seen again until the next day at 8:00 when he showed up to work and worked until 16:00.
Unless Bob has an alibi for every minute of the thirteen hours between 19:00 at 8:00, one cannot prove that Bob did not kill Alice. However, if one can find out exactly what he did, then one can use the law of contradiction. Unfortunately, it can become impossible to do this on the timescale present in this case.
-Penguin
-
Are you dyslexic or what?
"it is logically impossible to prove a negative." is a negative in itself. If you prove it true, it wouldn't be true.
-
Are you dyslexic or what?
"it is logically impossible to prove a negative." is a negative in itself. If you prove it true, it wouldn't be true.
This is true... umm negative... uh negatively true.... umm ohhh snap forget it. :p
-
So... do you think she is innocent? That may explain why she did not report her daughter missing for 31 days. Oh and her partying all the time afterward.
I don't think she is innocent.. but I do not know either if she did it all on her own or if it was the result of some other situation.
As I said before, the only item that links the murder to the Anthony family is the duct tape. It is a brand found and sold only in Ohio where the family moved from so that means that the murderer is one of the Anthony's or someone who was very familiar with their home (since most people keep duct tape in their garage).
Personally, I don't believe that Casey killed the kid on purpose despite her behavior and what the prosecution said in closing arguments is very true: nobody would cover up an accidental death by making it look like murder.
So that opens two scenarios in my opinion:
1- It is known Casey was into drug parties and lots of alcohol. Chloroform is a recreational drug that does the same effects as alcohol without the hangover and it is also used to make harder drugs... so, Casey and some other person were doing this at home and somehow the kid died (I doubt it was intentional) and knowing they would be charged with murder they disposed of the body the way they did and why all the lies. The flaw in this is the tape itself: I doubt Casey or this 2nd person would go to the garage and find the duct tape to put on the kid's body (unless that tape had been inside the home and easily accessible...but then again who keeps a 4 +year old duct tape in their kitchen?).
2- Casey's father is involved. Probably same scenario as #1 except he found the kid dead and Casey drugged up and the child abuse charges are true. Thats a powerful motivation to turn an accidental death into a murder scene. This is a possible scenario because the man has decades of murder investigation experience and it is -very- unusual for a body to be kept in the trunk of a car for 10 or so days and then dumped. This is all unusual and does not make sense unless you consider that if the kid died from drug overdose and if the kid had been abused by the father then the evidence is all in the flesh and then it would make a ton of sense to purposely hide the body until the flesh is gone.
What's interesting is that all forensic textbooks describe that it takes about 10 days for a body to fully decompose in FL like weather. Also the car was kept near a garbage dumpster to hide the smell... and a corpse will start stinking after just 3 days in FL so I doubt Casey was involved in dumping the body because if she had it would not have been in the car after the 3rd day nor would the car had been hidden near a dumpster (I would think only someone who has seen bodies found near garbage dumpsters would know off the top of his head that the smell is muffled there).
In this scenario it would be Casey's best interest to avoid murder conviction and probably death penalty (drugs+dead kid=easy murder conviction) by lying (which she did best apparently) and misleading while her father would avoid conviction of abuse by disposing of the body after the incriminating flesh was gone.
A lot of things point as Casey's dad imo: The duct tape (it was his house and I would say only a man in his house would beeline for the duct tape in the garage), the knowledge of the timing needed for decomposition, knowledge of how to hide the smell, knowledge of the criminal/forensic investigation procedures and what the legal system can and cannot prove with given evidence. The man's only mistakes in this scenario was to use his own duct tape... I doubt it crossed his mind that his duct tape was of a brand found only in Ohio... and not realizing his daughter would snap under the stress and party her brain out (denial of reality).... or that her pathological lying would bring so much media attention to the case.
In any case, I doubt the case is dropped. Casey could not be found guilty of murder but you can bet that the investigators will keep at it until there is justice for this child.
-
In any case, I doubt the case is dropped. Casey could not be found guilty of murder but you can bet that the investigators will keep at it until there is justice for this child.
I really haven't been following this much, but this line is something a lot of people seem to forget. Just because this trial is over doesn't mean it's the end of this story all together. I just don't care enough to follow up on it.
-
I don't think she is innocent.. but I do not know either if she did it all on her own or if it was the result of some other situation.
As I said before, the only item that links the murder to the Anthony family is the duct tape. It is a brand found and sold only in Ohio where the family moved from so that means that the murderer is one of the Anthony's or someone who was very familiar with their home (since most people keep duct tape in their garage).
Personally, I don't believe that Casey killed the kid on purpose despite her behavior and what the prosecution said in closing arguments is very true: nobody would cover up an accidental death by making it look like murder.
So that opens two scenarios in my opinion:
1- It is known Casey was into drug parties and lots of alcohol. Chloroform is a recreational drug that does the same effects as alcohol without the hangover and it is also used to make harder drugs... so, Casey and some other person were doing this at home and somehow the kid died (I doubt it was intentional) and knowing they would be charged with murder they disposed of the body the way they did and why all the lies. The flaw in this is the tape itself: I doubt Casey or this 2nd person would go to the garage and find the duct tape to put on the kid's body (unless that tape had been inside the home and easily accessible...but then again who keeps a 4 +year old duct tape in their kitchen?).
2- Casey's father is involved. Probably same scenario as #1 except he found the kid dead and Casey drugged up and the child abuse charges are true. Thats a powerful motivation to turn an accidental death into a murder scene. This is a possible scenario because the man has decades of murder investigation experience and it is -very- unusual for a body to be kept in the trunk of a car for 10 or so days and then dumped. This is all unusual and does not make sense unless you consider that if the kid died from drug overdose and if the kid had been abused by the father then the evidence is all in the flesh and then it would make a ton of sense to purposely hide the body until the flesh is gone.
What's interesting is that all forensic textbooks describe that it takes about 10 days for a body to fully decompose in FL like weather. Also the car was kept near a garbage dumpster to hide the smell... and a corpse will start stinking after just 3 days in FL so I doubt Casey was involved in dumping the body because if she had it would not have been in the car after the 3rd day nor would the car had been hidden near a dumpster (I would think only someone who has seen bodies found near garbage dumpsters would know off the top of his head that the smell is muffled there).
In this scenario it would be Casey's best interest to avoid murder conviction and probably death penalty (drugs+dead kid=easy murder conviction) by lying (which she did best apparently) and misleading while her father would avoid conviction of abuse by disposing of the body after the incriminating flesh was gone.
A lot of things point as Casey's dad imo: The duct tape (it was his house and I would say only a man in his house would beeline for the duct tape in the garage), the knowledge of the timing needed for decomposition, knowledge of how to hide the smell, knowledge of the criminal/forensic investigation procedures and what the legal system can and cannot prove with given evidence. The man's only mistakes in this scenario was to use his own duct tape... I doubt it crossed his mind that his duct tape was of a brand found only in Ohio... and not realizing his daughter would snap under the stress and party her brain out (denial of reality).... or that her pathological lying would bring so much media attention to the case.
In any case, I doubt the case is dropped. Casey could not be found guilty of murder but you can bet that the investigators will keep at it until there is justice for this child.
Extremely well put, and I have the same thoughts about it. I thought they would have arrested the father athis point myself.
-
I just hope that this traumatic trial doesn't put her in an emotional state that doesn't allow her to enjoy herself again.
I know she went partying when her kid was missing and she didn't report her being gone, but there are priorities in life. People just got all bent out of shape because she was shaking her groove thang. The Beastie Boys said it right, "you gotta fight...for your right...to party"
This young woman has done just that. I hope the public leaves her and Britney alone.
Party on, Casey. :rock
-
. :o
-
I hadn't even heard of this until everyone started complaining yesterday. Goes to show the downside of tivo, I guess :D
-
Understood.
Maybe some think her car did it on it's own.
I'm extremely irritated that trash like that gets to walk.
Your completely right. Imho she's quilty. I mean really smiling after the trial? I wouldn't be smiling if my daughter died. (I don't have kids but you get it). :salute
-
I still can't believe they said she's innocent....total bs
-BigBOBCH
-
Your completely right. Imho she's quilty. I mean really smiling after the trial? I wouldn't be smiling if my daughter died. (I don't have kids but you get it). :salute
She is smiling because she will not serve a day in jail again (after July 7th), or face the death pentaly.
-
Watched an interview of a juror (alternate juror?) They were nearly crying as they came to the sad conclusion they couldn't rightly find her guilty (under the law) which is why none of them wanted to talk to the press
-
I don't think she is innocent.. but I do not know either if she did it all on her own or if it was the result of some other situation.
2- Casey's father is involved. Probably same scenario as #1 except he found the kid dead and Casey drugged up and the child abuse charges are true. Thats a powerful motivation to turn an accidental death into a murder scene. This is a possible scenario because the man has decades of murder investigation experience and it is -very- unusual for a body to be kept in the trunk of a car for 10 or so days and then dumped. This is all unusual and does not make sense unless you consider that if the kid died from drug overdose and if the kid had been abused by the father then the evidence is all in the flesh and then it would make a ton of sense to purposely hide the body until the flesh is gone.
What's interesting is that all forensic textbooks describe that it takes about 10 days for a body to fully decompose in FL like weather. Also the car was kept near a garbage dumpster to hide the smell... and a corpse will start stinking after just 3 days in FL so I doubt Casey was involved in dumping the body because if she had it would not have been in the car after the 3rd day nor would the car had been hidden near a dumpster (I would think only someone who has seen bodies found near garbage dumpsters would know off the top of his head that the smell is muffled there).
In this scenario it would be Casey's best interest to avoid murder conviction and probably death penalty (drugs+dead kid=easy murder conviction) by lying (which she did best apparently) and misleading while her father would avoid conviction of abuse by disposing of the body after the incriminating flesh was gone.
A lot of things point as Casey's dad imo: The duct tape (it was his house and I would say only a man in his house would beeline for the duct tape in the garage), the knowledge of the timing needed for decomposition, knowledge of how to hide the smell, knowledge of the criminal/forensic investigation procedures and what the legal system can and cannot prove with given evidence. The man's only mistakes in this scenario was to use his own duct tape... I doubt it crossed his mind that his duct tape was of a brand found only in Ohio... and not realizing his daughter would snap under the stress and party her brain out (denial of reality).... or that her pathological lying would bring so much media attention to the case.
In any case, I doubt the case is dropped. Casey could not be found guilty of murder but you can bet that the investigators will keep at it until there is justice for this child.
This ^^^^^^
Accept ...Grandma was on watch. The child drowned. Grandpa covered it up. IMO
I think the Mother knew and was threatened "I can get you, even in jail".
The Henkel duct tape?
Grandpas deposition..look at page 159
http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21310228/detail.html (http://www.wftv.com/pdf/21310228/detail.html)
A series of 5 articles that don't pass the Hinkey Meter.
http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2009/10/27/will-duct-tape-be-caseys-sticking-point-part-1// (http://www.thehinkymeter.com/2009/10/27/will-duct-tape-be-caseys-sticking-point-part-1//)
-
She is smiling because she will not serve a day in jail again (after July 7th), or face the death pentaly.
That's your Opinion
-
That's your Opinion
Well if I just found out I wouldn't go to prison or be killed I might smile as well. Come on if she didn't smile people would say how could hearted she was. People will believe what they want no matter what. The court of public opinion is a squeak.
-
you're opinions are ruled with emotions, something you have to rule out when serving on a Jury, you have to go with the evidence and the facts of the case as they pertain to the Laws set fourth. emotions can't be used in deciding a Guilty or Innocent verdict, whether you feel like crap after words or not.
-
Well if I just found out I wouldn't go to prison or be killed I might smile as well. Come on if she didn't smile people would say how could hearted she was. People will believe what they want no matter what. The court of public opinion is a squeak.
I don't think you would be smiling if your daughter was dead.
-
I don't think that I would be thinking of my dead daughter immediately after coming out on top of what truly was a life-or-death situation.
-Penguin
-
I don't think that I would be thinking of my dead daughter immediately after coming out on top of what truly was a life-or-death situation.
-Penguin
I would, especially when I just got away with killing her.
-
There is no evidence that points to her killing her daughter. The burden of proof is upon the prosecution, not the defense. Furthermore, if we jailed or executed people just because of public opinion, our country would devolve into the Salem Witch Trials. Who's to say that someone else didn't do it?
-Penguin
-
There is no evidence that points to her killing her daughter. The burden of proof is upon the prosecution, not the defense. Furthermore, if we jailed or executed people just because of public opinion, our country would devolve into the Salem Witch Trials. Who's to say that someone else didn't do it?
-Penguin
I find myself agreeing with you. You cant kill someone without HARD evidence
-
I find myself agreeing with you. You cant kill someone without HARD evidence
Yes, but at the same time Tupac, how can you not call the cops for 30 days, and say its an accident that she drowned in the pool...her story just DOESNT make sense.
-BigBOBCH
-
This ^^^^^^
Accept ...Grandma was on watch. The child drowned. Grandpa covered it up. IMO
I think the Mother knew and was threatened "I can get you, even in jail".
That scenario doesn't fit imo. If the kid drowned even while grandma on watch its still an accident...and if Casey and her kid were abused by that man then I doubt she wouldve gone along with it. OTH if it was Casey who was on watch when it happened... then it makes sense...sort of.
Thanks for those links they were very informative.. and hey I was right..he kept it in the garage in some little spot no outsider could find at a moment's quick search. Honestly I doubt Casey would know where that tape was either since she was not profiled as a hands-on do-it-yourself type of person. In that deposition he stated that he 'does things right and neatly' ... that tape 3 times around the kids head is overkill as 1 time around would've done the job.. but 3? Talk about OCD on doing it right.
-
There are many things that don't make sense, like how the universe came to be. That doesn't mean that so-and-so was involved.
-Penguin
-
Like I've said before; If you want my opinion, she was guilty. If you want to speak legally, then she was not guilty.
-
Yes, but at the same time Tupac, how can you not call the cops for 30 days, and say its an accident that she drowned in the pool...her story just DOESNT make sense.
-BigBOBCH
I think she did it, but that isnt hard evidence IMO
-
Like I've said before; If you want my opinion, she was guilty. If you want to speak legally, then she was not guilty.
They (jury) said there wasn't enough evidence made by the plantiff.
-
They (jury) said there wasn't enough evidence made by the plantiff.
I said legally she was not guilty. Therefore, the jury made the right decision.
PS: Plaintiff is the name given to the complainent in a lawsuit
-
I am wait to see what the judge thinks abut it all.
-
I am wait to see what the judge thinks abut it all.
Enough to give her maximum sentences for her lies.
-
Enough to give her maximum sentences for her lies.
Well, she gets out Wednesday anyway. :rolleyes:
-
See Rule #6
-
Wrong. One of the principles of logic is law of contradiction ie provable negative.
It is possible to prove a negative false.
My car is not red If I go out side and see it is red I proved it false.
It is also possible to prove a negation true.
My car is not red... If I go outside and see my car and it is blue. I have proved not red to be true.
You can prove a negative true using deductive logic. Using the law of excluded middle. When a and b are known.
Using inductive logic it cannot be proven as inductive logic only works on how probable something is.
If you cannot prove that someone committed a crime, they walk
Not true it is only beyond a reasonable doubt, because courts can only use forensic evidence, therefore they can only use inductive logic to make a conclusion.
If all the jurors saw her commit the crime then they and only they could use deductive logic to say she did it but still could not prove it to the court.
You can't prove a negative. Not true? It is called false. And yes you can.
You can't prove a negative true ?
Is a logical fallacy, and violates the law of non contradiction. And simply can't exist in the real world. It can't be true and false at the same time.
The statement claims it is impossible (can't) and possible (can prove) at the same time.
-
Professor Plum, with the candlestick, in the library.
-
vivid entertainment offered her the lead role in its "killer xxx" porn movie. :huh :rofl
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LX6kVRsdXW4)
-
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.
-
(beavis tone) yea, yea... game the game. :joystick:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
No, Jane fell off the boat and drowned. Jack grieves differently than other people. That doesn't mean he murdered her.
-
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?
Not unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt it was murder and he did it. I am sorry but there is things in place so innocent people won't go to jail and it should stay that way. If a guilty person gets away with a crime every once in a while then so be it but its much better than a innocent person going to jail every now and then.
-
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?
Poor example IMO, there are 100 other things that could have happened besides murder.
-
Okay Kilo, I'll play that game, what burden of proof percentage wise is "shadow of a doubt"? 90% confident? 95% confident? 99.9% confident? How about this. If 10 guilty people go away per one innocent is that too many innocent? What about 100 guilty people/innocent person? Is that still too many innocent? What needs to be the success rate? I would like "shadow of a doubt" quantified because it's incredibly easy to say things like that without actually explaining what it means. It's also incredibly easy to say "I'd rather have 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent go to prison".
-
Okay Kilo, I'll play that game, what burden of proof percentage wise is "shadow of a doubt"? 90% confident? 95% confident? 99.9% confident? How about this. If 10 guilty people go away per one innocent is that too many innocent? What about 100 guilty people/innocent person? Is that still too many innocent? What needs to be the success rate? I would like "shadow of a doubt" quantified because it's incredibly easy to say things like that without actually explaining what it means. It's also incredibly easy to say "I'd rather have 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent go to prison".
There's a reason shadow of a doubt isn't used.
-
Poor example IMO, there are 100 other things that could have happened besides murder.
Well just so you know, Jack pushed her off the boat in the middle of the ocean. He got back waving and smiling and said oh hey btw my wife vanished when I was sleeping, time to hit the bars!
-
Well just so you know, Jack pushed her off the boat in the middle of the ocean. He got back waving and smiling and said oh hey btw my wife vanished when I was sleeping, time to hit the bars!
What about it? There's no proof that he pushed her off. It's just as likely she fell off the boat and drowned. Therefore, it's just as likely you send an innocent person to jail as a guilty person, which doesn't come close to the threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt.
-
What about it? There's no proof that he pushed her off. It's just as likely she fell off the boat and drowned. Therefore, it's just as likely you send an innocent person to jail as a guilty person, which doesn't come close to the threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not true because if she fell off she would likely be screaming for help and Jack would wake up from his slumber, stop the boat and turn around and help her. But Jack is a "heavy sleeper" and didn't hear her. Now there are ex girlfriends coming as witnesses to either discount that he is a heavy sleeper or a light sleeper. The verdict of the case hinges in the testimony of these ex's declaring how heavy he sleeps. BUT! He ate a big meal before they left so he was especially tired and it was also sunny so he was feeling kind of drained. Oh man the drama. Jack walks because the jury needed video evidence that he pushed her.
And why did she fall off? She was a college athlete and had great balance and ocean smarts. She would not be standing in a spot where she could possibly fall off. Witnesses can attest to that.
-
Not true because if she fell off she would likely be screaming for help and Jack would wake up from his slumber, stop the boat and turn around and help her. But Jack is a "heavy sleeper" and didn't hear her. Now there are ex girlfriends coming as witnesses to either discount that he is a heavy sleeper or a light sleeper. The verdict of the case hinges in the testimony of these ex's declaring how heavy he sleeps. BUT! He ate a big meal before they left so he was especially tired and it was also sunny so he was feeling kind of drained. Oh man the drama. Jack walks because the jury needed video evidence that he pushed her.
You said likely. Likely doesn't meet a reasonable doubt either. You don't have proof she made a peep. I'm assuming he's sleeping inside, so I would bring in expert testimony about the soundproof-ness, for lack of a better word, of the walls and where he was in relation to her and how that would affect how well he could hear her, of which there is a reasonable doubt as to whether she actually screamed in the first place.
-
How do we know she screamed? Maybe Jane ran off with another guy while Jack was asleep.
-
You said likely. Likely doesn't meet a reasonable doubt either. You don't have proof she made a peep. I'm assuming he's sleeping inside, so I would bring in expert testimony about the soundproof-ness, for lack of a better word, of the walls and where he was in relation to her and how that would affect how well he could hear her, of which there is a reasonable doubt as to whether she actually screamed in the first place.
Okay so basically your interpretation of reasonable doubt is like 99.99% certain then. Even though you know Jack did it, you do not place any legal value in circumstantial evidence?
How did Scott Peterson get convicted of 1st degree murder if circumstantial evidence is not evidence?
-
How do we know she screamed? Maybe Jane ran off with another guy while Jack was asleep.
Because several witnesses saw them leave dock together. They went on a fishing trip, only Jack came back. We can safely assume she screamed because had she fallen overboard, the boat had no obstructions that would render her unconscious upon hitting the water. The natural reaction upon falling out of a moving boat is to scream so we can safely assume beyond reasonable doubt this occurred if she did in fact fall overboard.
-
Okay so basically your interpretation of reasonable doubt is like 99.99% certain then. Even though you know Jack did it, you do not place any legal value in circumstantial evidence?
How did Scott Peterson get convicted of 1st degree murder if circumstantial evidence is not evidence?
What do you mean even though I know Jack did it? And since when does likely=99.99%? I do put value in circumstancial evidence. You better have a lot of it to convict though. The more details you add to your story, the closer you get to passing reasonable doubt. However, in the original debate- the verdict in the Casey Anthony trial- there wasn't enough circumstancial evidence to convict.
-
You seem to be adding details to your case as you go. Oh, and another scenario; she committed suicide.
-
What do you mean even though I know Jack did it? If I knew he did it, that's hard evidence. And since when does likely=99.99%?
If you think you will ever get hard evidence out of a well calculated murder, no, I won't even go that far, an average murder plot, then you are dreaming. Apparently even having the perfect motive for a crime is not evidence.
Lets get even crazier. Say Jill is found shot dead with a bullet from Jack's gun. Isn't this not still circumstantial evidence? We still do not know what happened. We still have to use circumstantial logic to deduce that Jack shot her, since it was his gun, but we do not know that. There is still no evidence he shot her.
-
It's "reasonable doubt" ... shadows have nothing to do with it.
Reasonable Doubt ...
If the jury—or the judge in a bench trial—has a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the jury or judge should pronounce the defendant not guilty. Conversely, if the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
If the guy that is on trial for a murder that was committed on a Friday, has a big mole on his chin, and the DA tries to prove that men with moles on their chins are more likely to commit murders on Fridays ... a juror could doubt this evidence and it would be reasonable and the man should be found innocent.
If the guy that is on trial for a murder that was committed on a Friday, has a big mole on his chin, and the DA tries to prove that this man committed that murder by showing a CCTV film of him committing the murder. The defense then says that the film was doctored but does not prove it ... a juror could doubt the film, but that would be an unreasonable doubt and the man should be found guilty.
Grizz ... you forgot to add that the guy didn't report that his wife fell off the boat until a month later when her mother stopped by and demanded to see her.
-
Grizz ... you forgot to add that the guy didn't report that his wife fell off the boat until a month later when her mother stopped by and demanded to see her.
Hah exactly. Thanks for the exact definition as well.
With the Casey Anthony case I would say there was "doubt" but it was unreasonable doubt.
-
Grizz ... you forgot to add that the guy didn't report that his wife fell off the boat until a month later when her mother stopped by and demanded to see her.
Don't try to make parallels between the hypothetical and the actual case. The facts aren't similar. Grizz, the more circumstancial evidence, the closer you get. I would say if she was shot with a bullet from his gun on a trip where they were the only two seen to leave, I would convict.
-
Hah exactly. Thanks for the exact definition as well.
With the Casey Anthony case I would say there was "doubt" but it was unreasonable doubt.
The doubt was very reasonable. There was nothing to disprove the theory that she drowned. Nothing.
-
Because several witnesses saw them leave dock together. They went on a fishing trip, only Jack came back. We can safely assume she screamed because had she fallen overboard, the boat had no obstructions that would render her unconscious upon hitting the water. The natural reaction upon falling out of a moving boat is to scream so we can safely assume beyond reasonable doubt this occurred if she did in fact fall overboard.
You're adding details here, how do we know she fell overboard?
-
Don't try to make parallels between the hypothetical and the actual case. The facts aren't similar. Grizz, the more circumstancial evidence, the closer you get. I would say if she was shot with a bullet from his gun on a trip where they were the only two seen to leave, I would convict.
You are still making a circumstantial leap of faith. The point of this conjecture is, circumstantial evidence IS evidence. You don't need cold hard evidence all the time. A good blend of both is ideal, or an INSANE amount of circumstantial evidence, as in Casey Anthony's case.
-
You are still making a circumstantial leap of faith. The point of this conjecture is, circumstantial evidence IS evidence. You don't need cold hard evidence all the time. A good blend of both is ideal, or an INSANE amount of circumstantial evidence, as in Casey Anthony's case.
Like I said, you need a lot of circumstancial evidence to convict. There was no evidence that disproved the theory that she drowned. That's reasonable doubt, especially because she loved to swim, could get to the pool under her own power, and the ladder was up. I'll add my own details to the hypothetical. She was getting bad grades lately and her parents were getting on to her. There is nothing to disprove the theory that she committed suicide.
-
The doubt was very reasonable. There was nothing to disprove the theory that she drowned. Nothing.
That theory wasn't even presented in the opening arguments. The circumstantial proof it was not a drowning was clear as day:
1. Body discarded with duct tape (Accident made to look like a murder)
2. Anthony's parents lying till the end
#2 is incredibly damning. Had it happened like the defense proposed (last minute hail mary BTW), that would mean that Casey's own parents would rather see their daughter put to death, than be accused of an improper disposal of a body. A terrible accident that snowballed out of control wouldn't have been taken to the utter extreme like that. If that truly happened and once ch*it hit the fan, her parents would have owned up to the accident and disposal. The jury should have been able to see right through the smoke and mirrors with that one.
-
The doubt was very reasonable. There was nothing to disprove the theory that she drowned. Nothing.
The drowning theory was introduced by the defense to raise doubt to the DA's claim of murder via suffocation ... and it worked.
The DA's office can not waste time/energy/resources trying to disprove a defense theory ... the prosecution has their theory and uses all their resources to try to prove it.
The only time the prosecution can try to discredit a theory by the defense is thru cross and then finally rebuttal ... but the majority of their time and resources are spent building a case, not trying to rip apart the defenses case.
Remember, the prosecution puts their case on first. The defense then tries to disprove the prosecution's case or interject their own theories to raise "doubt".
-
There was a lot of stuff in that swamp, and with a tropical storm through the area, it could have been swept there. Not only that, but people have done weirder things than make accidents look like murders. Furthermore, the only person the duct tape leads to is George. Even more, Roy Kronk said a lot of different things. The white board over the site, the tree over the spot, the skull in the open, then in a bag, and the four month period of waiting to recall it in. Obviously, with his different stories, the scene changed. That makes the whole scene tainted, so we don't know if the duct tape was there in the first place. As to the lying, why would they own up to anything? You said it yourself; they lied throughout. George wouldn't even own up to the affair. With all that, and no evidence that it was even a murder, there is reasonable doubt.
-
The drowning theory was introduced by the defense to raise doubt to the DA's claim of murder via suffocation ... and it worked.
The DA's office can not waste time/energy/resources trying to disprove a defense theory ... the prosecution has their theory and uses all their resources to try to prove it.
The only time the prosecution can try to discredit a theory by the defense is thru cross and then finally rebuttal ... but the majority of their time and resources are spent building a case, not trying to rip apart the defenses case.
Remember, the prosecution puts their case on first. The defense then tries to disprove the prosecution's case or interject their own theories to raise "doubt".
Exactly. I'm not concerned about excuses of why they didn't disprove it, the bottom line is that it was a viable theory that raised reasonable doubt and was not disproven.
-
Exactly. I'm not concerned about excuses of why they didn't disprove it, the bottom line is that it was a viable theory that raised reasonable doubt and was not disproven.
This is where I disagree.
Personally, when I weigh the two theories, the drowning theory is extremely weak because I fail to believe that people who find their children or grandchildren drowned in a pool will result to duct taping their mouth and nose to make an accident look like a murder and then toss the child/grandchild into a swamp ... that to me is unreasonable to believe ... I would have discarded that theory.
In hindsight tho, the drowning theory was brilliant because it could never be proven one way or the other because there was nothing but bones left of the little girl and you can't prove or disprove drowning without lungs.
-
The thing is they couldn't prove they even put the duct tape on her. There was no DNA on it of Caylee, much less Casey. Read my last post where I talk about how it may have gotten there and if you can trust it at all.
-
In hindsight tho, the drowning theory was brilliant because it could never be proven one way or the other because there was nothing but bones left of the little girl and you can't prove or disprove drowning without lungs.
According to Baez's closing, there is an examiner that can prove drowning occurred based on the bone inside the skull, (I don't recall the exact circumstances), but he also said that it does not mean drowning did not occur if the bone did not demonstrate those characteristics. side point but I did watch all 4 hours of the defense closing. :)
-
The thing is they couldn't prove they even put the duct tape on her. There was no DNA on it of Caylee, much less Casey. Read my last post where I talk about how it may have gotten there and if you can trust it at all.
I agree there was no direct evidence. The circumstantial was overwhelming enough to convict though.
-
I agree there was no direct evidence. The circumstantial was overwhelming enough to convict though.
And that's where we disagree.
-
How much more circumstantial evidence could there have been? List:
1. She was last to see her presumably
2. She was the only one who would benefit from her death
3. She did not report it
4. She lied and lied and lied some more, came up with outlandish tales as to what happened to the little girl before admitting she was lying
5. Searched chloroform 84 times
6. Searched neck breaking
7. And to top it off, her car smelt like death
8. Duct tape linked to Anthony house found at crime scene.
Um... what more would be required for a case of all circumstantial evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt for you TonyJoey? If this list does not do it for you then you simply do not value this type of logical/common sense type of evidence as true evidence.
-
I agree with the verdict. It all boils down to "beyond a shadow of a doubt" and even though there was tons of circumstantial evidence it still could have all been a crazy coincidence. I've seen my share of crazy coincidences that's for sure! Now personally I believe that she did it.. or was at least was involved somehow but trials are not about belief. They are about FACTS. Simply put there was no 'smoking gun' piece of evidence to link her to the crime directly.
WHAT THAT BEING SAID I think they could have approached this in a different manner. I think she should have been charged with a lesser crime - maybe manslaughter or child endangerment... something that would have put her behind bars for a longer period of time while they had more time to get further evidence together to get her for murder. The prosecution simply tried to do too much with too little and that's what brought things to this conclusion.
I'm not too worried though. Karma can be a real... well you know the saying.
-
I'm not too worried though. Karma can be a real... well you know the saying.
I didn't follow this trial much, and though I hate to say it, she'll be back. We'll hear about the money she makes off the book and/or movie and/or porno. She'll get herself into some other trouble that the news will feel the need to cover. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if she finds herself behind bars again in the next few years.
-
It all boils down to "beyond a shadow of a doubt"
Not true. Read slapshot's post.
-
This is all just a very sad deal.
The cause of death could not be determined, the time of death could not be determined, the location of death could not be determined.
It's just a bad set of circumstances that made it difficult to get a conviction.
I believe if the prosecution could have presented evidence and not theory as to the cause of death, it might have went different.
The whole thing sucks, but I don't blame the jury.
There just has to be more than "Who else could have done it?"
-
1. She was last to see her presumably - assumption
2. She was the only one who would benefit from her death - assumption
3. She did not report it - truth
4. She lied and lied and lied some more, came up with outlandish tales as to what happened to the little girl before admitting she was lying - truth
5. Searched chloroform 84 times - assumption
6. Searched neck breaking - assumption
7. And to top it off, her car smelt like death - evidence was inconclusive
8. Duct tape linked to Anthony house found at crime scene. - truth
So, if 3,4 and 8 are true that does not lead to 'beyond reasonable doubt' as to her being the killer. It does cast a lot of suspicion towards her though.
-
1. She was last to see her presumably
2. She was the only one who would benefit from her death
3. She did not report it
4. She lied and lied and lied some more, came up with outlandish tales as to what happened to the little girl before admitting she was lying
5. Searched chloroform 84 times
6. Searched neck breaking
7. And to top it off, her car smelt like death
8. Duct tape linked to Anthony house found at crime scene.
The idea that she would benefit from it goes hand in hand with the motive that you said yourself that you didn't buy. She had been lying and decieveing for years, why would this be any different? The software used to get the 84 search results was in its infacy. The tried and true test came up with 1 search of chloroform. The car was inconclusive and irrelevant anyway as to whether she drowned or whether she was killed, and I've already addressed the duct tape. If the cause of death was suffocation, I would convict.
-
In hindsight tho, the drowning theory was brilliant because it could never be proven one way or the other because there was nothing but bones left of the little girl and you can't prove or disprove drowning without lungs.
Yes you can if the conditions are right.
Those conditions are:
1- Victim drowns in a body of water that is exposed to the elements for some time. AKA a pool, swamp, sea, lake or river. Not a kitchen sink or bathtub.
2- There is bone marrow left in the long bones (femur/humerus).
In this case there was no bone marrow left in the long bones because they had been scavenged by predators. Normally in an adult human the predators cannot get to that marrow but in a child's bones they get to it easily.
The evidence of drowning is left in the bones via diatom absorption. As the victim drowns, the water enters the lungs and comes into contact with the alveoli...which allows the algae-like diatoms to be absorbed directly into the bloodstream. In the half a minute that it takes the person to drown, the hearbeat will carry that blood to the long bones where the marrow absorbs the diatoms and they are left there as evidence.
A normal human has an extremely low, almost insignificant diatom count in their bone marrow..but when the drowning takes place the diatom count significantly increases above normal levels.
Now this is not a 100% definitive evidence of drowning since some people do asphixiate first before drowning (holding breath until they pass out and then the water gets in the lungs...and thats not enough time for the blood to pump the diatoms into the long bones) but when its present its a big red flag to the cause of death being drowning.
-
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.
I thought that was a huge mistake on the part of the prosecusion and the case was over right then, this whole case has bene a huge joke to me. Would you hire a plumber to trim a tree? Any prosecutor worth their paycheck will NEVER look to a forensic medical examiner, who has a medical science degree (not a criminal law degree, not a degree on human or social behaviors, etc.) for anything other than unspeculative conclusive data, analysis and facts on the condition of the body. They might as well of called her 2nd-grade english teacher to the stand and asked them if they thought Casey would grow up and of been a horrible neglecting parent someday.
-
I thought that was a huge mistake on the part of the prosecusion and the case was over right then, this whole case has bene a huge joke to me. Would you hire a plumber to trim a tree? Any prosecutor worth their paycheck will NEVER look to a forensic medical examiner, who has a medical science degree (not a criminal law degree, not a degree on human or social behaviors, etc.) for anything other than unspeculative conclusive data, analysis and facts on the condition of the body. They might as well of called her 2nd-grade english teacher to the stand and asked them if they thought Casey would grow up and of been a horrible neglecting parent someday.
While I wouldn't go that far, I definately agree with you.
-
I agree with the verdict. It all boils down to "beyond a shadow of a doubt" and even though there was tons of circumstantial evidence it still could have all been a crazy coincidence. I've seen my share of crazy coincidences that's for sure! Now personally I believe that she did it.. or was at least was involved somehow but trials are not about belief. They are about FACTS. Simply put there was no 'smoking gun' piece of evidence to link her to the crime directly.
WHAT THAT BEING SAID I think they could have approached this in a different manner. I think she should have been charged with a lesser crime - maybe manslaughter or child endangerment... something that would have put her behind bars for a longer period of time while they had more time to get further evidence together to get her for murder. The prosecution simply tried to do too much with too little and that's what brought things to this conclusion.
I'm not too worried though. Karma can be a real... well you know the saying.
You should have watched the verdict.
Count 1: 1st Degree Murder - Not Guilty
Count 2: Aggravated Manslaughter of a Child - Not Guilty
Count 3: Aggravated Endangerment of a Child - Not Guilty
Count4-7: Providing false information to law enforcement - Guilty
-
Tigger, what you suggested is double jeopardy.
-
I found this interesting... ignore the hoopla and watch the last 30 seconds.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/07/lightning-strikes-tree-near-caylee-anthony-memorial-site/
I'm not the kind of person that finds the imagine of the deity in my oatmeal, but I do hope for some kind of justice for that little girl.
-
While I hope she can turn her life around, I feel she'll be back in trouble before long.
-
IIRC from watching a blurb from the only juror to consent to an interview, they did consider manslaughter. The sticking point was the lack of ability to show cause of death. On that basis I have to partially agree with what she said. The prosecution simply lacked the evidence. This may just have been one of the few that will have to have slipped between the cracks of the justice system. It is not a presumption of guilt, of that there was and is plenty. It is a case of beyond a reasonable doubt and there was not enough of direct provable evidence to lead to the conclusion that she, or her mother, or her father were the ones to have done the deed.
IMO she did murder her child. That she was found not guilty does not mean she did not do it, it just means that she was not convicted of doing it. Sometimes things happen that cannot meet the requirements of the courts, irregardless of the actual events.
The child deserved a better family but didn't get it. May she rest in peace.
-
Well said Maverick.
-
:noid(http://i664.photobucket.com/albums/vv3/1sum41/hideyokids.jpg) :bolt:
-
The process by which a conclusion is inferred from multiple observations is called inductive reasoning.
If the jurors or judge have no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, or if their only doubts are unreasonable doubts, then the prosecutor has proven the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the defendant should be pronounced guilty.
The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and that it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused's guilt, but only that no Reasonable Doubt is possible from the evidence presented.
It should be a reasonable doubt most don't understand the legal definition.
That she could have drowned ( without help ) is a doubt, it is not reasonable based on the evidence.
Using inductive logic it is impossible to prove anything. Going into a case like this there is going to be some doubt.
It has to be reasonable doubt based on the evidence, not the lack thereof.