The Casey Anthony trial

Is this why Nancy Grace's ratings have been back up?

Guilty. Also guilty of different crimes, cable news networks for their wall-to-wall coverage and the bored housewives enabling them.

The state hasn't proved anything Casey hasn't admitted to already.

The state proved Casey's a creepy woman who Googled some crazy shit, and drove around with her dead daugher in the trunk of her car before dumping it. But they never once proved she actually killed her. There's not even current test to prove how the little girl died.

I wanted to desk stomp Baez every time he argued Calie's skull should have been sawed open to see if the body had been moved. Of course the body was moved you asshole, animals ate the thing.

Anyway, I don't think she will be found guilty. Obstruction of justice, anything to do with hiding the body for sure, but not the actual murder.

The Defense attorney is pretty bad. I saw a picture of a posterboard he had put up, titled "Who Smelled What?" and "Casey's Imaginary Friends." I don't know why he thought that was a good idea.

The Prosecutor was laughing at him! The judge told them off but still. This dude is going to use his entire four hours. The jury must be exhausted and bored.

This girl really doesn't show emotion does she? She's sitting there with an absolute poker face. It's creepy.

The thing bothering me most about the defense.  We keep on hearing how "no one can tell you how she died.  Not anyone." and then a moments later "it was an accident".

Well if no one knows how she died shouldn't the case be "we will never know how she died, and it will haunt Casey Anthony that she will never know how her daughter died, but don't find her guilty because you personal need answers and decided to make your own".  It just seems weird this "no one can prove whether Caley died to duct tape or chloraform, but we know without any prove being given its an accident"

The defense was blaming it on the Father for a while too, weren't they? I think they're just throwing out whatever to see what sticks. Wizards did it!

When you say "they said she drowned", you mean the defense opening statement, because other than that I don't recall one witness stating a drowning in testimony.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jcr39 

The defense was blaming it on the Father for a while too, weren't they? I think they're just throwing out whatever to see what sticks. Wizards did it!

They seem to be on the same page as Casey. Maybe Zanny the Nanny will magically pop up in court and confess.

Wow, a new legend of defense lawyers has been created today.

I will bet she gets the max on each of those lying charges.

She probably gets off for time served.

The new OJ?

Come on guys... she was clearly innocent.

I mean, it is typical for an accidental drowning to be made to look like a murder.  Anytime a child dies in a pool, you take off their suit, put them in regular clothing., then bound their face with duct tape and burry them in the woods.

And ask any mother who has lost a child.  The best way to deal with grief is to party like a whore.  Body shots, and one night stands are the "cure all" for any grieving parents.  Tattoos too! 

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 

I AM FUCKING STUNNED.

Imagine you anger when she gets her first million dollar book deal and profits on this shit.
 

nah, she will most likely do Penthouse....

What is it with California and Florida?  What do they think happened?  And to come to this conclusion so quickly is baffling. 

This jury is stupid to go on tv.  They are going to be hated like her.

the attorney for Casey... WOW.  The balls on that guy, telling the press that he will tell his future kids that today, he saved an innocent life.

So, quick question, unrelated of course, was the movie HOSTEL based on real life events... because um, I found some canidates.

I'm going to put bets on a jury that saw too many CSI episodes and thought that foresics should always come in nice and neat packages that instantly solves the murder.

Very honestly, I do hope at some point someone make a realistic CSI show that deals with the idea that "we could do 10 different procedurces on the body, we only went with 2 because of both the man hour issue and just the general money issue".  I wonder how many people even realize that these crime labs do have budgets to them and they can't afford most the procedurces shown as "typical police work" on tv.

The body of the little girl, it was burried for some time, correct?  Doesn't the fact that is was so badly decomposed, and torn apart by local wildlife, make the actual "cause" of death nearly impposible to determine.  There is more to a trial then fingerprints and DNA.  Sad that this jury was easily dupped.  From what I saw, the defense saying "maybe Aliens killed her" would have caused enough doubt

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickP 

The body of the little girl, it was burried for some time, correct?  Doesn't the fact that is was so badly decomposed, and torn apart by local wildlife, make the actual "cause" of death nearly impposible to determine.  There is more to a trial then fingerprints and DNA.  Sad that this jury was easily dupped.  From what I saw, the defense saying "maybe Aliens killed her" would have caused enough doubt

Correct, since the cause of death wasn't determined, it's hard to convict for murder by chloroform by Casey Anthony.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Augustine 

Correct, since the cause of death wasn't determined, it's hard to convict for murder by chloroform by Casey Anthony.

 

But, in a case of a missing person being found dead, how many times are the "experts" able to conclude the actual cause of death?   To me, the body having duct tape on it, is strong evidence that the child was killed. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 

They didn't have cause of death for Laci Peterson, but they convicted her hubby for murder due to his fucked up behavior after she went missing.  Circumstancial evidence should have been enough here.

the big difference here is, Scott Peterson was a man, and the victim was a good looking woman.

Her being an attractive (debatable) white female, imo, lead to her not being convicted.

If she was a black male, she would have been convicted of murder 2 years ago.   

Laci Peterson was also pregnant. Scott was a baby killer!

And yep, I''m a little shocked but also not entirely surprised that she got off.

So is Casey... a baby killer that is. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickP 

nah, she will most likely do Penthouse....

"If I Do You"

Yeah, the jury is fucked. New OJ is right.

I pray this woman doesn't have any more children.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brendan 

And yep, I''m a little shocked but also not entirely surprised that she got off.

I feel the same way.

Did Nancy Grace's head explode or anything? Has anyone checked on her?

you kidding... she's going to LOVE the ratings....  this innocent vedict just got her another story on her house

Has Casey Anthony decided on which club will host the Official Acquittal VIP Party?  Get your bottle service, glow sticks, body glitter and babies to kill!

Fucking Florida white trash who has no idea who the father of her now-dead daughter is.  And that jury is goddamn moronic.  I bet when they finally discuss the case with the press, they will bring up how there was a lack of DNA evidence when they found the body...failing to realize that there was no possible way to get DNA from a skeleton.  I think they wanted a timestamped youtube clip of Casey killing and burying the kid in order to convict.  Reminds me of an OJ Simpson murder trial juror who was asked how she could have voted to acquit considering all the DNA evidence that said it had to be him.  She said, "well, we all got DNA."

I expect her to be at the Bunnyranch in 2 years, if she hasn't started to do porn already.

I must be one of the few people in the nation not following this case at all, and I'm in Florida. However I started watching some of the coverage on this tonight and it was horrible, specially Nancy Grace who condemned the jury and couldn't believe they wouldn't bother to stand in front of the national media to answer their questions (didn't know this was a requirement now to be a juror).

Just from the basic knowledge of what went on, I think most people would tend to think that she was somehow involved in her death, but don't you guys think the problem here lies not with the jury but with the prosecution? Some of the more sane legal commentary I saw tonight suggested that they should have gone for a lesser charge, not first degree murder*. I've heard people bring up the CSI mentality excuse, that people now want 100% scientific certainty to convict, I'm not sure if that's the case. I tend to believe, but can't prove it of course, that when the prosecution is seeking the death penalty, the jurors might even lower the bar on what they consider reasonable doubt.

* The problem with this theory of course is that they didn't find her guilty on the manslaughter charge. I know we used to have some members that were pretty versed on the law, would be nice to hear a bit more explanation on what needs to be proved for the different charges.

I haven't followed the case at all, but here's my two cents, based on my working knowledge of criminal law (I don't do crim law, only civil).

Manslaughter was an easy charge to prove, relatively speaking, because the law doesn't require proof of mental state for the prosecution to establish the charge.  That the prosecution failed to convince the jury of Anthony's culpability on that charge speaks volumes about either the weakness of its case or its poor legal skills.

Anything above manslaughter requires proof of mental state (mens rea or guilty mind, which here is, in essence, the intent to kill).  This is very difficult to do, as it has to be done circumstantially.  Failure to prove murder 1 isn't that surprising.  Usually the prosecution goes for the lesser murder 2 or manslaughter charge to avoid losing what should be a slam dunk.

By the way, all evidence is circumstantial.  Even a YouTube clip of the murderer doing the deed.  The point of evidence is that the jury draws inferences from those facts established via evidence.  Don't let the trope of TV lawyers decrying evidence as "circumstantial" fool you.

Sentencing-wise, it's possible that the judge will throw the book at her on the lying to officers charges.  Judges, not juries, decide sentencing (except in death penalty cases).  But the judge could also credit her time served and she could walk as soon as tomorrow.  Who knows.

What floors me about this case is the not guilty verdict on the child abuse chargers. I'm no expert but failing to report your daughter missing for a month doesn't constitute even a hint of abusive behavior?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica 

I must be one of the few people in the nation not following this case at all, and I'm in Florida. However I started watching some of the coverage on this tonight and it was horrible, specially Nancy Grace who condemned the jury and couldn't believe they wouldn't bother to stand in front of the national media to answer their questions (didn't know this was a requirement now to be a juror).

 

Just from the basic knowledge of what went on, I think most people would tend to think that she was somehow involved in her death, but don't you guys think the problem here lies not with the jury but with the prosecution? Some of the more sane legal commentary I saw tonight suggested that they should have gone for a lesser charge, not first degree murder*. I've heard people bring up the CSI mentality excuse, that people now want 100% scientific certainty to convict, I'm not sure if that's the case. I tend to believe, but can't prove it of course, that when the prosecution is seeking the death penalty, the jurors might even lower the bar on what they consider reasonable doubt.

 

* The problem with this theory of course is that they didn't find her guilty on the manslaughter charge. I know we used to have some members that were pretty versed on the law, would be nice to hear a bit more explanation on what needs to be proved for the different charges.

The manslaughter acquittal is the sticking point here. What the Hell?

EDIT: God, the defence team after this thing. Champagne reception, giving reporters the finger, talking about saving an innocent life, no words for the two year-old girl dead at the centre of this....unbelievably scummy.

To me, it seems like the jury had there mind made up before the trial even began. 

Real curious to see what happens to her over the next three years.  She has a history of keeping "bad" company, and with 99% of America thinking she is a baby killer, Bad will turn to worse.  Mix in the money she will earn with book deals, tv movies and interviews... I'd be suprised if she doesn't turn up dead in some hotel room.

If you take the defense's drowning story as fact, isn't that a chargeable crime right there?

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickP 

I'd be suprised if she doesn't turn up dead in some hotel room.

Same here, and I'm perfectly fine when that happens.

Ok guys question, I keep on hearing how Casey is going to make tons of money in book/tv/movie deals.  I can understand the book deal obviously.  But a movie/tv deal.  Am I correct in thinking that any producer can make "The Casey Anthony Story" without even paying one penny to any family member because of her public figure status.

Granted if they want Casey's view of the case they would have to pay, but if the decide for example to look at it from the police/prosecuters view they wouldn't have to pay anything.

Book deal is huge, and you know that Oprah or whoever will offer her major cash for an hour long interview. 

Offered without commentary:  People who have followed the case and need a warm body to take their anger out on have turned their sights toward Kim Kardashian.

Are you guys sure there weren't other actual legal factors to this case that influenced the verdict - factors that may not have been covered in the medias rush to judge this girl? Factors that, I dunno, may have gotten her acquitted?

I'm not making any call either way here, but I won't pretend that the mob mentality just in this thread certainly seems to reflect the pitchfork and flaming torch boner the mainstream media have had for this kid as well.

I'm not saying I believe she was guilty or innocent - hell, I wasn't there I don't know - I just don't see why everyone here is so sure she deserves to go down. What evidence have you got that was missed in this trial? Shouldn't you have forwarded it to the authorities if it's such irrefutable proof that it convinced you personally this girl you've never met, know essentially nothing about, murdered her own daughter?

Seriously, if we're all so sure about this maybe there should be some old fashioned lynching setup of some kind?

Thing is - and I can't stress this enough before the self-righteous indignation descends from on high - I'm not saying this girl is innocent. I don't know. Thing is - neither do any of you.

Or as Gandalf The Grey said it best...

"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends"