I don't think she should've gone down on the murder charge. But admitting that your child drowned in your pool and that you then duct taped the body and buried it in the woods? Yeah, abuse and possibly manslaughter doesn't seem like a stretch there.

Juror says they felt sick about letting her off while alternate juror calls Casey "a good mother".

Yeah, these guys sound like reliable types. The alternate guy has no problem believing a story which is backed by even less evidence than the prosecutor's case! The "CSI Effect" is seeming more and more plausible.

I don't know how someone could preach "reasonable doubt" and still be sick to your stomach about the decission.  Seems like conflicting condtions IMO.   (they are obviously backtracking due to the outcry)

The alternate juror pissed me off, talking about how the prosecution never explained a motive.  They don't have too.  Dr G gave her expert opinion on the body, and stated the manner of death was murder, and not an accident.   But yeah, a drowned girl, getting redressed in a play outfit, being bound in duct tape, placed in a garbage bag, and thrown away like trash tottaly sounds like an accidental drowning.   

That's why the clear-headed are pointing to the prosecution's overreaching. First degree murder is pre-meditated, which means they have to establish a motive. They didn't have one, couldn't prove one, and so it can't stick. They got cocky and it cost them. If the prosecution cannot make the case (which, come the fuck on, wasn't made at all), then a jury has little choice but to return a not guilty verdict. There were no witnesses, there was no motive, there was no evidence substantial enough to make it a first degree murder charge. The real question isn't how the jury didn't convict her, it's how did the charge make it past a grand jury to begin with.

Is Casey Anthony a shitty, irresponsible human being? Yes. Is it tragic that a two year old is dead in such a cruel, unforgiving manner? Yes. Did Casey Anthony murder her? Maybe.

You can't convict on a maybe.

Pre meditated does not mean that you have to establish motive, you have to establish that it was a planned that someone was to be killed.  That does not nessecarily require motive.  And the prosecution did give a motive that she was sick of her child and choose to kill her instead of just giving her to her parents/adoption/ and they were trying to show planning through searches.

As far as how it got through the grand jury, the jury typically hears only from the prosecution side and is only answering the question of whether there is a "probably cause to arrest".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Clark 

That's why the clear-headed are pointing to the prosecution's overreaching. First degree murder is pre-meditated, which means they have to establish a motive. They didn't have one, couldn't prove one, and so it can't stick. They got cocky and it cost them. If the prosecution cannot make the case (which, come the fuck on, wasn't made at all), then a jury has little choice but to return a not guilty verdict. There were no witnesses, there was no motive, there was no evidence substantial enough to make it a first degree murder charge. The real question isn't how the jury didn't convict her, it's how did the charge make it past a grand jury to begin with.

 

Is Casey Anthony a shitty, irresponsible human being? Yes. Is it tragic that a two year old is dead in such a cruel, unforgiving manner? Yes. Did Casey Anthony murder her? Maybe.

 

You can't convict on a maybe.

Motive is WHY you did something. Rarely if ever an element of a crime.

Premeditation goes to intent -- you intended to do the crime as evidenced by planning the act. Intent and motive are two different things

How can you get a "maybe" based on the evidence and testimony presented? 

I think the "reasonable doubt" crutch the jury and defense used, is just a cover for "lack of common sense". 

Even watching the videos of George and Cindy, if they "knew" their grandaughter was dead, tell Chris Nolan to sign those fuckers up for his next film because that was the greast performance I have ever seen.  

 A lack of forensic evidence led to reasonable doubt, so the defendant was acquitted. This is how the system is supposed to work. Your reality programming didn't have the Law and Order ending you were hoping for, which is irrelevant.

A boy lives with his dad, who's a jerk and knocks him around. One night, the boy and the dad have an argument--a loud one. There's sounds of a scuffle. Later, the dad is found dead, stabbed in the chest with a switchblade. There's no fingerprints or usable DNA evidence. The boy gets picked up a few blocks away. A shop owner testifies that he sold the boy the knife--but it's one of several easily available duplicates. A woman in the apartment across the street says she saw the boy and the dad arguing, right before an el-train rushed by--but she didn't have her glasses on. An old man downstairs says he heard a commotion, and saw someone running out the front door of the building--but it was from behind. The boy says he didn't murder his father, but isn't sorry he's dead.

Did the boy murder the father? And are you sure enough to send that boy to his death?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DerekT 

Pre meditated does not mean that you have to establish motive, you have to establish that it was a planned that someone was to be killed.  That does not nessecarily require motive.  And the prosecution did give a motive that she was sick of her child and choose to kill her instead of just giving her to her parents/adoption/ and they were trying to show planning through searches.

 

As far as how it got through the grand jury, the jury typically hears only from the prosecution side and is only answering the question of whether there is a "probably cause to arrest".

 

The prosecution alleged that that was her motive, but did they prove it? Did they give clear demonstrable proof that she had reached her limit with the kid and decided to off her? No. She was undeniably a shitty parent, but that's not enough to convict.

There's an interesting article in The Detroit Free Press today about how Nancy Grace's never-ending, shrieking, off-with-her-head coverage of the case probably escalated things far more than they ever would have been otherwise, prompting the prosecution to overreach on what would have probably been a simple plea-bargained manslaughter case that would never have received this insane amount of national coverage.

I'll buy that. But then again, I think Nancy Grace is an actual living harpy. No, not the old nagging woman kind, the mythological three-titted vulture beast that emits a noise so foul that its prey yearns for death.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Clark 

 

The prosecution alleged that that was her motive, but did they prove it? Did they give clear demonstrable proof that she had reached her limit with the kid and decided to off her? No. She was undeniably a shitty parent, but that's not enough to convict.

 

Oh, I agree with you that the prosecution did not have anyone state "yes I heard Casey say that she regreted being a mother and hopeful soon enough she wouldn't have to be one".  However how can you ever prove motive (with the sole exception of robery).  Unless you can get into the mind of the acused motive is always a theory and never "yep thats exactly it".  Motive is also no proof of an actual crime.  What the prosecution did to though was prove premediation (at least in my opinion, not with the jury) by showing those google searches of neck breaking and shovel even if one completly believed the chlorophyll  part of the testimony.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacob Singer 

There's an interesting article in The Detroit Free Press today about how Nancy Grace's never-ending, shrieking, off-with-her-head coverage of the case probably escalated things far more than they ever would have been otherwise, prompting the prosecution to overreach on what would have probably been a simple plea-bargained manslaughter case that would never have received this insane amount of national coverage.

Had I been the prosecutor in charge, that probably would've been my strategy: have her cop a plea to manslaughter, credit her time served, and she'll be out in 10.  Anthony would've taken it because her chances at surviving a murder 2 verdict were iffy.

Now bear in mind that the jury could've convicted Anthony of manslaughter--the prosecution asked for the lesser included crimes.  But focusing on the murder 1 charge was a strategic mistake, which likely confused the jurors to think it was all or nothing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trevor 

 A lack of forensic evidence led to reasonable doubt, so the defendant was acquitted. This is how the system is supposed to work. Your reality programming didn't have the Law and Order ending you were hoping for, which is irrelevant.

Tell that to Scott Peterson,...  if memory serves me correct, they didn't even have a body.  He was found guilty based on actions after his wife dissapeared.  So I guess, the system didn't work in that trial, right?

What type of "forensic evidence" would have lead to her conviction?  The body was a placed in a trash bag, so there wouldn't be any traces in a trunk, specialy after 31 days.  And lets say that the cops found Caylee's body early, so what if Casey's fingerprints would have been on the duct tape, the defense explained that she did that after the child drowned, and the "reasonable dubt crutch could have been used there as well.

Sad part is,  now your going to see people siding with the jury, not because of their decission, but because of the Nancy Grace factor. 

NickP--what would you rather have as a criminal justice system, then?  It seems that your beef is with the inconsistency of juries in general.

NickP seems to somehow have confused the law with justice.

The two concepts are not related. At all.

Yeah, that was pretty great. Henry Fonda would'a been proud.

Hey not everyone likes 12 angry men you know.  Besides there should of been a mistrial when the one juror admitted that he investigated the knife claim himself, jurors are not suppose to do that.

Edit to add: I love 12 angry men, don't ask my brother about it though.  I will say though, we should not be bringing up movies or tv when it comes to how the judical system should or should not work.

They should just put the verdict of these big cases up to popular vote - imagine all of the awesome ads we'd get leading up to the big day. Maybe we could rig up some sort of a harness where the accused is slowly lowered down into an industrial blender in real-time according to the voting projections!

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

Is this chick full of shit? The interview is legit BTW.

Well if she told you she did it, you must wonder why she didn't make a deal with the prosecution if she could get Anthony to confess on tape.

I do not trust inmate confessional without 100% proof on what was said.

The thing is, this isn't an all-or-nothing case. I hate to side with NickP, but he's got a point - the "Nancy Grace factor" seems to putting a lot of people off of saying that the jury fucked up on the lesser charges. They didn't *have* to send her to her death. Aggravated child abuse is a fucking slamdunk conviction here, given what Anthony admitted to herself.

Ultimately, no-one comes out of this looking like someone you'd trust to serve justice. The prosecution screwed the pooch on the murder one charge, the defence are like the pro-Casey version of Nancy Grace, and the jury seemed to ignore the options given to them in order to make a statement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickP 

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.   

Cough!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Augustine 

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

I might drown too if I had duct tape on my mouth while swimming.

Did the prosecution go for a charge that could fit  description of "neglect" or "manslaughter"?
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Clark 

That's why the clear-headed are pointing to the prosecution's overreaching. First degree murder is pre-meditated, which means they have to establish a motive. They didn't have one, couldn't prove one, and so it can't stick. They got cocky and it cost them

Exactly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Clark 

A boy lives with his dad, who's a jerk and knocks him around. One night, the boy and the dad have an argument--a loud one. There's sounds of a scuffle. Later, the dad is found dead, stabbed in the chest with a switchblade. There's no fingerprints or usable DNA evidence. The boy gets picked up a few blocks away. A shop owner testifies that he sold the boy the knife--but it's one of several easily available duplicates. A woman in the apartment across the street says she saw the boy and the dad arguing, right before an el-train rushed by--but she didn't have her glasses on. An old man downstairs says he heard a commotion, and saw someone running out the front door of the building--but it was from behind. The boy says he didn't murder his father, but isn't sorry he's dead.

 

Did the boy murder the father? And are you sure enough to send that boy to his death?

I dunno. How hot is it in the deliberation room?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg Clark 

No. She was undeniably a shitty parent, but that's not enough to convict.

 

Cough! Again.

Couple Guilty Of Murder In Girl's Death By Pet Python

The prosecution in the Anthony case should have gone with a lesser degree. Cocky and dumb.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacob Singer 

There's an interesting article in The Detroit Free Press today about how Nancy Grace's never-ending, shrieking, off-with-her-head coverage of the case probably escalated things far more than they ever would have been otherwise, prompting the prosecution to overreach on what would have probably been a simple plea-bargained manslaughter case that would never have received this insane amount of national coverage.

I read another article somewhere with an even better theory: Casey Anthony was indigent. Ordinarily, she would have been stuck with a public defender, which would have increased the pressure for her to accept a plea deal for murder (likely without the death penalty) or manslaughter. Nancy Grace's drum-beating gave Casey Anthony's case enough public attention to make it worthwhile for a private defense firm to take the case pro-bono. Say what you will about Jose Baez's courtroom strategy, he threw a lot of money into his investigative team, and they were able to uncover all of the evidentiary holes in the prosecution's case. Grace had more to do with Casey Anthony's acquittal than she'd care to admit.

It's another reason why Nancy Grace's harpy act benefitted Casey Anthony far more than it harmed her. That is, unless, she gets killed after she gets out of prison.

Here some Casey Anthony trial after the fact news

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43807133/ns/us_news-the_new_york_times/?GT1=43001 

So it could of been 84 searches or 1.