Casey Anthony not guilty? WTF

[SuperCobraJet]

Idiocracy is in fact, a prophecy. If the planet somehow makes it to the year 2500 or whatever, it will not be much different than the world portrayed in that great movie. It has electrolytes! Brondo: It's what plants crave.

Another great prophecy:

Soylent Green.


I think this a case of jury stupification.
Also reveals a glaring weakness in the system: Jury selection.
The jury selection process, is nothing more in many of these cases than an excercise by the defense, of stacking the jury with as many "stooges" as possible, so as to skew "reasonable doubt".
Evidently they suceeded in this case.
IMO, guilt on the manslaughter charge was a "no brainer".

Of course on the other hand I believe Casey got a jury of her "peers".
They were as careless and negligent as she was.

 

[sumbrownkid]

When will we be done with these stupid gossip trials? Thank you Nancy Grace, ET, Access Hollywood, and the rest of the stupid gossip shows for making this national news and distracting people from real issues.

This.

Cameras nor the media should ever be allowed in the court rooms.

People also said this is OJ 2.0.

I wholeheartedly disagree, in that this case had no racial issues in it all.

 

[Coxis]

Oh well, we'll have to see how many years she gets. I heard the minimum sentence is like one year per count, and she could get a sentence of time served reducing her time left in the joint.

Apparently this is exactly what happened, she is being released on July 13th if anyone wants to know.

http://us.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/07/07/florida.casey.anthony.next/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

 

[Villain]

OK, so she's not guilty of killing Caylee.
Doesn't that mean that they have to search for someone else now?

Not unless they find more evidence.

 

[rocko100]

Some states are considering passing a "caylee law" where if a child is hurt or killed and not reported within 24 hours it's a felony to the guardian. Hopefully this will (if passed) prevent future Casey Anthonys

 

[1241Penguin]

OJ Simpson anybody?

 

[XxOnLySBz4mExX]

Apparently this is exactly what happened, she is being released on July 13th if anyone wants to know.

http://us.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/07/07/florida.casey.anthony.next/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

I just heard it will be extended until July 17th.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey_anthony_trial/casey-anthony-released-jail-week/story?id=14015562

kinda off topic but . . . are there any internet memes about this case yet? I am too lazy to search.

EDIT: Nevermind, I found them . . .
http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/events/casey-anthony-trial

 

[fitftw]

lol

How can someone not find this whole thing to be at least a TINY BIT humorous?

 

[slims]

lolHow can someone not find this whole thing to be at least a TINY BIT humorous?

Yeah I don't really find the death of a child humorous.

 

[FoolKiller]

Fair enough with the gossip trial thing, but she might have killed a little girl. If that isn't a real issue then what is?

Imagine if you could talk to the toddler, would she think it isn't a real issue? Her life was taken from her at age 2.

I don't care who died, it is not international news for 3 years important. Imagine if your own child went missing while Nancy Grace ranted on about this one, single, case. You really want just 5 minutes of media coverage to get some volunteers to help you search, get her picture out, and ask for information from any possible witnesses, but you can't because Nancy Grace and others in the media decided this case is more important.

Hundreds of kids go missing every day. Why do I only know about this one, which happened three years ago?

A first degree murder conviction NEVER needs a motive, or cause of death for that matter... in fact there doesn't even need to be a body. She got off because of her defense.

A first degree murder conviction should have a motive. Murder One is Premeditated Murder. You cannot get premeditated murder without a motive.

And that is where the prosecutors screwed up. They saw a mother acting uncaring and went for the full on death penalty charge. The problem is that they didn't have proof for premeditated murder. Manslaughter, negligence, most likely. But she wasn't charged with those. To prove murder one you have to prove they had a reason and had thought it out in advance, as well as actually did it.

Was it not proven in court that she was murdered (duck tape and all - nobody duck tapes a dead body)? and didnt she lie from day one? and didnt she know that her daughter was dead from day 1?

I may have misheard, as it was just the TV on in the background, but I believe the duct tape that was supposed to have been over her mouth and nose had no DNA on it, which is unheard of.

I think this a case of jury stupification.
Also reveals a glaring weakness in the system: Jury selection.
The jury selection process, is nothing more in many of these cases than an excercise by the defense, of stacking the jury with as many "stooges" as possible, so as to skew "reasonable doubt".
Evidently they suceeded in this case.

The prosecution has an equal amount of control over jury selection as the defense. They both get the same number of automatic dismissals. They both get to question every potential juror.

IMO, guilt on the manslaughter charge was a "no brainer".

But she wasn't charged with manslaughter. She was charged with Murder One. Those are two very different forms of homicide. One is accidental death due to some form of reckless endangerment, the other is premeditated murder.

Of course on the other hand I believe Casey got a jury of her "peers".
They were as careless and negligent as she was.

Or they were an honest jury that didn't see proof of premeditated murder.

 

[Joey D]

Hundreds of kids go missing every day. Why do I only know about this one, which happened three years ago?

While this is probably a rhetorical question, it does lead me to wonder the same thing. I'm guessing the only reason the media took a hold of this one is because of the web of lies that were initially told making it a true like Law & Order. Put that on top of the fact a cute little girl went missing and that the mother was a rather attractive, partying, slut and you got yourself a made for TV drama.

America likes reality TV, they also like crime dramas and sex symbols, put the three together and there is a wirlwind of coverage. I'm guessing if Casey Anthony would have been a fat, nasty, lowlife living in a trailer in the backwoods of Mississippi there wouldn't have been the coverage. I'm guessing the same thing would have happen if she was any other colour besides white too, or poor.

 

[Pupik]

I always get idea that the combination also works well on "slow news days". The media runs with it, now that they're linked to Twitter and Facebook; thus, if a news story gains no traction in social media, they're doubtful to give you an update on it.

Missing kids (or those getting murdered) breaks the 'ol heartstrings of people, it's always one of those things that gets media attention, and yet there's enough of it to go 'round every day. Media enjoys and thrives on mystery, or at least, it assumes information overload is a theory with no defined limit...generally, the tragic case of a murderer offing himself is open-and-shut after a day or so. But when there's an arrest, confession, arraignment, venue selection, jury selection, trial, sentencing, et cetera; then the media outlets can't let it go, and foster the ongoing consumption of mostly trivial information.

On the other hand, you can change the channel or get a hobby.

 

[Famine]

I don't care who died, it is not international news for 3 years important.

Hundreds of kids go missing every day. Why do I only know about this one, which happened three years ago?

Just for reference, I've no idea who this person is nor what they're supposed to have done/had done to them, so it's not quite international news.

But I'd assume that the ghastly, self-promoting Kate and Gerry McCann have made themselves and their "missing" daughter known to the US by now. Quite why their alleged negligence which allegedly allowed their daughter to be allegedly snatched makes them heroic and permanews escapes me - I won't mention my personal feelings about either them or their daughter's disappearance, though I imagine it'd be relatively clear from the above paragraph.

 

[FoolKiller]

Just for reference, I've no idea who this person is nor what they're supposed to have done/had done to them, so it's not quite international news.

Well, I don't watch international news, although I do have access to it, but I was judging that comment based on the fact that members are weighing in from multiple European countries, and sound as if they had as much knowledge as those in the US.



I can say this much about it. My job is affected by the media cycle. A day without any dominating story results in lots of different stuff being reported, which keeps me busy with lots of clients requesting stuff. A dominating story means not a lot else is mentioned so I have a slow day.

I just had the slowest week since Bin Laden died.

 

[Spagetti69]

There are some scary people in this thread.

 

[Joel]

There are some scary people in this thread.

 

[Dapper]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caylee's_Law
At least others won't get away with it in the future.

And people should quit saying she got off because she was charged with murder one, she was found not guilty of other, less severe charges, too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3H6YxAEVJdY
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_years_can_you_get_for_aggravated_child_abuse
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_years_in_prison_for_aggravated_manslaughter_in_Florida

A first degree murder conviction should have a motive. Murder One is Premeditated Murder. You cannot get premeditated murder without a motive.

And that is where the prosecutors screwed up. They saw a mother acting uncaring and went for the full on death penalty charge. The problem is that they didn't have proof for premeditated murder. Manslaughter, negligence, most likely. But she wasn't charged with those. To prove murder one you have to prove they had a reason and had thought it out in advance, as well as actually did it.

All of this is wrong. Actions speak to premeditation, not reason. People do unreasonable things all the time. Think about urban areas where people don't talk to cops, the video footage from K-mart of the suspected shooter buying bullets an hour before an alleged shooting is indicative of premeditation, not motive... And all your points on this specific trial have been refuted, also.

Not to mention the death penalty is not a charge, it is a sentence. The charge of first degree murder having a possibility of the death penalty had no bearing on the verdict, well... it's not supposed to. Needless to say, not everyone found guilty of first degree murder is put to death, that is left for the most heinous killers.

 

[DK]

What this case obviously shows is the independence of the legal system from public opinion.

Did the prosecutors charge her with "negligent manslaughter"? No, they went straight to 1st degree murder, despite having flip-all evidence except motive. Still, she's obviously not going to last long when she gets out of custody.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I haven't been following this too closely. In fact, I knew virtually nothing about the Casey Anthony case until I saw this thread today. I'm certainly by no means an expert, but while I was waiting for qualifying at Silverstone, I Googled her to see what I came up with, and read a few articles and the Wikipedia page on the trial.

The one thing that stands out in all of this is that the public had judged her guilty before the trial had even concluded (and probably before it has even begun). It's something that we've seen before - here in Australia, there was a major case a while ago that was quite similar: a young girl, Kiesha Abrahams, was reported missing to the police. A major search began, but it soon became evident that she had been gone without explanation for a month before her mother and stepfather reported her disappearance. They were ultimtely charged with her murder, but a lot of the details of the case remain unknown. And even if the police established motive, means and opportunity, they did not disclose those details to the public. Yet, when the Abrahams appeared in court, there was a swarm of angry protesters waiting for them, decrying them for murder. The public had already made up their minds before a shred of proof had been presented by either side.

As has been stated, when you're gunning for a charge of first-degree, premeditated murder, you need an airtight case. The phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" springs to mind. Maybe Casey Anthony did kill her daughter. And maybe the prosecution had a very strong case. But at the same time, the defence was able to create that reasonable doubt within the minds of the jury. Their alternative explanation evidently resonated with some of the jurors. But I believe the public outrage in this case stems from the fact that so many people had already judged her guilty. And without the mass exposure from the media, its unlikely the backlash had been the same. It seems the public have forgotten about the assumption of innocence until guilt has been proven. Rather, they seem to be living by the mantra of guilty until proven dead.

 

[Crazed_Coupe]

I think she's 100% guilty but then again reasonable doubt is a bitc*!

 

[Joey D]

I think she's 100% guilty but then again reasonable doubt is a bitc*!

There is nothing wrong with reasonable doubt, just say 99% of the evidence linked you to a crime even though you didn't do it. There was one thing that seemed off to put doubt in the jury's mind which led to you being acquitted of the charges. Would you say it was a bitch then? No, you'd be thankful the system worked.

The jury needs to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to help prevent innocent people from going to jail.

 

[Crazed_Coupe]

There is nothing wrong with reasonable doubt, just say 99% of the evidence linked you to a crime even though you didn't do it. There was one thing that seemed off to put doubt in the jury's mind which led to you being acquitted of the charges. Would you say it was a bitch then? No, you'd be thankful the system worked.

The jury needs to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt to help prevent innocent people from going to jail.

I'm not saying all reasonable doubt but in this situation it was a bitc* IMO but no one's opinion matters anymore hah.

 

[FoolKiller]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caylee's_Law
At least others won't get away with it in the future.

I honestly fear cases where this law will be poorly written due to being rushed to get political points at the moment. The Kentucky version gives parents 12 hours to notify police. That creates an issue for me on many levels. It needs to clearly state 12 hours from when the parents are aware. If their child gets kidnapped while at a sleepover (the child's friends parents took him/her) and they don't expect to see their child until the next afternoon they shouldn't be brought up on charges unless they waited until 12 hours after they had been made aware of the fact that their child wasn't at the sleepover or whatever. And we have all seen those shows where the child runs away from home and the parents spend the night trying to find them. Or if the child hides in the house and the parents don't realize it and taxpayer dollars are wasted on a child playing a prank the parents risk being made to look like Balloon Boy parents.

The premise behind the law is good, but they need to be sure the law is very explicit or risk creating an environment that is hostile to parents no matter how they act.

All of this is wrong. Actions speak to premeditation, not reason.

So, there were actions that point to premeditated murder here?

People do unreasonable things all the time. Think about urban areas where people don't talk to cops, the video footage from K-mart of the suspected shooter buying bullets an hour before an alleged shooting is indicative of premeditation, not motive...

Considering how things often work in those urban areas not talking to cops is very reasonable, for multiple reasons. And in this case I see nothing like being seen buying bullets. All I saw was evidence of a piss poor mother whose actions lead me to believe something happened and she was fully aware and hiding it. But that doesn't make it murder one.

Side note: Buying bullets are part of means. Means + motive + opportunity = murder.

And all your points on this specific trial have been refuted, also.

Refuted by whom? All I am doing is pointing out how I see why the jury could reach the verdict they did.

Not to mention the death penalty is not a charge, it is a sentence.

Death penalty was being used as an adjective in this instance. Death penalty charge, as in the charge with a death penalty sentence.

The charge of first degree murder having a possibility of the death penalty had no bearing on the verdict, well... it's not supposed to.

It was once considered a responsibility of the jury to rule on both the guilt of the accused and the justness of the law they violated in this country. I am not saying this played a part in this trial, but a prosecutor always has to be aware that if they are seeking the death penalty a jury could be hesitant to find the accused guilty if they think the murder was not heinous enough to result in a death penalty.

 

[Dapper]

So, there were actions that point to premeditated murder here?

Of course. Why do you think she was charged with 1st degree murder?

Considering how things often work in those urban areas not talking to cops is very reasonable, for multiple reasons. And in this case I see nothing like being seen buying bullets. All I saw was evidence of a piss poor mother whose actions lead me to believe something happened and she was fully aware and hiding it. But that doesn't make it murder one.

That is because you didn't see everything. In fact, the buying bullets caught on camera example is perfectly analogous for this case...

Refuted by whom? All I am doing is pointing out how I see why the jury could reach the verdict they did.

Refuted by the obvious. You point out, and only seem to acknowledge, the most severe of several charges against her. In one post you said she would've been convicted of a charge that she was charged with.

And that is where the prosecutors screwed up. They saw a mother acting uncaring and went for the full on death penalty charge. The problem is that they didn't have proof for premeditated murder. Manslaughter, negligence, most likely. But she wasn't charged with those.

 

[fitftw]

I'm not saying all reasonable doubt but in this situation it was a bitc* IMO but no one's opinion matters anymore hah.

I hope you never get picked to serve on a jury.

 

[Northstar]

Of course. Why do you think she was charged with 1st degree murder?

Anything less would have been an even worse PR nightmare than her being found innocent, that's why.

That is because you didn't see everything. In fact, the buying bullets caught on camera example is perfectly analogous for this case...

No, it would be a perfect analogy if they later found a dead body but no bullets. They may think you are the murderer but they can't prove it.

 

[FoolKiller]

Of course. Why do you think she was charged with 1st degree murder?

I already explained that. The prosecutor was overreaching.

That is because you didn't see everything. In fact, the buying bullets caught on camera example is perfectly analogous for this case...

Apparently, I am thick. Are you referring to the chloroform searches on the computer?

Refuted by the obvious. You point out, and only seem to acknowledge, the most severe of several charges against her. In one post you said she would've been convicted of a charge that she was charged with.

There is more than one form of manslaughter charge. She was charged with aggravated manslaughter, which requires malice. I believe it is pretty clear that isn't what I meant.

 

[PHCharls]

this is pathetic.Casey Anthony should be guilty

 

[BobK]

What, precisely, do you base that statement on? Anything besides what you'd seen/heard in the sensationalist media?

 

[fitftw]

What, precisely, do you base that statement on? Anything besides what you'd seen/heard in the sensationalist media?

NO MAN! SHE'S JUST GUILTY! SHE KILLED HER KID, I KNOW IT! LOCK HER UP AND THROW AWAY THE KEY! I HAVE NO PROOF BUT I KNOW FOR A FACT SHE DID IT!!!!

lol I hate ignorant idiots. Unfortunately a large majority of the public fits into that group.