Casey Anthony Not Guilty

[bcleez]

I thought for sure she was going to be found guilty. It's huge news in Florida where people have followed this like it was the OJ case.

I can't even figure out what happened in this case.. I mean she killed her kid right? They just threw so much crap at the wall it confused everyone?

 

[lwien]

In my opinion, it's more the prosecutions fault for this fiasco rather than a great defense.

It's kind of what happens when you go for broke and go for the death penalty on a case that is based purely on circumstantial evidence. If instead, the prosecution based their case on an accidental death due to being chloroformed rather than premeditated murder, imho, they would have gotten a guilty verdict.

I would bet my bottom dollar that everybody in that jury felt that she murdered her daughter, but that they just couldn't find it as premeditated without a shadow of a doubt based strictly on circumstantial evidence.

The prosecuting attorneys fucked up on this one and what's really sad is that justice, at least in this world, will never be realized.

 

[Vicki]

The prosecuting attorneys fucked up on this one and what's really sad is that justice, at least in this world, will never be realized.

Exactly.

That being said, I was so happy when the jury came back with a not guilty verdict. I was afraid our gov't went so far downhill that people could be put to death with no real evidence whatsoever. I was pleasantly surprised.

 

[stroh]

The prosecuting attorneys fucked up on this one and what's really sad is that justice, at least in this world, will never be realized.

Exactly.

That being said, I was so happy when the jury came back with a not guilty verdict. I was afraid our gov't went so far downhill that people could be put to death with no real evidence whatsoever. I was pleasantly surprised.

i couldn't agree more with this. Yes it is terrible that this woman showed absolutely zero remorse for the death of her child, and more than likely committed the crime, but i feel it would be far more sinister to condemn her to death without any concrete evidence against her.

also like lwien stated, justice will never be realized in this world, but one can only hope that her actions are punished in whatever comes after this life.

 

[lwien]

The prosecuting attorneys fucked up on this one and what's really sad is that justice, at least in this world, will never be realized.

Exactly.

That being said, I was so happy when the jury came back with a not guilty verdict. I was afraid our gov't went so far downhill that people could be put to death with no real evidence whatsoever. I was pleasantly surprised.

Yup, and in my opinion, is just another reason that the death penalty should be abolished. When prosecuters go for the death penalty, shit like what just happened here can happen again. Secondly, above and beyond the moral implications, is the fact that it actually costs more to put someone on death row than it is to convict with a life sentence.

Is the death penalty a deterrent? I mean, how many people think, "Ya know what. I'm not going to commit a murder right now 'cause I may get the death penalty." Riiiiiiight............

I would think that most people commit murder without ever thinking about the punitive consequences, and if by chance they did, their next thought is that they won't get caught. It's not like, "Oh, I'm gonna commit this murder because I'll only get a life sentence if I get caught, but fuck, if there's a possibility that I'll get a death sentence, then I won't." Do people really think that this kind of thinking goes on in a persons head and they make a decision to do this deed based upon the possible outcome of a death penalty?

This kind of logic is kind of the same kind of fucked up logic that goes on behind our reason for being in Afghanistan.........which I'm going to start another thread on, 'cause that even makes less sense.

 

[Lily]

Glad to know I'm not alone in thinking the jury made the right decision. I mean don't get me wrong, I do think she's guilty as hell, but none of that evidence was solid enough to really point directly to her guilt. I was also pleasantly surprised that in this day and age of emotional appeals and court drama, there are still people who remember what it's really all about - the evidence.

It worries me when people think she should have been convicted - because if SO many people think it's perfectly fine to convict someone based purely on emotions and suspicion with only circumstantial evidence present, then a fair trial in an already corrupt court system just becomes all that much harder to get.

 

[VWFringe]

Is the death penalty a deterrent? I mean, how many people think, "Ya know what. I'm not going to commit a murder right now 'cause I may get the death penalty." Riiiiiiight............

I would think that most people commit murder without ever thinking about the punitive consequences, and if by chance they did, their next thought is that they won't get caught.

what convinced me they should abolish the death penalty was the number of innocent people reported recently who've been put to death, and watching the movie about the four men who plead guilty to murder when they were innocent.

Some things just aren't talked about, like

1) the fact that police for hundreds of years have gotten confessions out of weak minded individuals, and even regular people, just by bullying and talking them to the point where they say what the cops want to hear.

2) People put into solitary confinement with the promise it will help them focus and become better people, which would work with normal people perhaps, but not these men, and never for 18 months. Solitary confinement is for revenge and as a means to insure that man remain an inmate for the rest of his life by setting him up for failure after failure. (source Nat Geo special)

3) Laws as deterrents to people who do not think like that, whether it be drugs or crimes of passion, people in the throws of their problem don't think about the law. So, it's not a deterrent, but just supposed to look like one...?

 

[caseball2051]

the more frightening thing is the outrage and miseducation out there regarding the justice system.

people dont get it, and it scares me.

innocent until proven guilty. They obviously didnt do it well enough.

 

[momofthegoons]

While I'm happy that a person cannot be put to death on circumstantial evidence, it really bothered me to see her publicly celebrating in a bar with champagne after the trial.

There have been several high profile crimes against children here in Michigan this year. Two of them I find especially heinous; one where a father kidnapped his 3 boys who haven't been seen since, and another just last week where a father kidnapped a 4 month old girl who also hasn't been seen since. Both fathers are in custody. And in both cases, it is suspected that the fathers killed or harmed the children. I have real issues with crimes against children and can't help wishing that Michigan had the death penalty for cases like these. Of course, the issue still stands that the prosecution has to have their ducks in a row.

 

[tranceporter]

I am shocked and appalled. Call me sinister but I believe in an eye for an eye. She doesn't deserve to live.

 

[max]

Glad to know I'm not alone in thinking the jury made the right decision. I mean don't get me wrong, I do think she's guilty as hell, but none of that evidence was solid enough to really point directly to her guilt. I was also pleasantly surprised that in this day and age of emotional appeals and court drama, there are still people who remember what it's really all about - the evidence.

It worries me when people think she should have been convicted - because if SO many people think it's perfectly fine to convict someone based purely on emotions and suspicion with only circumstantial evidence present, then a fair trial in an already corrupt court system just becomes all that much harder to get.

This woman is certainly fucked up in the head, but bad or weird behavior, whether before or after the trial, doesn't make for evidence to convict, any more than a portrayal of extreme grief should get someone off the hook if solid evidence is there against them.

 

[Vicki]

While I'm happy that a person cannot be put to death on circumstantial evidence, it really bothered me to see her publicly celebrating in a bar with champagne after the trial.

The defense team went to the restaurant/bar across the street from the courthouse. Casey didn't go, she went right back to the Orange County Jail until tomorrow when she is sentenced.

 

[aesthyrian]

Meh who cares? It doesn't change much, and we still don't know the important part; who and how did Caylee die?

Justice? nah...

 

[Vicki]

Meh who cares? It doesn't change much.

I don't, but wanted to correct misinformation.

 

[momofthegoons]

Thanks Vicki. I thought the news reported her there too. I was mistaken.

 

[Vicki]

Thanks Vicki. I thought the news reported her there too. I was mistaken.

NP.

The news is making a lot of mistakes.

 

[pakalolo]

I am shocked and appalled. Call me sinister but I believe in an eye for an eye. She doesn't deserve to live.

You clearly do not grasp the meaning or importance of reasonable doubt--or perhaps it's just that you don't care. Attitudes like yours are what shock and appall me.

 

[lwien]

One thing to keep in mind here. Our judicial system is built around the concept that it's worth it to set 10 guilty people free if we can keep just one person from being falsely found guilty and therefore, the whole system is weighted as such, and as such...........things like this will happen, as it should.

As long as we have a system whose doctrine is "innocent until proven guilty", than this WILL happen and continue to happen. The jury, in this case, while finding the defendant not guilty of the charges as laid out by the prosecution due to lack of evidence, did not find her innocent of being involved in the death of her daughter. These are two different concepts that many find hard to delineate.

 

[tranceporter]

I am shocked and appalled. Call me sinister but I believe in an eye for an eye. She doesn't deserve to live.

You clearly do not grasp the meaning or importance of reasonable doubt--or perhaps it's just that you don't care. Attitudes like yours are what shock and appall me.

Your right. Don't care about reasonable doubt, the entire world knows the bitch is guilty. May her soul rot into nothingness..

 

[lwien]

I am shocked and appalled. Call me sinister but I believe in an eye for an eye. She doesn't deserve to live.

You clearly do not grasp the meaning or importance of reasonable doubt--or perhaps it's just that you don't care. Attitudes like yours are what shock and appall me.

Your right. Don't care about reasonable doubt, the entire world knows the bitch is guilty. May her soul rot into nothingness..

I wonder if you would be concerned about reasonable doubt if it was you in front of a jury?

Just imagine what a judicial system would be like if "reasonable doubt" was not a concept that needed to be addressed?

 

[tranceporter]

You can spare me the reasonable doubt if I ever murdered my kid.

 

[Vicki]

You can spare me the reasonable doubt if I ever murdered my kid.

Reasonable doubt about ANYTHING you might be accused of doing. This applies to everything, not just what happened in the Casey Anthony case. No one would want to be on trial, with their very lives at stake, and be innocent. Except the general population has already convicted this person in their own minds. So they all want that person dead.

 

[lwien]

You can spare me the reasonable doubt if I ever murdered my kid.

The question is, what if you were brought up in front of a jury and accused of murdering your kid when in fact you didn't? Would you want "reasonable doubt" to be a concept then? And if so, how can you have "reasonable doubt" be a concept that would apply to some, but not to others?

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a cornerstone of our jury system, and while our judicial system isn't perfect, personally, I would have it no other way.

The bottom line to all this is what I said in my first post in this thread. The prosecution over-charged this case, and that's why they lost. So if anyone is to blame for this fiasco, it's not the jury, and it's not our legal system. The prosecutors fucked up, plain and simple. The blame for the results of this case lies with them.

 

[lwien]

For those that are still interested in this, I just saw the best analysis I think that there is on the outcome of this case. They had an interview with one of the jurors, and the commentator asked every damn question that I would have asked, and that doesn't happen too often. , and it just validated what I originally thought, and that was that the prosecution over-charged and seeking the death penalty required much, MUCH more than just circumstantial evidence. This juror made it perfectly clear that it was that penalty that weighed so heavy on their minds, that the burden of proof really escalated past what the prosecution was able to come up with.

Going after the "mother" of all penalties really lowers your odds of winning a case. They gambled, and lost, and that's the sad part, because if they went for a lower charge, the odds are MUCH better Casey would be in prison for a decade or two, which to me, makes a helluva lot more sense than what happened.

They also had a one on one interview with the lead defense attorney and it further cemented in my mind that he didn't win the case. The prosecution lost it.

Nightline-----ABC-------10:00pm pst.

If ya didn't see it, you may want to find a stream of it.

 

[wilf789]

I'm sorry if you believe in it but I really fail to see the pros in the death penalty system.

Think it's a deterrent? Compare murder rates in the US with Western Europe/Canada then.

2010 saw America execute 46 people, placing it in the top 10 capital punishment countries in the world, along with China, Iran, North Korea, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Bangladesh and Somalia. Not exactly the kind of company you want backing you up on such a policy.

I completely understand that if it was a member of your own family or a particularly horrific crime then some people's natural inclination is to want 'an eye for an eye' but IMO absolutely no-one has the right to decide what person should live and what person should die. Anything even partially motivated by revenge/anger can surely have no place in the judicial system.

Regarding this case, it's only just making it into the news media on this side of the pond, but I have to agree with many of the above comments. It does seem like the jury has taken the tough but correct decision. Upholding basic rights like this is all you can do sometimes in the face of such strong feelings on both side of the aisle.