Casey Anthony found not guilty of murder, guilty of lying to police

• enigmaax

  Manhattan Buckeye;822277 wrote:Who was responsible for her well being was her mother, where was she again? Or did a Hispanic babysitter or Duke lacrosse player take her away?

  
  Or was grandpa babysitting? Or were they both there at the time? Is it abuse or neglect if the kid got out the door and jumped in a pool (honest question - I know two families who suffered through that type of tragedy and neither ever faced charges)? That scenario wasn't even explored by the prosecution, so how would a jury appropriately weigh it?
  
  You are really solidifying exactly why the jury couldn't convict her of anything. Nobody knows what happened. A minute ago you said it was 99.however many nines% that she offed the kid. Now you are saying, something happened so she has to be responsible. Aren't you an attorney? Would that type of argument ever win a case?
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "Or was grandpa babysitting? Or were they both there at the time? Is it abuse or neglect if the kid got out the door and jumped in a pool (honest question - I know two families who suffered through that type of tragedy and neither ever faced charges)? That scenario wasn't even explored by the prosecution, so how would a jury appropriately weigh it?"
  
  Why would it be explored? The prosecutor's job isn't to bring up a scenario that was invented 3 years into the trial, again no more than if aliens abducted the kid. The drowning bit is just a smokescreen. The only thing I'm solidifying is the silliness of folks saying that there was UNQUESTIONABLE reasonable doubt. If you think there was reasonable doubt, have at it. But she killed her kid.
• enigmaax

  gut;822246 wrote:The most surprising thing, though, is how briefly they deliberated. I can see a few not being swayed on circumstantial evidence, but you would have expected that to be a knock-down, drag out confrontation. For 12 jurors to come back with that verdict in only 10 hours is shocking.

  
  Not trying to be a smart ass, but it took me about five seconds after the last closing argument to say there is no way they are going to convict her. I don't know how much you watched, but I went from being one of those "rah rah death penalty" folks to disbelief that I could be so thoroughly unconvinced. I was shocked initially that the verdict came back so quickly because I assumed that meant guilty.
• LJ

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;822277 wrote:Who was responsible for her well being was her mother, where was she again? Or did a Hispanic babysitter or Duke lacrosse player take her away?

  
  Which is why they needed to go after the child endangerment charge first and foremost.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  LJ;822301 wrote:Which is why they needed to go after the child endangerment charge first and foremost.

  
  So you're suggesting they go after a child endangerment charge first and foremost when there's a dead child?
  
  I think they were right to go with a murder charge first and foremost with a dead child.
• enigmaax

  Manhattan Buckeye;822293 wrote:"Or was grandpa babysitting? Or were they both there at the time? Is it abuse or neglect if the kid got out the door and jumped in a pool (honest question - I know two families who suffered through that type of tragedy and neither ever faced charges)? That scenario wasn't even explored by the prosecution, so how would a jury appropriately weigh it?"
  
  Why would it be explored? The prosecutor's job isn't to bring up a scenario that was invented 3 years into the trial, again no more than if aliens abducted the kid. The drowning bit is just a smokescreen. The only thing I'm solidifying is the silliness of folks saying that there was UNQUESTIONABLE reasonable doubt. If you think there was reasonable doubt, have at it. But she killed her kid.

  
  I guess it would only be explored if you wanted some charge to stick other than the murder that you couldn't come close to proving. I know you said you didn't follow it closely, but did you watch any of it - or otherwise on what are you basing your opinion? Really, you think a body with no cause of death and a slutty mom is an open and shut case for capital murder? That is scary, really.
• TedSheckler

  

  
• LJ

  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;822304 wrote:So you're suggesting they go after a child endangerment charge first and foremost when there's a dead child?
  
  I think they were right to go with a murder charge first and foremost with a dead child.

  They couldn't prove murder could they? There needed to be a basis of neglect.
• thavoice

  What defense lawyers like to do is muddy the waters. They come out in their opening statement with alot of outrageous comments and scenarios and that puts a strong impression on the jury.
  
  Then they dont come through and give any credance to any of their theories.
  
  That is what they do when their clients are guilty. Throw out a myriad of other options to make the defendant look like a victim instead of the perpetrator, and hope the jury ingores the actual case merits.
  
  Just like in the OJ case........take the focus off the defendant and hope it creates sympathy.
  
  She is guilty. Maybe they didnt prove it...I dont know, but dang, sometimes I wonder how jury's come up with what they do. Do they sometimes want to 'prove' they didnt come in with a bias and go the other way? Kinda like in baseball....have seen umpires who aer from a certain town, and everyone knows it, make some awful calls against their hometown team and it seems like they go out of their way to show they are not biased.
  
  
  She has to live the rest of her life knowing she killed her daughter. Stuffed her in the trunk, and then put her in the woods to rot and get eaten by animals. She may not locked in a cell for the rest of her life but she will be in her own living hell.
  
  Someone should send her the book The Telltale Heart by Edgar Allen Poe
• Manhattan Buckeye

  enigmaax;822305 wrote:I guess it would only be explored if you wanted some charge to stick other than the murder that you couldn't come close to proving. I know you said you didn't follow it closely, but did you watch any of it - or otherwise on what are you basing your opinion? Really, you think a body with no cause of death and a slutty mom is an open and shut case for capital murder? That is scary, really.

  
  There is a body, with a woman that has lied for the last 3 years with motive.
  
  Why are you obsessed with cause of death? Did you expect a bow-wrapped note saying "I did it and this is how I did it"? Part of the analysis is reviewing the alternatives. There are none. No one else had motive to kill the girl, she didn't bury herself (a point I keep making) and the "accident defense" is about as credible as a South Park-esque Wookie Defense, it doesn't make sense.
  
  She killed the girl. If the jury acquitted, I'm not going to judge it since I wasn't present, nor was I present during the OJ trial. But both did it.
• thavoice

  Manhattan Buckeye;822310 wrote:There is a body, with a woman that has lied for the last 3 years with motive.
  
  Why are you obsessed with cause of death? Did you expect a bow-wrapped note saying "I did it and this is how I did it"? Part of the analysis is reviewing the alternatives. There are none. No one else had motive to kill the girl, she didn't bury herself (a point I keep making) and the "accident defense" is about as credible as a South Park-esque Wookie Defense, it doesn't make sense.
  
  She killed the girl. If the jury acquitted, I'm not going to judge it since I wasn't present, nor was I present during the OJ trial. But both did it.

  
  
  Its called the CSI and Law and Order effect.
  
  I have read some things about that and there is a segment of the legal population who totally believe in the prevelance of those shows hurts prosecutions. So many people like to see all the evidence all neat and tidy and no loose ends and all the questioned answered.
  
  It doesnt happen like that very often.
  
  I imagine the defense searched for a cause of death that would be pretty much impossible for anyone to disprove after the body is disposed of and rotted. They knew there was no awy anyone would believe her first cockamamee story so they had to come up with something to sell the jury.
  
  A fall? No, there would probably be some sort of cracked bones and such. Many other 'accidental' means of death would show evidence well after death.
  
  A drowning.....kinda hard to tell from what I read after the body is taken out, hidden for quite awhile and tossed in the woods...so that is what they chose.
• ZWICK 4 PREZ

  

  LJ;822307 wrote:They couldn't prove murder could they? There needed to be a basis of neglect.

  
  Hindsights 20/20. I'm sure 3 years ago there was no way to predict a jury of idiots could fall for smoke screens.
• enigmaax

  Manhattan Buckeye;822310 wrote:There is a body, with a woman that has lied for the last 3 years with motive.
  
  Why are you obsessed with cause of death? Did you expect a bow-wrapped note saying "I did it and this is how I did it"? Part of the analysis is reviewing the alternatives. There are none. No one else had motive to kill the girl, she didn't bury herself (a point I keep making) and the "accident defense" is about as credible as a South Park-esque Wookie Defense, it doesn't make sense.
  

  
  What was the motive? That she wanted to party? She was already doing that.
  
  The cause of death isn't important? Well, there's a difference between suffocation and drowning. Suffocation would more likely have to be imposed. Drowning accidents happen every day. That is why it is important.
  
  Why are you so obsessed with "she didn't bury herself"? There is no dispute that she is dead. But that doesn't mean she was murdered. It just means someone inappropriately disposed of a body.
  
  The prosecution doesn't necessarily have to disprove the defense's explanation, but they certainly have to make me believe their explanation. What isn't plausible about a drowning? Or what absolutely proves that since George Anthony's duct tape is the weapon, Casey Anthony must've been the one who used it?
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "Why are you so obsessed with "she didn't bury herself"? There is no dispute that she is dead. But that doesn't mean she was murdered. It just means someone inappropriately disposed of a body."
  
  Because few people dispose of an accidental death in that manner and go through a trial like this, unless you think this family is even more effed up than I do.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "What isn't plausible about a drowning?"
  
  The entire story.
  
  edit, this is the best South Park analogy.
  
  1) Grandchild dies in a pool
  
  2) Let daughter take the fall and spend years in jail
  
  3) Go through the trial process
  
  4) ?????
  
  5) Profit
• dwccrew

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;822214 wrote:The body wasn't physical evidence? The kid was dead. Little girls of that age don't just end up being buried in that manner.

  This doesn't prove murder, it just proves the little girl is dead.
  

  gut;822244 wrote:But the defense never proved George was abusive and the judge ordered the jury to ignore any claims or insinuation of molestation/abuse. You want to talk about not proving anything - the defense threw out a bunch of scenarios and failed to give any of them credibility. It's not the job of the prosecution to shoot down every explanation - they present evidence (including circumstantial) and connect the dots then it IS on the defense to come up with a reasonable explanation (which if they do then the prosecution has to counter).

  
  The defense doesn't have to PROVE anything, they just have to create reasonable doubt, which they obviously did in this case getting the aquittal.
  

  Manhattan Buckeye;822257 wrote:"I "doubt" she meant to kill the kid. It is reasonable for me to believe that she ****ed up big time without intending for the child to die"
  
  What do you think, she didn't stop aliens from abducting the kid and burying it near their house? The kid is dead, there is physical evidence, the body and its location.

  
  Again, the evidence only proves the girl is dead, not that she was murdered. Even if the body was improperly disposed of, you can't convict on a murder one charge on that alone. Aren't you an attorney? I figured you would understand this more than most.
  

  Manhattan Buckeye;822277 wrote:Who was responsible for her well being was her mother, where was she again? Or did a Hispanic babysitter or Duke lacrosse player take her away?

  So every child that goes missing or is killed it is the parents fault because they are ultimately responsible for them? SMH
  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;822304 wrote:So you're suggesting they go after a child endangerment charge first and foremost when there's a dead child?
  
  I think they were right to go with a murder charge first and foremost with a dead child.

  
  Not with the lack of evidence they had. You go with what will stick and murder one wasn't going to fly. If you are the prosecution and you truly believe this girl was responsible for her daughter's death, you charge her with something that has a chance at getting a conviction. Murder one was never goin to, obviously.
• enigmaax

  Manhattan Buckeye;822322 wrote:"Why are you so obsessed with "she didn't bury herself"? There is no dispute that she is dead. But that doesn't mean she was murdered. It just means someone inappropriately disposed of a body."
  
  Because few people dispose of an accidental death in that manner and go through a trial like this, unless you think this family is even more effed up than I do.

  
  Honestly, I hate having this conversation because it seems like I'm defending her. I can't explain or fathom ever doing some things that people do and that could very well be the flaw in my perception. I've seen a lot of people in desperate situations who don't kill their children. It is difficult to accept that the rage I think it would take to kill a person can come so easily, seemingly out of nowhere, for such a simple reason with so many other alternatives available (and considering there was no, maybe telltale signs that were examined or presented where you would say after-the-fact, should've seen it coming). And I compare that to the situations I know of where something has already happened and in a panic, people make really poor decisions about how to handle it in an attempt to avoid trouble, even though it is obvious to any outsider or rational thinker that it would only compound the problem.
• bases_loaded

  

  ZWICK 4 PREZ;822315 wrote:Hindsights 20/20. I'm sure 3 years ago there was no way to predict a jury of idiots could fall for smoke screens.

  
  How did she die?
  
  The jury isn't supposed to assume anything. They rule on facts. Prosecution fail.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "This doesn't prove murder, it just proves the little girl is dead."
  
  Little girls die often due to many reasons, not many die with no health issues in a forest next to your family's house.
  
  "The defense doesn't have to PROVE anything, they just have to create reasonable doubt, which they obviously did in this case getting the aquittal."
  
  That is the question, how reasonable was it?
  
  "So every child that goes missing or is killed it is the parents fault because they are ultimately responsible for them? SMH"
  
  I don't know why you are SMH, it goes to credibility.
  
  "Not with the lack of evidence they had. You go with what will stick and murder one wasn't going to fly. If you are the prosecution and you truly believe this girl was responsible for her daughter's death, you charge her with something that has a chance at getting a conviction. Murder one was never goin to, obviously. "
  
  What evidence would you convict?
• dwccrew

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;822339 wrote:"This doesn't prove murder, it just proves the little girl is dead."
  
  Little girls die often due to many reasons, not many die with no health issues in a forest next to your family's house.

  Really? So not many children drown? Not many children get hit by vehicles? Not many children have unexpected falls and die? These are all caused by health problems, right?
  

  Manhattan Buckeye;822339 wrote: "The defense doesn't have to PROVE anything, they just have to create reasonable doubt, which they obviously did in this case getting the aquittal."
  
  That is the question, how reasonable was it?

  Obviously reasonable enough to not convict. The verdict came really fast, so clearly this jusry was pretty convinced about a not guilty verdict.
  

  Manhattan Buckeye;822339 wrote:"So every child that goes missing or is killed it is the parents fault because they are ultimately responsible for them? SMH"
  
  I don't know why you are SMH, it goes to credibility.

  I'm SMH because you are saying she is responsible for her daughter's death because, in your opinion, she was a bad parent. Being a bad parent doesn't automatically make someone responsible for their child's death.
  

  Manhattan Buckeye;822339 wrote:"Not with the lack of evidence they had. You go with what will stick and murder one wasn't going to fly. If you are the prosecution and you truly believe this girl was responsible for her daughter's death, you charge her with something that has a chance at getting a conviction. Murder one was never goin to, obviously. "
  
  What evidence would you convict?

  
  I'll tell you what evidence I wouldn't convict with is the evidence the prosecution presented. No cause of death makes it hard for me to believe she was murdered when it is reasonable to believe she may have drowned.
  
  There is that pesky burden of proof on the prosecution, they didn't present enough evidence to prove Anthony committed murder.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  It is reasonable to believe that this kid drowned? Damn.
• LJ

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;822349 wrote:It is reasonable to believe that this kid drowned? Damn.

  
  Yes. Drowning is the 2nd leading cause of accidental death in children
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Is hiding the body the second leading cause of fake accusations?
• dwccrew

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;822349 wrote:It is reasonable to believe that this kid drowned? Damn.

  
  Yes, As I stated, improperly disposing of a body doesn't prove murder. Do I believe Casey Anthony and/or her family knew about Caylee's death? Yes. Do I believe Casey Anthony willingly and knowingly murdered her child? No, there isn't enough to prove it.
  
  I have always maintained that Casey found her daughter dead and panicked, tried to dispose of the body and went on with her life. This isn't normal behavior, but Casey Anthony is not normal and clearly has mental issues. This doesn't prove she is a murderer though.
  
  We can disagree, that's fine. In the end, I agree with the jury's decision.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "This isn't normal behavior, but Casey Anthony is not normal and clearly has mental issues. "
  
  I agree, but why lie to the cops? What did they have to gain by lying about an accidental death that could result (well, did result) in a disastrous court situation?