Casey Anthony . Guilty or not ?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@splatterpunk

And that’s all well and good, except that anyone who knows anything at all about Casey Anthony knows that she would not have copped to anything. Not even jaywalking.

She already copped to check forgery.

[QUOTE=DragonAsh]
You mean, besides the Winnie the Pooh blanket, clothes, and duct tape - all from the house - plus her admission that the child died in her care? Is she suggesting the body got to the swamp - with duct tape - on its own?
[/QUOTE]

She doesn’t have to. The prosecution has to prove that she put it there. That’s how the presumption of innocence works.

[QUOTE=JaniB]
YEAH! She ought to owe the taxpayers of Fl a ton of money for what all her lies have cost in manpower alone let alone the trial.
[/QUOTE]

While the cost of the lying charges can be taxed to her, there’s no reasonable basis for making her pay the costs associated with the other charges.

[voltaire]

@PetW

I think the whole complaint that the prosecution “overcharged” is unfounded. They went all or nothing because if you can’t prove murder in this case, then you can’t prove child abuse or aggravated manslaughter or anything else either.

That’s not strictly true. Since I’m getting tired of saying the same or similar things in the various threads, I’ll quote myself from another thread:

@voltaire

I’m certainly aware that manslaughter was a lesser included offense that was automatically charged. My point (maybe poorly worded) was that it wasn’t THE primary charge, and as a result it wasn’t argued, nor was evidence for it presented.

Why? Because, IMO, the prosecution got swept up somewhat in the furor and charged based on what they and everybody else “just knew” in their gut instead of what they could prove. Once they decided to shoot for FDM, presenting evidence for manslaughter would have detracted from that. For one small (incomplete) example, if they had brought on a medical expert to testify about the likelihood of resuscitation of a drowned child if only the paramedics were called, they would have greatly improved their chances of getting a conviction for manslaughter. But by doing that, and acknowledging any possibility that the defense’s assertion of a drowning was true, they would have greatly weakened their charge of FDM.

They overshot - pure and simple - and that’s a direct result of how they decided to charge. Blaming the jury for not convicting on manslaughter is disingenuous. (I know we agree on that part.)

…And that’s just one tiny example from a complete layman about how they could have successfully prosecuted manslaughter, if they just hadn’t overcharged the case.