“We had a stupid argument about the Casey Anthony trial. I walked off in a huff and left him there; I assumed he’d call me when he got over it. I got busy with work and didn’t really think about it, you know? I feel awful. I just wish choke, sob we’d talked about something else, anything, instead. That’s two people she’s killed, the bitch!”
I agree with your main point, though: it’s pretty hard to reconcile duct tape with an child’s tragic accident.
That’s about the shape of it.
Also, Keith Hernandez should be in the Hall of Fame. That is all.
The friend who died wanted to hang around for a while and skip rocks over a nearby pond, and then he: slipped, hit his head and fell in and drowned. Or was accosted and killed by a wandering vagabond who wanted his money and shoes. Or he decided on the spot to commit suicide because he’d been caught embezzling money from his place of employment or his wife had been cheating on him.
There are any number of reasonable explanations as to why the one buddy never made it back and his friend never reported him missing.
What proof is there that he died accidentally while I was there? You say:
The people who saw me go into the woods were random folks on vacation, not the wife and friends. These people aren’t going to say anything until after the body has been found by other hikers and the police are showing them pictures and asking if they’ve seen this man and was anyone with him.
The wife and friends obviously don’t know where he was or that he was with me, or they’d have been calling when he didn’t show up when he said he would. Since I had nothing to do with his death, I’d of course answer any questions when asked and the woods would have been searched a couple of days after the walk, if not sooner, if I had been called. So either he wasn’t missed, or they didn’t have me on their list of people to call and ask if I’ve seen old Bill. Or he doesn’t have a wife and his friends don’t hear from him constantly.
It’s a pity. I kind of wish I’d kept in closer contact with old Bill. It’s sad to think of him being out there alone. But really, we mostly go on these walks once in awhile, any more. And my knees can’t make the whole hike some days. Bill was pleased that I was ‘showing my age’ more than he was. I was a little annoyed when he ragged me about it. I guess his age started showing all of a sudden.
ETA - I see that other scenarios have been posted. It’s a pity I write so slowly. If I’d been faster, maybe I’d have been with Bill when whatever happened, happened.
Very significant!! Good post!!
You could read the OP more carefully to see the real purpose.
Actually, I thought I’d made it a poll, but I misclicked. No one seems to have enough reading comprehension ability to look at the OP and see the real point.
MODS: How can I make this a poll now–or is it impossible?
Do you have a connection to this case? You are very creepy.
Did the prosectors produce any witnesses who saw Casey enter the woods with her daughter then only Casey exits alone?
No. The jury never heard any evidence supporting your statements.
You may just be giving a example but this thread concerns a real trail which concluded with the defendant being not guilty.
Not necessarily, but imagining a scenario that is equally or more likely than the one presented by the prosecution, IS adequate grounds to establish reasonable doubt.
I can see, barely, how the jury found her not guilty of premeditated murder of Caylee. However, I have difficulty in seeing how Casey was found not guilty of manslaughter (Section 782.07(3)): (Apologies if this line of thinking has already been posted by someone else in the innumerable threads on the Dope about this case)
827.03(3) states:
Having the child go missing for ~30 days, and not only not alerting the authorities that the child was missing, but intentionally deceiving them that the child was kidnapped, seems to me to be a “failure or omission to provide care, supervision and services.” Not only is she not providing those, but through her deceit, she is preventing other parties, such as her parents or the State of Florida, from providing those to her child. At a minimum, that’s neglect.
Since she kept lying, her repeated neglect seems to me to be “repeated conduct that could reasonably be expected to result in a substantial risk of death to my child.” It’s a toddler, they can’t survive on their own for 30 days. If you let them wander around for 30 days without providing them food, water, or shelter, they stand a pretty good chance of dying. The best face you can put on Casey’s conduct is that she misled her parents and the police for days while her child was missing. How is Casey’s conduct not, at the very least, parental neglect that led to the death of her child? Here, I don’t think you’d need to establish an actual cause of death for Kaylee; you merely need to establish neglect by the parent, and that such neglect caused the child’s death in some way. That way, you don’t need to show pre-meditation, you don’t need an actual cause of death, you don’t need fingerprints, DNA, or any of the panoply of CSI techniques. You don’t need to spend days on duct tape and trash bags, and who discovered the body when. However, I am unfamiliar with FL criminal caselaw, and the degree of culpable causation (proximate, but-for, last clear chance, whatever it is…) that needs to be shown in order for 827.03(3) to stick.
For those of you unfortunate enough to have watched the trial, did the prosecution adequately show to the jury the elements of each criminal charge and the evidence they entered during the trial to prove each element? How did they attempt to prove up premeditated murder or, in the alternative, manslaughter?
Finally, to answer the OP, IMHO the verdict was unjust. On the rough summary of the evidence that I’ve seen discussed, I’d convict for manslaughter at a minimum. My own opinion is that she accidentally killed the kid via an unsavory method (E.g. accidental drug overdose or intoxication leading to asphyxia, with the lengthy time post-mortem serving to eliminate any drug residues) and dissembled to try and avoid being discovered. It seems to have worked.
On the plus side, she’s unlikely to commit this particular crime again.
Just verdict in the sense that murder in the 1st was a long-shot to begin with. But how the hell the jury had any reasonable doubt as to aggravated child abuse and/or aggravated manslaughter is one of the biggest mis-carriages of justice we’ve ever seen.
This wasn’t two friends walking in to the woods - one assumes neither friend has a guardian or custodian of the other. This was a child in the care of her mother. A mother who, after the child died (according to the defense, on June 16th), spent the next month hiding from her family and telling various lies to various people about where she was and where the child was…for the sole purpose of hiding the body. There is no other explanation for the lies, and in fact her lawyers essentially admitted as much! After being trapped in those lies, she then spent months saying her child was alive but had been kidnapped. In fact, she was convicted of making false statements to LEO. Why in the world did the Jury think she was lying about?!
The defense focused on ‘why and how’ the child died. Why? Because both factors were unprovable, and also completely irrelevant, particularly for aggravated manslaughter…which is, in fact, the exact charge that Billy Bob Thorton’s daughter was convicted of after a child died in her care. In irony of ironies, she was tried and convicted in the very same court room as Casey Anthony. She was also found not guilty of first-degree murder.
The Casey Anthony jury were morons; all 12 together probably wouldn’t get to a triple-digit IQ. After 30 days of testimony they spent less than 10 hours of actual discussion. They did not ask to review any of the testimony. Essentially they had already made up their minds from the start of deliberations.
Oh, and a nice little closing gesture from the defense attorny, Cheney Mason. Yep, you got a lying, thieving child-killer off. You stay classy.
How can you neglect a corpse? It seems pretty clear that during those 30 days, Caylee wasn’t missing, she was dead. Any neglect happened prior to that - and because the corpse was so decomposed and a precise cause of death couldn’t be determined, it would be tough to prove manslaughter (via either reckless actions or criminal neglect) versus a true accidental death. I suspect that’s why the jury didn’t go for a manslaughter charge.
(I suspect a God’s-eye view would indeed show at least manslaughter happened, though. Why would anyone go to such lengths to cover up a simple accident? But I could see someone doing it if the fatal “accident” happened because the supervising adult was doing something grossly irresponsible, like leaving a 2 year old home alone unsupervised for hours so the adult could go partying, or accidentally giving the kid a fatal overdose of something that only a medical professional should be administering.)
Yet another psychic who knows exactly what went on in the jurors’ minds, as well as what happened during the deliberations. The fact is you know nothing about the jurors and have no idea how they came to their decision, and frankly yours and other similar statements are getting a bit tiresome.
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
I agree with that.
I do not see any scenario equally or more likely, nor even close to as likely, nor indeed even reasonably likely, than this: that Casey Anthony committed (at barest minimum, and this is the crime for which I’d have voted to convict) manslaughter of her daughter.
The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt. That shadow of a doubt thing is just coloquial.
Au Contraire. How a person dies is very important in either a murder or manslaughter conviction. How the victim dies can in fact determine whether there is a murder or a manslaughter or no crime at all. In this case I believe that the prosecution utterly failed to show how the child died and I would not have voted to convict of either. My friends all thought I was a genius after the verdict came out like I said I would vote–guilty of lying to the cops of neglecting a child, but no more. I really didn’t expect the jury to do that; just what I thought the lack of evidence demanded.
This is not to say it absolutely must be proven. Circumstances can show a murder without a cause of death or even a body. But I’d be extremely reluctant to convict as a juror in either.
You are thinking admirably quickly, coolly and rationally for someone in the middle of a panic situation…
If that is literally the entire case, then it’s was a bad conviction.
Your quote is your cite?
You really want to set the standard for determining whether a murder likely occurred somewhere higher than finding a body hidden in the woods with duct tape over its mouth?