:dubious:
You think that the jurors are at risk of the thousand yard stare just by having their decision discussed on the Internet? I think it’s you that needs some perspective.
It was OJ 2.0. She may not have gotten away with murder, but she sure did get away with a whole lot of nastiness. That woman is seriously damaged.
But on the other hand . . . I’m glad I live in a country that will not put me to death unless they’re damn sure I did the crime I’m accused of. As others have said, it’s better to let her go free than to convict people who are innocent.
The Two Men Enter, One Man Leaves doctrine. That strategy failed for the prosecution in The People v. Mel Gibson, 473 T.D. 132 (1985).
For people who agree with the verdict; do you see the alternative explanation presented by the defense for caylee’s death to be reasonable? If not, on what basis would you claim reasonable doubt?
I’d be interested in your views of how “a lack of knowledge of … jury nullification” might be relevant here.
It’s not that I “agree with the verdict”; instead I recognize that I am not in a position to make a judgment in the same way that the jury was. I wasn’t in the courtroom to hear and see ALL the evidence presented. Nor was I isolated from hearing and seeing extraneous information and/or assertions that might have been unfairly prejudicial. I was not in a position to judge for myself, first hand, the credibility of the witnesses. Those circumstances are unique to the jury, as they are in any courtroom case.
To believe that the jury “got it wrong” or, taking that to the extreme that some have asserted that the jurors were “morons” requires one to have some special knowledge of the objective facts of this case, which I submit is impossible. No one except the participants knows what actually happened. The fact that many people *believe *they know is evidence of mob mentality and media hype, not evidence of some special source of truth.
For those that believe the jury was correct, what crime do you think Casey Anthony commited, if any? What would be a more appropriate charge? Obviously she knows what happened to Caylee and she tried to cover it up. Her daughter is dead, Casey knows what happened but actively lied about it. What crime is being commited here?
I do not believe I’ve read any post here claiming that the jury “was correct” if that means “declared her innocent”. The jury instead found her “not guilty” of the major crimes because they (presumably) didn’t see proof sufficient to establish guilt. Since I was not present (see my previous post) I can only conclude that the jury, who was in a unique position, came to a “correct” judgment based upon their unique circumstances. They did in fact find her guilty of telling lies.
As for “What crime is being commited (sic) here?” I would say character assassination – of the jury.
I don’t think the jury was correct. But I’ll take a shot. At the very least, couldn’t they have busted her for improper disposal of a corpse?
Do we have any proof, at all, that she ever touched the corpse?
There doesn’t have to be another reasonable explanation. The burden is on the prosecution.
In any event, there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for Caylee Anthony’s death, other than Casey doing it: someone else did it.
The evidence clearly shows that it was a homicide. The relevant evidence does not clearly show that Casey did it.
Her behavior after Caylee’s death is reasonable evidence on a logical basis that she did it, or was at least involved. It’s not reasonable evidence on a legal basis. You can’t infer an act from conduct after the fact, though you might be able to infer intent from it.
[QUOTE=Blalron]
I don’t think the jury was correct. But I’ll take a shot. At the very least, couldn’t they have busted her for improper disposal of a corpse?
[/QUOTE]
No, for the reason BT suggests. If they can’t tie Casey to the homicide, they can’t tie her to the body dump.
Um…you do realize, the ENTIRE POINT of that 5th amendment right, to not testify, would be moot if juries were allowed to, as you suggest, infer guilt based on the decision not to testify.
And even outside of the jury, just debating as a layperson, you should know that not testifying is a legal strategy carefully considered by the lawyers that more often than not has little to do with the guilt of the client and more to do with other factors such as statistical bias.
Also, given your flimsy standards of ‘reasonable’, people would be much much MORE likely to avoid any connection to a murder case even if they knew it wasn’t murder, due to needing only to have the most circumstantial relationship to the event to be considered responsible by you.
I didn’t think you did. But maybe we’re just two jerks.
How else to fight ignorance if we can’t point out mistakes? As long as one is polite…
I believe the evidence presented proved that there was a corpse in the trunk of her car (cadaver dog alerts, forensic tests, decomposed hair) while she had possession of it, and that corpse was proven to be the corpse of Caylee (decomposed hair).
There was no evidence that anyone else had access to her car before it turned up empty, so only Casey could have removed the corpse from the car and put it in the swamp/woods.
The crime committed her here is lying to police/false report/obstruction of justice whichever brand you prefer.
But I have a hard time understanding that there was not some child neglect here. Unless the child died of something natural, like a bee sting allergy or something.
I think (from what I’ve read in passing) that the forensic tests etc had results compatible with human decomposition, but not conclusive in that regard. (They were also compatible with many other kinds decomposition of organic material–and in fact it’s known there was a garbage sack full of garbage in the trunk of the car. Which is weird in itself but I guess I know my own neighbor has been known to cart her trash to the dumpster in the trunk of her car so…)
And as far as I know there was no DNA evidence of any kind involved in the case, so the hair couldn’t have been conclusively identified as the girl’s (AFAIK). Also, it’s my understanding that the finding that the hair was decomposed is based on a very new result in the science of decomposition, which to my mind calls for some caution in its application.
I agree with the jury. I think she likely killed the kid, but they could not prove it. Whether I think she did it does not matter. It has to be proven. The jury feels badly about it. They feel she likely did it and had to vote to release her. That is how the system works.
The armchair judges seem to think they know more than the jury . That is wrong. The case had their full attention for weeks. They were presented with all the evidence . They made the right decision.
Court TV and Nancy Grace heated up the discussion. Quit listening to her. She is playing on emotion not evidence.
A lack of evidence that someone else could have done it is NOT the same as evidence that Casey did it.
Besides, you are wrong. The car was in an impound yard, so at sometime before the police were called, someone else had access to the car and there is proof of it. I don’t know who that was, and I am not seriously suggesting they did it.
I never heard how the car came to be in impound anyway. That may be an interesting story, does anyone who followed the case more closely know how the car came to be impounded?
The building I live in and have my store is on the historic register across from a historic site. There is no place for a trash can that the city will allow because I would destroy the image. I can’t put a trash can on someone else’s property nearby. As a result I have put many many trashbags in the trunk of a car.
Otherwise I agree with your post.
Yes, the forensic tests were less definitive, but combined with the other evidence, I, as a juror, would have taken that in with the other evidence and conclude that yes, there was a body in there. To me, the defense didn’t succeed in disputing the cadaver dog alerts, and didn’t succeed in disputing the science of the hair banding analysis, except to say it was “new” and “never used before”.
As for the DNA of the hair, I believe it was conclusively identified as Caylee’s. There was testimony about there being a lack of DNA on the duct tape found with the remains, so maybe that is what you are thinking about.