How unjust was the Casey Anthony verdict?

[Stratocaster]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

I’m pretty sure he misspoke, and means there’s zero evidence that the wrongful death was Casey’s doing. All other issues aside, it’s clear that the death was the result of a homicide by somebody.

If he misspoke, there’s plenty of people in this thread who do believe it, including the guy who posted after you.

[The_Peyote_Coyote]

Max Torque

I admit that I have not followed the trial or watched testimony with the rapaciousness of, for example, my mother. I have, however, read about the case and listened to some of the resulting fallout. That being said, here’s my take:

I think the jury was either misinformed about their duty, or they were poorly informed by the prosecution. I base this on the numerous times I’ve heard jurors or alternates saying things like, “I just couldn’t believe George didn’t know something,” and, “The prosecution didn’t prove motive.” The prosecution has to prove the elements of the offense, and nothing more. It would be nice to know what her motive was, but motive isn’t an element of the crime of murder. If the prosecution had done their job properly, the jury would have understood that. A jury can find a person guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” even if there are pieces missing.

I also suspect two additional forces are at work here, the first being the CSI effect. Juries have come to expect miracles from forensic science, and it seems that some aren’t willing to convict unless there’s a lab tech who can say, “We found this tiny particle on the body, which exists only in the shoelaces of the defendant,” or whatever. In this case, there was no “smoking gun” like that. The second force is societal: somehow, we as a society are absurdly forgiving of mothers who murder their own children. If they’re prosecuted at all, their sentences tend to be laughably light.

You are right that the proseuction does not have to prove a motive, but Vincent Bugliosi in *Helter Skelter *maintained that it is a good idea because the jury wants to know why. I agree with you about the CSI effect and the forgiveness of mothers.

[JThunder]

You’re a class act, Stratocaster. I mean that without any dint of sarcasm.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Stratocaster

If he misspoke, there’s plenty of people in this thread who do believe it, including the guy who posted after you.

Yeah, but that guy is just plain wrong. I’m perfectly happy to accept the medical examiner’s testimony.

[Stratocaster]

@JThunder

You’re a class act, Stratocaster. I mean that without any dint of sarcasm.

JThunder, thanks!

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Yeah, but that guy is just plain wrong. I’m perfectly happy to accept the medical examiner’s testimony.

So . . . cause of death: unknown.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Yep. But also that the duct tape is clear evidence of homicide.

[Living_Well_Is_Best_Revenge]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

So . . . cause of death: unknown.

The hard part to accept is that Casey’s lies prevented the body from being found sooner. If it had been found sooner, perhaps evidence of how she died would have been there. But of course the police screwed up too by not responding in proper fashion to the meter maid’s call. And god only knows what he did to the body during the time he had possession of it.

[Living_Well_Is_Best_Revenge]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Yep. But also that the duct tape is clear evidence of homicide.

Or a cover up. Killing people with duct tape is not exactly common.

[Stratocaster]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

So . . . cause of death: unknown.

From here:

Forensic evidence shows remains found near the home of George and Cindy Anthony belong to their granddaughter, Caylee, and that the child was murdered.

“This identification was made from nuclear DNA taken from the remains and compared to a known profile of Caylee Anthony,” Dr. Jan C. Garavaglia, the Orange County Medical Examiner, said (watch Dr. G speak). “There was no trauma to the bones prior to the death. The manner of the death in this case is homicide. The cause of death will be listed as homicide by unknown means.”

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Or a cover up. Killing people with duct tape is not exactly common.

Duct taping the mouth and nose of infants who are already dead is even less common.

[David42]

@Starving_Artist

Still, you do need some evidence that a murder occurred, and if you want to try someone for it, you need some evidence that they were the one who committed it. In this case, no one knows how Caylee died. She could have been murdered, she could have been accidentally overdosed, she may have wandered unwatched into a swimming pool and drowned, or she may have died in any of a number of other ways. And if you can’t demonstrate how someone died, you can’t demonstrate that they were murdered. And that’s just the first hurdle. If, once you’ve been able to prove that a person has been murdered, you want to charge someone for it, it becomes necessary to furnish proof beyond a reasonable doubt that that particular person was the one who committed the murder.

Neither was possible in this case.

Sometimes a person can be convicted of murder without a body, a weapon, or manner of death, but usually there is some sort of forensic evidence strongly suggesting that that the person was indeed murdered (a large blood stain found through the use of Luminol, for example) and additional evidence strongly pointing to the suspect as having committed the murder. But again, in this case there was absolutely no evidence to prove that Caylee was murdered, and absolutely no evidence to prove that if she had been murdered, Casey was the one who did it.

I largely agree with you Starving Artist, but in the spirit of fine-tuning the argument you support, a large enough amount of blood is evidence that a person died of exsanguination. It is also part of the body, so to some degree you do have a body, if you view the body as all of what is needed to be alive. (I’m not trying to start a digression of partial bodies and how much or what parts of the body are essential to “having a body.”)

And there is a way completely around any of the types of evidence mentioned–the confession. A killer who has written down in a diary “I murdered John Smith today” could be successfully prosecuted on that and that alone, even if he never admits how he did it.

[Living_Well_Is_Best_Revenge]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Duct taping the mouth and nose of infants who are already dead is even less common.

Let’s just agree they are both very uncommon. There was no evidence Casey was a bad mother or ever abusive. That is important. Taking that into account makes me think it’s more likely this was an accident that she tried to cover up. If she didn’t want to be a mom anymore, which there was no evidence of, why not just let her parents raise the kid?

Even if it was murder, how was she murdered? Suffocated with duct tape?

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

So the medical examiner figures it’s homicide by unknown means, committed by an unknown party who left no fingerprints on the duct tape that we can’t say caused death by asphyxiation? And the defense suggested that someone other than the defendant could have taped up the decomposing body to move it around for a cover-up? Am I summarizing accurately?

[David42]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Yep. But also that the duct tape is clear evidence of homicide.

I thought there was evidence that the tape was applied post-mortem? But I may be wrong, I didn’t pay that close of attention. If that is in error I would change my opinion to believing evidence of a murder was presented.

I know it doesn’t make sense, but until someone proves that crazy people do not do things that make no sense, I am not really too worried about it making sense. The whole idea of murder is senseless if you ask me.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Living_Well_Is_Best_Revenge

Let’s just agree they are both very uncommon. There was no evidence Casey was a bad mother or ever abusive. That is important. Taking that into account makes me think it’s more likely this was an accident that she tried to cover up. If she didn’t want to be a mom anymore, which there was no evidence of, why not just let her parents raise the kid?

Even if it was murder, how was she murdered? Suffocated with duct tape?

You are conflating two issues.

The fact that a murder occurred does not mean the Casey did it. It’s very clear that a murder did occur. The defense didn’t even present evidence related to the drowning/cover-up theory, which is why they didn’t bring it up in closing.

What the did in closing was what they should have been doing all along- stick to highlighting the prosecution’s lack of evidence, rather than throwing out theories they couldn’t substantiate.

[QUOTE=David42]
I thought there was evidence that the tape was applied post-mortem?
[/QUOTE]

There was no evidence of that, IIRC. Jose Baez questioned the meter reader (whose name escapes me) for a while and the obvious implication of his line of questioning was that the meter reader applied the tape, but that was just too silly to bother with.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

So the medical examiner figures it’s homicide by unknown means, committed by an unknown party who left no fingerprints on the duct tape that we can’t say caused death by asphyxiation? And the defense suggested that someone other than the defendant could have taped up the decomposing body to move it around for a cover-up? Am I summarizing accurately?

Yes. No.

Well, the defense suggested it, but they didn’t actually produce any evidence that somebody else had done it. During Baez’ closing argument he stuck to the line that Casey didn’t do it.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

Yes. No.

Well, the defense suggested it, but they didn’t actually produce any evidence that somebody else had done it. During Baez’ closing argument he stuck to the line that Casey didn’t do it.

Did the prosecution actually produce any evidence that Casey did it?

[Living_Well_Is_Best_Revenge]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

You are conflating two issues.

The fact that a murder occurred does not mean the Casey did it. It’s very clear that a murder did occur. The defense didn’t even present evidence related to the drowning/cover-up theory, which is why they didn’t bring it up in closing.

What the did in closing was what they should have been doing all along- stick to highlighting the prosecution’s lack of evidence, rather than throwing out theories they couldn’t substantiate.

There was no evidence of that, IIRC. Jose Baez questioned the meter reader (whose name escapes me) for a while and the obvious implication of his line of questioning was that the meter reader applied the tape, but that was just too silly to bother with.

It is not very clear a murder occurred. That is just wrong. Without a cause of death, there is no way of knowing how she died. Murder isn’t the only way a two-year old dies.

[Stratocaster]

@Living_Well_Is_Best_Revenge

It is not very clear a murder occurred. That is just wrong. Without a cause of death, there is no way of knowing how she died. Murder isn’t the only way a two-year old dies.

Well, the Orange County Medical Examiner disagrees with you. That office assessed it a homicide, even without knowing the specific means.