I don’t know about you, but I am relatively stunned at the verdict. I use the term ‘relatively’ because, with our ridiculously outdated* jury trial process, nothing should be all that surprising.
*Behavioral science has taught us alot about juries (and committees, in general), but we choose to ignore it, relying on the omniscience of our founding fathers instead. But that’s a discussion for another day.
And my opinion is that the media, starving for attention and ad dollars, created enough doubt (when there was none). This made its way into the mind of the loudest juror, and voila, she’s free to murder more daughters. Or at least smoke weed and suck dick (as another poster phrased it).
The biggest factor is that the prosecution overreached. They couldn’t prove it was premeditated murder so the jury didn’t have much to work with. They didn’t declare her innocent of murder. It doesn’t work that way. They just weren’t convinced it wasn’t 1st degree murder and that is technically the main decision they were asked to make. They weren’t just polled to see if they thought she killed her daughter at all.
I am always puzzled when legal experts describe a trial as something like a chess match between the persecution and defense where every move and logical subtlty moves them further or closer to their goal in the match of skill. I don’t think most jurors are smart enough to pick up on every little detail. To me, it is more like a chess match where it doesn’t really matter who gets the checkmate but, instead, the non chess playing audience gets to vote on who they thought played better based on whatever criteria they want.
That said, I read the profiles of the jurors. They weren’t narcoleptic retirees with severe dementia for the most part. Most of them have respectable normal jobs that require some intellect so maybe they did just follow the judge’s rules to the letter and decided differently than people watching from the sidelines.
I could hope that part of the sentencing would be a complete hysterectomy, but I suppose that’s too much to ask for.
I don’t get it. I just don’t.
The biggest factor in Casey Anthony’s acquittal is that the prosecution couldn’t prove its case. It couldn’t prove that Caylee was murdered and it couldn’t prove that she died of criminal neglect or mistreatment. And finally, it couldn’t prove that whatever it was that did happen to Caylee was caused by Casey.
This is not to say the prosecution necessarily did anything wrong. They were hampered by the fact that so much time had gone by and so much evidence had been destroyed that they couldn’t put together an iron-clad case.
Still, they couldn’t prove their case, and therefore the verdict was the proper verdict under our system of law.
I was just watching the news of it on TV. One of the alternate jurors spoke to the media and said that the problem was that the prosecution failed to give a motive. I’m no lawyer, but I thought that wasn’t necessary and all the prosecution has to show is that the evidence points to the defendant. If that’s what swayed the jury, it seems wrong somehow
I was ever sooooo shocked by the verdict. The child was dead. The mother didn’t even report her missing for 31 days. Prosecution does not need proof of how she dies. Defense created all kinds of doubt but none of it reasonable. The mother perjured–she obviously thought her daughter was quilty. I thought the only thing dysfunctional about the family was that they loved them both and were caught in the middle. How much more bizarre could it get.
You are right. And they don’t need any proof of cause of death either. I have no excuses for this jury. They are way off base and I am very disappointed.
The thing is, the defense doesn’t need to “create” reasonable doubt. It exists by default until the prosecution proves to each juror that it does not.
If you can’t prove how someone died, how can you prove they were murdered?
This right here. Casey Anthony very likely killed her kid. Possibly in cold blood, possibly by accident. But I’m pretty sure she did. However, neither I, nor the prosecution, can prove it.
Although how she got off on the child abuse charge is beyond me.
What is your point? We all know the constitution; we know the defense is not obligated to prove anything.
But criminal defense attorneys do present cases to introduce “reasonable doubt.” To deny this is just silly. Johnny Cochrane did it with O.J. (“If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.”), and Baez did it here, with all his references to voodoo science and “fantasy” evidence.
Reciting cornball platitudes about what the defense is or is not required to do don’t really contribute much to discussions like this.
Uhh, okay?
None of the above.
Cause of death was “undetermined”. Therefore, we’re not sure any murder took place. All we know from Caylee’s remains (ugh) is that 1) she’s dead and 2) she’s Caylee Anthony.
Sorry, double post.
Why couldnt they go with accidental death? There’s your easy motive. Instead, they say it was planned with no real motive. I don’t care how many cute pics I saw with Caylee and Casey. There are plenty of moms in jail for hitting a kid too hard or leaving them in a hot car too long. Why did it have to be murder? Why couldn’t she have just lost control and killed her and used her irreverent behavior at the clubs and tattoo parlor as a cause for an accidental death?
Did they have a lesser homicide charge that they could charge her with?
Maybe the jurors decided that it was just as likely to have been an accidental death that was then treated as if it were crime by the people coming on it, perhaps because the grandfather thought the mother of the girl was guilty of a crime? It’s my understanding that is something like what was argued by the defense, with the grandfather perhaps intentionally playing into their argument.
In short, it was proven that the mother was a liar, but homicide as opposed to accident was not proven?
I don’t know, I didn’t follow it.
Yes. First degree, man 1 and man 2. But I’ll admit that if there is no evidence for FDM, there’s none for man 1 or 2 simply because the cause of death was undetermined.
Accidental death wasn’t mentioned in the charges, or in the opening and closing statements of the prosecution. This was planned. Honestly, if you tried to prove she did it accidentally, I’d have a much harder time acquiting on murder charges. Man 1 would’ve been fine.
Again, because there’s no proof. To get a conviction on Casey’s accidentally causing Caylee’s death, the prosecution would have to show that Caylee died as a result of negligence and that Casey was somehow responsible. As it stands now there is no proof (nor even tangible evidence) of either.
I agree that there was little chance for a guilty verdict on murder in the 1st. The chloroform searches suggest premeditation, but without a clear cause of death, it’s too much of a stretch.
But there is clearly evidence of at least aggravated child abuse and/or manslaughter. The juries apparently were focusing on how the child died and motive, neither of which are all that relevant given the other facts. Hell, it’s possible to get murder convictions even without a body. We had a body here. A few blocks from the house. Bundled in things from the house. With duct tape on it.
Caylee died in her mother’s care. After her child died, she spent a month shacked up with her boyfriend du jour telling all sorts of crazy lies about where she and her daughter were - and the lies changed depending on the audience. Confronted with that lie, she spent months saying the child was kidnapped by a non-existent babysitter. She was actually convicted of telling lies to law enforcement officers…and she told these lies in connection to LEOs trying to help find out what happened to her child!
After over 30 days of testimony, the jury members spent less than an hour for every 3 days of testimony. They did not ask to review any testimony.
It beggers belief.