Casey Anthony Accquited of Murder

[Flagg]

Yes, we should scorn her because she might have been scared, stressed, and perhaps not very intelligent! That's totally a reason to convict her of murder or to ostracize her forever.

To expand: everything I've heard about her and her family suggests that they are completely dysfunctional in everyway. I can honestly believe the daughter died by drinking some chemical, drowning in a pool, or some other way that isn't murder and the family doing stupid shit for a month and only then calling the cops.

There's a difference between fucked-up and a murderer, and if the state can't prove it to a group of US jurors, then there wasn't much of a case anyway.

As for her being ostracized: only for a few years, if that, methinks. I'll bet shit to shinola that some other big crime is going to pop up and everyone is going to be enraged by that, in addition to some huge political scandal and about a million other actual newsworthy events and she'll fall into obscurity.

From a national perspective yes, but from the perspective of everyone who knows her or deals with her (aside from stupid people who believe her) she'll always be "that bitch who got away with killing her kid".

[weemadando]

[Flagg]

I'm sure that's different somehow.

[Broomstick]

When the only explanation you can offer for how your kid disappeared and ended up buried in the woods somewhere is that you faked murdering them, reasonable doubt isn't all that reasonable a thing to have. She hasn't claimed that she didn't bury the kid out there, just that she accidentally did it...

For that alone she deserves every bit of scorn that can possibly be heaped upon her.

Right, she was 22 years old when the kid died. Having your kid die by drowning in your own swimming pool could make anyone freak out, much less a 22 year old. Given the hell parents have sometimes been put through for an accidental death of a child (you should have been watching her! How did she get to the pool by herself? You horrible irresponsible parent! Etc.), she might well have panicked. Then you have the potential sympathy the parents of abducted children get when their story hits the media. It's plausible, even if it makes her look like shit. Dead kid, she panics, then makes it look like murder so she gets sympathy rather than a child abuse investigation - skeevy as all hell, yes, but it doesn't make her a murderer.

The forensic evidence could not definitively rule out accidental death nor could it definitively prove murder.

That's the point - there is another plausible story for what happened besides murder. There is doubt. A murder trial is not and should not be a popularity contest or a referendum on how "nice" (or not) a person is. The state failed to prove she was guilty. Therefore, she is legally in the clear.

[Havok]

Classic.

[Ahriman238]

I thought the prosecution had that sewn up. I particularly liked the rebuttal where the prosecutor painstakingly explained the forensic science and it's implications, the evidence and debunked the mad ravings of the defense. How do you lose a case so badly, when the defendant is so clearly guilty and got caught lying to the police four times over the course of the investigation?

And let's not forget the other arguments of the defense. That the grandfather found the body and taped the jaw shut/on before carefully placing it back. That the ME was sloppy and unprofessional, because he didn't saw the skull open to examine the brainpan. That the abscence of DNA and fingerprints should be taken as a total lack of conclusive evidence. That the whole thing was a clever frame-up job by the grandfather.

Well, this is America. "Better a hundred guilty men go free, than a single innocent be condemned." and all.

And yeah, they offered up alternative charges: murder 1, murder 2, negligent homicide, the jury found her not guilty of all three. They have her on lying to the police, and maybe obstructing justice, but that's it.

[Thanas]

Lying to the police is a rather easy charge to make stick.

[aerius]

And yeah, they offered up alternative charges: murder 1, murder 2, negligent homicide, the jury found her not guilty of all three. They have her on lying to the police, and maybe obstructing justice, but that's it.

And if she'd kept her mouth shut and pled the 5th she would've got off scot free and they wouldn't be able to charge her with lying to the police. She'd be free right now.

[Ahriman238]

Lying to the police is a rather easy charge to make stick.

True. It takes an exceptionally skilled and committed lawyer to wiggle out of that one. Even then, it's a longshot because of how meticulously cops document everything. Where she's told so many different versions of events that were disproven one by one, she can't (and didn't) escape that one.

Then again lying to a police officer is a gross misdemeanor, not a felony, and is punished appropriately. Odds are she's going to get time served and sent on her way.

[Broomstick]

I thought the prosecution had that sewn up. I particularly liked the rebuttal where the prosecutor painstakingly explained the forensic science and it's implications, the evidence and debunked the mad ravings of the defense. How do you lose a case so badly, when the defendant is so clearly guilty and got caught lying to the police four times over the course of the investigation?

The prosecution lost because they couldn't convince the jury of her guilt. It's that simple.

Of course, since she was already tried in the court of public opinion and found guilty this verdict is not welcome, even if legitimate. So various sorts who are unhappy are now sending death threats to her family. Not to HER, to her FAMILY - people who really, unquestionably, had nothing to do with this death. Because that will bring justice! Oh, wait....

And let's not forget the other arguments of the defense. That the grandfather found the body and taped the jaw shut/on before carefully placing it back. That the ME was sloppy and unprofessional, because he didn't saw the skull open to examine the brainpan. That the abscence of DNA and fingerprints should be taken as a total lack of conclusive evidence. That the whole thing was a clever frame-up job by the grandfather.

The job of the defense team is to win the case. This time, they did it by planting sufficient doubt in the jury's mind they returned a "not guilty" verdict.

[RogueIce]

I'll just repost this:

What bugs me is the jurors and lead defense attorney getting mega-bucks for "exclusive interviews" and shit*. That sort of thing just seems so wrong to me. Moreso the attorney than the jurors, since at least he's supposed to be a professional and not some person they pulled in off the street** who got locked away for a month (though I don't think it's good for the jurors either).

*I heard on the news story that reported this that technically, they're not 'paying for the interview', so much as 'paying a license to use their image' or some weasly bullshit like that.

**I remember they were talking about having such a problem with jury selection they floated the idea of actually getting homeless people off the street, because the jury pool wasn't large enough with all the dismissals. I have no idea if they went through with that or not, as I tried following the case as little as possible (which, living in the Tampa Bay area, was basically a fruitless exercise).

[Hillary]

So I guess what the "she's as guilty as hell" crew are saying is - "Despite the fact that the jury saw more of the evidence in this case, my judgement on the innocence of the person on trial is still superior to theirs."

Thank fuck for judicial process.

[CaptainChewbacca]

So I guess what the "she's as guilty as hell" crew are saying is - "Despite the fact that the jury saw more of the evidence in this case, my judgement on the innocence of the person on trial is still superior to theirs."

Exactly. One of the news shows just had an interview with a juror. She didn't feel that Anthony was innocent, only that the prosecution hadn't proven guilt. Her final word in the segment was 'Not guilty doesn't mean innocent'.

I wonder if they'll bring a civil suit against Anthony, ala OJ.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Watching the sentencing now. They're arguing that they can't charge her with 4 counts of lying to police because it was four separate lies told during a single interview and constitute a single 'narrative of lies'.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Watching the sentencing now. They're arguing that they can't charge her with 4 counts of lying to police because it was four separate lies told during a single interview and constitute a single 'narrative of lies'. Therefore, if they charged her 4 times it would be double jeopardy and they can only charge her a single time.

[Cecelia5578]

So I guess what the "she's as guilty as hell" crew are saying is - "Despite the fact that the jury saw more of the evidence in this case, my judgement on the innocence of the person on trial is still superior to theirs."

Exactly. One of the news shows just had an interview with a juror. She didn't feel that Anthony was innocent, only that the prosecution hadn't proven guilt. Her final word in the segment was 'Not guilty doesn't mean innocent'.

I wonder if they'll bring a civil suit against Anthony, ala OJ.

Who has standing to bring a civil suit? Besides, she doesn't have deep pockets.

[CaptainChewbacca]

She doesn't have deep pockets NOW, but she's going to be getting $1 million for her first interview after she's out of jail, and I'm betting she will write a book. As to who has standing? Her parents maybe, or anyone else who suffered 'distress' in this whole thing due to her actions.

The judge is sentencing her to 1 year for each of 4 counts of lying, consecutively, less time served to be determined later, as well as $1000 per count.

So 4 years and $4k, less time served.

[Cecelia5578]

As to who has standing? Her parents maybe, or anyone else who suffered 'distress' in this whole thing due to her actions.

Exactly which law gives people such wide ranging grounds to sue someone?

The definition of survivors for the Florida Wrongful Death Statute is:

(1) “Survivors” means the decedent’s spouse, children, parents, and, when partly or wholly dependent on the decedent for support or services, any blood relatives and adoptive brothers and sisters. It includes the child born out of wedlock of a mother, but not the child born out of wedlock of the father unless the father has recognized a responsibility for the child’s support.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... 68.18.html

http://www.suite101.com/content/florida ... ct-a160592

Random people who feel pissed off at the verdict and media coverage can't sue.

[Luke Skywalker]

Do any of you Anthony haters actually have a clue what the evidence presented in the case was? Presumption of guilt is common in public opinion, and the media loves it.

[CaptainChewbacca]

As I understand it, one group lining up to sue Anthony is an organization that helps search for missing children which spent several hundred thousand dollars on efforts which arose directly from her false statements.

[Pelranius]

I think Zeniaga Gonzalez is also looking to sue. If Anthony hadn't dragged her into this, I would probably be more sympathetic to Casey.

[Meest]

Is there no negligence or something along those lines, not handling your kid dying like a sane person needs to have it's own classification. Any restrictions to her having another kid, like having child services test her?

[Broomstick]

Is there no negligence or something along those lines, not handling your kid dying like a sane person needs to have it's own classification.

There probably are some sort laws on the books about concealing a death, improper body disposal, and so forth but they're probably either misdemeanors or lowest-level felonies. I doubt the "kill her! She's guilty!" crowd will be satisfied with either.

Any restrictions to her having another kid, like having child services test her?

No.

There have been cases of people having an automatic "loose custody at birth" sort of court order set up, but I've never hear of/seen that done with the death of just ONE child. Every case I'm aware of (and sorry, due to being involved in some of the legal/social/medical aspects confidentiality laws forbid my discussing details) involved multiple deaths, not just one.

The alternative of involuntary sterilization, due to past abuses, is almost impossible to get these days. Again, it would probably have to involve, at the very least, multiple deaths and even then... I just don't see it happening.

[Knife]

So I guess what the "she's as guilty as hell" crew are saying is - "Despite the fact that the jury saw more of the evidence in this case, my judgement on the innocence of the person on trial is still superior to theirs."

Thank fuck for judicial process.

Pretty sure nobody is saying that, but nice strawman.

Personally, I think she's guilty as fuck; but then again I think OJ killed that woman and her boyfriend too. I don't think mobs with pitch forks should go get mob justice, but I do think I'm going to be a bit ill when and if she lands a multi-million dollar deal for her 'story'. But that is my opinion, and I guess others here too, and has nothing to do with how I think the justice system should run. Just because someone can bust out that tired old saying 'better to let a guilty man go free than imprison an innocent man' doesn't mean we should all be happy and relieved when a prosecutor fucks up and lets a sociopathic bitch go free. That is a long way from what you are suggesting.

[Luke Skywalker]

I have not reviewed the case enough to judge whether or not the verdict is just, but has any Kasey hater done that?

Seriously, the public has a silly presumption of guilt perception. Whenever a major celebrity is arrested for a crime, everybody assumes that they're guilty; and this seems to apply to regular people as well. It's like OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson and that rich guy who's name I don't know that got arrested on rape charges; the immediate public reaction is outrage. Even after they are acquitted, the public still feels as though the celebrity is guilty and treats them as such.

In some cases, such as probably OJ Simpson, they may be right in suspicion of the verdict, especially after the jury admitted that he was probably guilty. But the public still thinks that MJ is a pedophile...uh, he was weird! and Tupac because...eh, he's a black gangster!

EDIT: actually, Tupac did get convicted, so maybe that's an incorrect analogy.