Casey Anthony?

[cartera45]

<p>
[quoteunless you know for a fact (with evidence, not feelings) that someone did it
[/quote]
</p>

<p>That suggests that the standard is “without a doubt.” That is not the legal standard.</p>

[soozievt]

<p>xSlacker, I didn’t say that I can prove or assert Casey or anyone’s guilt. I’m simply saying that guilty people are found innocent in a court of law given the burdens of proof and that innocent people are found guilty too. It does happen. So, I’m saying that a person (I did not name Casey) who committed a crime, may still be found innocent because there wasn’t enough evidence to meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict that person. And even if I, or anyone else cannot prove their guilt (and a person in this country is considered innocent until proven guilty), it doesn’t then follow that factually and in reality that the person did not do something criminal or against the law or harm someone. They MAY have done so, but it could not be proven based on what is necessary to prove it in a court of law. I’m not talking about “feelings” that someone did something. I am talking about factually that someone who committed a criminal act has a chance of being found not guilty of that act. Only Casey knows what she has done. I’m saying it is possible she may have harmed her child in some capacity even if the court did not rule it based on evidence presented beyond a reasonable doubt. A jury can have doubts and thus not convict the defendant. Doubts doesn’t mean she did nothing wrong, but only that there were doubts to prove it. By the way, even Casey admits (if you go by her latest story) that her daughter died of an accident that she witnessed and was part of the coverup of that accident. So, even if that is not murder, even she is saying she was involved in some capacity.</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

Have not followed this case at all closely. In fact, have taken to switching the channel if it comes on the news. I have been really disgusted by the media behavior and have found myself questioning the seemingly universal belief of the mom’s guilt. It was a media circus. I think that if her guilt had been proven beyond reasonable doubt then the jury would have found it so. I am glad she was found innocent if the prosecution did not make the case. That is our justice system.

</p>

<p>So true!</p>

<p>What I find amusing is the endless parade of incompetent morons such a Marcia Clark who are invited to share their legal expertise and judgment. Of course, one could say that she must an expert on the clueless and incompetent prosecutor as she is the poster child for the genre. As silly has it is, it is hard not to applaud the verdict for the sole satisfaction of seeing all those hypocritical fools squirm on national TV.</p>

<p>The good thing about the verdict is that we can hope for the airwaves to be free (for a while) of the vicious babbling uttered by all those have-been legal eagles who survive thanks to the reality TV circus. Well, free until another sensational case comes around to “captivate” America.</p>

[xSlacker]

<p>

That suggests that the standard is “without a doubt.” That is not the legal standard.

</p>

<p>Let me keep it simple.</p>

<p>Sure, if she killed Caylee she is not innocent. However, not one person on this planet can actually prove it in any fashion so for all purposes she IS innocent. Anyone claiming otherwise has the burden of proving it. Which cannot be done.</p>

<p>It follows logically then that any claim of guilt is a non sequitur.</p>

<p>

I’m saying it is possible she may have harmed her child in some capacity even if the court did not rule it based on evidence presented beyond a reasonable doubt.

</p>

<p>I agree, anything is possible. It still does not follow logically for anyone to claim she is not innocent.</p>

<p>It is possible she is not innocent but barring any legitimate proof that claim is not valid and pointless as any such claim is inherently based on feelings since it is not based on evidence.</p>

<p>(It would be a different story if the evidence was clear but the trial was bungled. In OJ’s case he was clearly NOT innocent of the crime but was still found not guilty. In Casey’s case there is NO clear evidence of the crime AND the case was bungled…)</p>

[Illyria]

<p>

the make up of this jury was a bit odd…2 weren’t even high school grads…one had a DUI…and there were some other odd things.

</p>

<p>[U.S&lt;/a&gt;. High School Graduation Rate Hits All-time High](<a href=“http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/highschool.htm]U.S”>http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/highschool.htm) :
“An all-time high 85 percent of U.S. adults age 25 and over had completed at least high school in 2003, according to the U.S. Census Bureau…”</p>

<p>If 10 of 12 had high school diplomas, that would be 83-1/3 percent of the 12 jurors.
Not seeing the “odd” in that.</p>

<p><a href=“http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ac.pdf[/url]”>http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ac.pdf&lt;/a&gt; :
“…In 1996 there were 1,467,300 arrests for DUI (including
persons under age 16) with a licensed driver population numbering 179.5 million, a rate of 1 arrest for every 122 licensed drivers.
This represents a 34% reduction in the per capita rate of DUI arrest nation- wide over the period…”
So that’s one out of 122 drivers in a good year. Even taking into account huge numbers of repeat offenders, the number of drivers with a DUI arrest at some point in their history would be substantial. Again, I’m not seeing the “odd” in having one juror with a DUI in his or her past.</p>

[soozievt]

<p>XSlacker:
Speaking for myself, I am not “claiming” she is guilty. I THINK she had something to do with the death of her child. No, I cannot prove it. NO, I cannot claim she is guilty. I accept the verdict in a court of law. But anyone may have an opinion of someone’s guilt or not, and it is POSSIBLE someone may be guilty of something that was not proven. That is all.</p>

[soozievt]

<p>It isn’t odd that some jurors did not have a high school diploma. However, on such an important matter, it would be helpful to have educated people on such a jury.</p>

[soozievt]

<p>I have really wondered why this case has had such HUGE media attention. I understood the reasons in the OJ case as he was a famous guy before the trial. But there are many horrific cases of parents murdering their kids every year. Many get no attention in the media other than perhaps the initial reporting of the murder. </p>

<p>Here is an article on this topic:</p>

<p>[Why</a> Casey Anthony Made Prime Time - Andrew Cohen - National - The Atlantic](<a href=“Why Casey Anthony Made Prime Time - The Atlantic”>Why Casey Anthony Made Prime Time - The Atlantic)</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

The defense celebration was in a local restaurant which was closed to the public for this private function. However, people were able to see in through the windows and pictures/video were taken of the defense celebration, and the actions are being critiqued that way. For example, there are reports that that video of the verdict was repeatedly played at the celebration and loud cheers erupted on each replay.

</p>

<p>Simple evidence of how low the media has stooped. This report is an attempt to demonize a legal team that just won an incredibly tough case. Yes, perhaps they won only because of the obnoxiousness and ineptitude of the prosecutors, but those people DESERVE the right to celebrate the work they DID. Should anyone expect them to actually sit quietly or befuddled? Should we criticize them for celebrating a verdict in which they BELIEVE. </p>

<p>Does anyone think the prosecutors would have done anything different had they won? The only difference is that the bottles would have been paid by the public coffers!</p>

[Hanna]

<p>“Anthony is a white, middle-class woman who had a darling, photogenic little girl.”</p>

<p>Yep. Most murdered children are poor, underclass children, disproportionately nonwhite.</p>

<p>The one thing the article skips over is the importance of the facebook party pictures in fanning anger and interest in the case. I think they played a big role.</p>

[soozievt]

<p>xiggi, since you quoted me (1043) in your post 1069, let me clarify again (as I did in 1056) that I wasn’t passing judgement on the defense’s celebration. My post was meant to clarify some confusion in the posts right before mine where one person thought it was a public party (since they saw photos of it) and one person said it was a private business. I just reported the facts as I knew them with no opinion voiced whatsoever.</p>

[kleibo]

<p>“a legal team that just won an incredibly tough case” </p>

<p>They did not win an incredibly tough case. There was no evidence to convict.</p>

[07DAD]

<p>kleibo–</p>

<p>Is it your opinion that a guilty verdict would have been overturned on appeal for insufficient evidence?</p>

[legendofmax]

<p>soozievt:

"One negative thing in this outcome is that Casey Anthony, behaviorally, learns she can get away with anything. I don’t know exactly how her child died but she had to have been connected in some way to that death, even simply looking at what was found with the remains and her coverup and lies after the death (and they even ADMIT she was involved in an accidental death…though I doubt the drowning story presented). And so once again, she learns that even horrific acts can be gotten away with. She is basically rewarded for her lying and behaviors. "

</p>

<p>If anything, this case would teach a rational person that they got damned lucky and need to seriously rethink how they live their life. </p>

<p>But she’s not rational, and so odds are she, like all other inherently irresponsible and impulsive people (OJ Simpson) will get what’s coming to them at one point or another. She’s not sane enough to stay out of trouble forever. Also, much like OJ, your reputation is still forever tarnished in the eyes of the public when you get away with atrocity.</p>

<p>The reason the defense won was because the prosecution wasn’t strong enough. Without any DNA evidence, it’s just too easy to explain away all other evidence with unprovable explanations. Oh, that shovel was for digging up veggies. Oh, my grandmother searched for chloroform. Oh, my daughter COULD climb the ladder. Oh, I had garbage in my truck. Oh, I was molested. It’s really hard to prove that something <em>didn’t</em> happen in a non-contradictory vacuum.</p>

<p>She was real lucky that a lot of the evidence had rotted away. Makes you wonder if Scott Peterson should have been declared not guilty, too, on account of circumstantial evidence.</p>

[xSlacker]

<p>

Speaking for myself, I am not “claiming” she is guilty. I THINK she had something to do with the death of her child. No, I cannot prove it. NO, I cannot claim she is guilty. I accept the verdict in a court of law. But anyone may have an opinion of someone’s guilt or not, and it is POSSIBLE someone may be guilty of something that was not proven. That is all.

</p>

<p>Well, I CAN prove she is guilty of being a piece of #$@! parent but unfortunately that isn’t a crime… </p>

<p>I guess it really doesn’t matter who is innocent or not. Caylee is still dead…</p>

<p>I’m not sure about the rules on links but if you google “Criminal Justice Petition: Create Caylee’s Law” they have a pretty good petition going on…</p>

<p>Trying to make it a federal crime to take longer than an hour (from discovery) to report a death of a child or longer than 24 hours to report a missing child.</p>

[sewhappy]

<p>Why do I keep drawing parallels to this case and Strauss-Kahn? Different alleged crime. Different everything. Same media circus and rush to declare guilty. What is happening to our media? Was it always like this?</p>

[kleibo]

<p>I guess it would depend on which of the three charges they convicted her on. Personnally I think they could have convicted her on the aggravated child abuse. There definetly would have been an appeal but who could really guess what the outcome of the appeal would be. </p>

<p>It’s just one of those cases that paralyzes you - well at least me. You try and reconcile how this could be - how this little girl ends up dead and you end up with no real answers.</p>

[07DAD]

<p>

What is happening to our media? Was it always like this?

</p>

<p>Media has been at it for at least 80-90 years. Research Sacco and Vanzetti.</p>

<p>[url=<a href=“Twentieth-Century Cause Célèbre: Sacco, Van-zetti, and the Press, 1920–1927 | Journal of American History | Oxford Academic”>Twentieth-Century Cause Célèbre: Sacco, Van-zetti, and the Press, 1920–1927 | Journal of American History | Oxford Academic]Twentieth-Century</a> Cause C</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

They did not win an incredibly tough case. There was no evidence to convict.

</p>

<p>That is an analysis of the … outcome. Let’s be realistic that she had been convicted in the public opinion and crucified by the media. Did anyone really gave her a chance to escape a long time in jail. Did anyone gave the “poor” defense lawyer a chance? The prosecutors were so incopentent that they rushed to the same conclusions than … most of the mothers in the country. After all, anybody with such lifestyle and psychopatic tendances MUST be guilty.</p>

<p>If you think this was a simple case to win, power to you!</p>

[xiggi]

<p>

xiggi, since you quoted me (1043) in your post 1069, let me clarify again (as I did in 1056) that I wasn’t passing judgement on the defense’s celebration. My post was meant to clarify some confusion in the posts right before mine where one person thought it was a public party (since they saw photos of it) and one person said it was a private business. I just reported the facts as I knew them with no opinion voiced whatsoever.

</p>

<p>That is why I specifically wrote about the media and the … report. See:</p>

<p>Simple evidence of how low the media has stooped. This report is an attempt to demonize a legal team that just won an incredibly tough case.</p>